future use wire in panel 8

[stevemechanical]

in New York City, can a wire (say 12-3) be located in an electrical distribution panel but not be connected to a circuit breaker ? In other words, keep it there for future use?

 

[EEJaime]

I don't know of a specific provision in the NEC or the NYCEC which specifically addresses this, but it seems like a bad idea. Why not land the conductors on a spare breaker? That way you can identify the "future" load and where the conductors go? Just having conductors laying around in a panelboard is not a good practice. Code will not allow splicing in the enclosure so at some point they must be landed on the distribution lugs, why not do it now? I know that the City of New York is very stringent with their installation guidelines, which I do not have here, so my suggestion is that you go through them and ask.

Good Luck

 

[resqcapt19]

EEJamie,

Code will not allow splicing in the enclosure so at some point they must be landed on the distribution lugs, ...

The NEC does not prohibit splices in panles. See 312.8 in the NEC.
Don

 

[EEJaime]

Resqcapt19,

You are correct that althought the 2004 version of the code states that the enclosure shall not be used as a junction, pull or gutter for through feed conductors, it does allow for splices and taps if the percentage fill requirements are met. This is not in the code being enforced in my locale as we are on the 2001 code, (which goes from section 310 directly to 318), with 2004 State revisions. We will be moving to the 2004 with 2006 revisions shortly-so that may change.

I maintain however that this is poor practice and would not recommend this as a standard for installation. I do not know specifically what the New York City Electrical Code allows, or which edition of the NEC they have adopted. I do know that the city code, like the California State Code we use, utilizes a version of the NEC with numerous revisions which may impact this installation. Our specifications do not allow this, and we will retain that provision even if the new code allows it. My recommendation to stevedantonio, is still to check with the AHJ and run this past them. I would be interested to know what the City tells him.

Good day and good luck.

 

[cuky2000]

In January 1, 2004 went in effect the Local Law 64/2001 to amend the administrative code of the city of NY , in relation with the NEC (NFPA-70). Presently, the electrical code revision committees are reviewing the 2005 NEC and drafting additional amendments to apply locally.

Sections 310 directly to 318 do not have amendment. Therefore, NEC 2004 in this area are acceptable as applicable standard.

 

[stevemechanical]

NYC has told me that you have to land the wires on a circuit breaker and label it for future use. and on the other end, the j-box shall have a cover plate (visible)
Thank you all for your help.

 

[resqcapt19]

Jamie,
Those must be local codes as the dates for the NEC are every three years. Your code may be based on an older NEC. The articles in Chapter 3 were rearranged in the 99 or 02 code. Take a look at the exception to 373-8 in your code. The basic wording has been the same for many code cycles, although, the exception has been rewritten in positive code language per the NEC style manual.
Don

 

[jtkirb]

Just as a note- make sure you do something with the other end in case someone decides to turn on that breaker by mistake.

JTK

 

[itsmoked]

Can you land them all into the ground bus?

 

[mpparent]

How about landing them on a breaker as suggested above, and then locking the breaker out? The circuit could end just above the panel in a J-Box marked "future".

Mike

 

[RalphChristie]

I am not familiar with the NEC or any American code, but I can see no reason why any wire must be connected to a ciruit breaker. If you do not want to use it, why not just connect it to a permanent connector/connection block? Or am I missing something?

[red]Failure seldom stops us, it is the fear for failure that stops us - Jack Lemmon[/red]

Make the best use of Eng-Tips.com
Read the Site Policies at FAQ731-376

 

[waross]

RalphChristie,
I don't see any electrical or safety problems with your suggestion. I would probably do exactly as you suggested.
However, if an inspector said,
"That doesn't meet the code. Please change it", I would change it.
I assume that stevedantonio's post that starts "NYC has told me", refers to the NYC inspection department.
If so, then I consider stevedantonio's post to be the correct and final answer.