NEC Code and 'Control Panel Benchboards'

[daestrom]

Hi all,

We have some control panel bench-boards, built in the mid 1980's. The
front is about 8 ft high and 30 ft wide with an assortment of controls
and such. They are totally enclosed with access doors on the back (that
are *not* lockable).

All the power/circuits going in/out are in conduit or armored cable.
But *inside* the panel, the wiring between terminal boards and
components is just single conductor or paired conductor wiring of
appropriate size, routed neatly in trays and harnesses.

Also *inside*, are some simple duplex receptacles (standard, 3-prong,
120V). On the drawings, these are labeled simply, 'convenience
receptacles' for maintenance personnel when working in the panel. They
have a pair of 12 gauge wires (twisted pair) for the hot and neutral,
and a separate 12 gauge wire tied to the frame ground bus-bar in the
panel (the frame ground is 1/4 x 2 copper bar that runs the length of
the panel, and is tied to building grounding with large copper strand).

So, along comes an OSHA inspector who says, "Since that is a 120V
receptacle, the feed to it must be in conduit as per NEC for all
commercial buildings." And he promptly quotes the paragraph for
receptacle outlets used in building wiring. He seems to think that
since the wires are single conductor, there is some sort of increased
risk that the user could come in contact with a frayed wire feeding the
receptacle (never-mind all the other wires and terminals inside the
panel!!!)

I'm trying to argue that when this panel was built, it supposedly was
built to all codes, and the wiring *inside* the panel is not 'building
wiring' that needs to be encased in separate conduit. I thought the
reason for armor/thin-wall was to protect the wiring inside walls/floors
from damage because you can't see exactly where they are. Like when a
carpenter drives in a nail or plumber drills a hole for pipe. These
wires, inside the panel, are protected by the panel itself, right?

The OSHA inspector didn't think the other 120V and 208V wiring in the
panel was a problem, just the wiring to the receptacles.

Any thoughts/opinions about the receptacle wiring? Do we need to go
back and re-wire those specific circuits, even inside this bench-board /
panel with armored cable or thin-wall conduit?

Thanks for any constructive comments, I could use a citation or
something to get this guy off my back (he's not a master electrician,
nor EE, just some guy with a copy of NEC and OSHA safety regs).

daestrom
P.S. Considering all the other wiring *inside* I don't see the point,
but some OSHA inspector seems to think it makes a difference.

P.P.S. Forgot to also mention that all the receptacle circuits are
protected by 15A GFCI's

 

[Rich.]

1. There is no such article in the NEC that requires receptacle feeds to be
in conduit.
2. In the case of a factory assembled enclosure, the NEC does not apply. The
NEC only applies to the branch circuit running from the breaker panel to the
enclosure.

 

[Bill]

1. There is no such article in the NEC that requires receptacle

feeds to be in conduit.
2. In the case of a factory assembled enclosure, the NEC does not
apply. The NEC only applies to the branch circuit running from the
breaker panel to the enclosure.

I agree with the above... However I think I would choose to NOT go to
battle with an OSHA inspector! Or in other words, I would not want an
OSHA inspector mad at me or my company.

I think the most stress free and least expensive solution to this
would be to do what he wants (if you know what I mean!)

 

[Rich.]

I agree with the above... However I think I would choose to NOT go to
battle with an OSHA inspector! Or in other words, I would not want an OSHA
inspector mad at me or my company.

I think the most stress free and least expensive solution to this would be
to do what he wants (if you know what I mean!)

That's a complete load of bunk, this OSHA inspector needs to be corrected.
Since he's wrong about this, how many other things is he wrong about that
other companies have had to needlessly pay the price for!?

 

[daestrom]

I agree with the above... However I think I would choose to NOT go to
battle with an OSHA inspector! Or in other words, I would not want an
OSHA inspector mad at me or my company.

I think the most stress free and least expensive solution to this would
be to do what he wants (if you know what I mean!)

Welllll.....

Since the manufacturer put two outlets every five feet, that's a lot of
rewiring. And since the inside of the panel has a lot of other
individual conductor wiring, it seems silly that one particular circuit
should have to be in conduit/armor.

And I'm a little worried about having an electrician come into this
panel (have to de-energize it for the work and that's a scheduling
hassle). Afraid some other wiring might get damaged in the process of
installing this new conduit/armor circuit. There is a *lot* of wiring
in this thing, lots of control switches, indicating lights,
annunciators, meters and controls. If something else gets damaged, not
that I don't trust the electricians, and then we'll have to fix that too.

I'd like to leave well enough alone and just point to him the
chapter/verse that says factory manufactured panels are exempt. Or that
such control panel / bench-boards are exempt.

But thanks, I *do* understand 'picking your battles'

daestrom

 

[Eric Tappert]

Hi all,

We have some control panel bench-boards, built in the mid 1980's. The
front is about 8 ft high and 30 ft wide with an assortment of controls
and such. They are totally enclosed with access doors on the back (that
are *not* lockable).

All the power/circuits going in/out are in conduit or armored cable.
But *inside* the panel, the wiring between terminal boards and
components is just single conductor or paired conductor wiring of
appropriate size, routed neatly in trays and harnesses.

Also *inside*, are some simple duplex receptacles (standard, 3-prong,
120V). On the drawings, these are labeled simply, 'convenience
receptacles' for maintenance personnel when working in the panel. They
have a pair of 12 gauge wires (twisted pair) for the hot and neutral,
and a separate 12 gauge wire tied to the frame ground bus-bar in the
panel (the frame ground is 1/4 x 2 copper bar that runs the length of
the panel, and is tied to building grounding with large copper strand).

So, along comes an OSHA inspector who says, "Since that is a 120V
receptacle, the feed to it must be in conduit as per NEC for all
commercial buildings." And he promptly quotes the paragraph for
receptacle outlets used in building wiring. He seems to think that
since the wires are single conductor, there is some sort of increased
risk that the user could come in contact with a frayed wire feeding the
receptacle (never-mind all the other wires and terminals inside the
panel!!!)

I'm trying to argue that when this panel was built, it supposedly was
built to all codes, and the wiring *inside* the panel is not 'building
wiring' that needs to be encased in separate conduit. I thought the
reason for armor/thin-wall was to protect the wiring inside walls/floors
from damage because you can't see exactly where they are. Like when a
carpenter drives in a nail or plumber drills a hole for pipe. These
wires, inside the panel, are protected by the panel itself, right?

The OSHA inspector didn't think the other 120V and 208V wiring in the
panel was a problem, just the wiring to the receptacles.

Any thoughts/opinions about the receptacle wiring? Do we need to go
back and re-wire those specific circuits, even inside this bench-board /
panel with armored cable or thin-wall conduit?

Thanks for any constructive comments, I could use a citation or
something to get this guy off my back (he's not a master electrician,
nor EE, just some guy with a copy of NEC and OSHA safety regs).

daestrom
P.S. Considering all the other wiring *inside* I don't see the point,
but some OSHA inspector seems to think it makes a difference.

P.P.S. Forgot to also mention that all the receptacle circuits are
protected by 15A GFCI's

Article 409 of the NEC covers industrial control panels and the wiring
contained in them. It has no references to "convenience outlets", but
these have been used inside control panels for decades. Their use is
for supplementary lighting, test equipment, and small tools. The
panels are not required to be listed. There is no mention of
"convenience outlets" in the code, but if they provide power to
equipment in the panel they could be considered "disconnects". On the
other hand, it they are for maintenance purposes, then the fact that
they are enclosed in a panel means that they are not readily
accessible, thus not subject to the same wiring rules as building
receptacles.

Try labeling them as "For panel maintenace only" and see if that
helps...

ET

 

[Bill]

That's a complete load of bunk, this OSHA inspector needs to be
corrected. Since he's wrong about this, how many other things is he
wrong about that other companies have had to needlessly pay the
price for!?

For a business, the question is how much is it going to cost and what
is the LEAST expensive route to take. FYI - I found the following...

["Upon inspection, if an imminent danger situation is found, the
compliance officer will ask the employer to voluntarily abate the
hazard and to remove endangered employees from exposure. Should the
employer fail to do this, OSHA, through the regional solicitor, may
apply to the nearest Federal District Court for appropriate legal
action to correct the situation. Before the OSHA inspector leaves the
workplace, he or she will advise all affected employees of the hazard
and post an imminent danger notice. Judicial action can produce a
temporary restraining order (immediate shutdown) of the operation or
section of the workplace where the imminent danger exists."]

The above sounds like a lawyer thing. If you have to send a lawyer to
court, it is not cheap! And if you want to "go to battle with OSHA",
then that would mean more lawyer time.

Also I found this on the same page...

["Other Than Serious Violation - A violation that has a direct
relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause
death or serious physical harm. A proposed penalty of up to $7,000 for
each violation is discretionary."]

I suppose if the OSHA inspector is ticked, he could cause some trouble
like the above. Then you are guilty until proven innocent. Get out
that lawyer again!

All I am saying is that if it costs $2000.00 to have the electrical
work done and that is less than the cost of hiring a lawyer or paying
a fine, then that might be the better 'business decision".

FYI the above is from the following page...
http://www.osha.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/introsha.html

 

[Rich.]

All I am saying is that if it costs $2000.00 to have the electrical work
done and that is less than the cost of hiring a lawyer or paying a fine,
then that might be the better 'business decision".

You're assuming it's a one time thing. What happens when this mis-informed
OSHA inspector writes up something again next month, and the next, and the
next...then what?

Taking the easy way out is what perpetuates these type of injustices. Plus
this is just one business; multiply his error(s) by the number of businesses
he frequents. Then the overall cost gets up into the 10s or even 100s of
thousands of dollars.

 

[daestrom]

On Aug 9, 7:44 pm, Eric Tappert<[email protected]>
wrote:

Hi all,

We have some control panel bench-boards, built in the mid1980's. The
front is about 8 ft high and 30 ft wide with an assortment of controls
and such. They are totally enclosed with access doors on the back (that
are *not* lockable).

All the power/circuits going in/out are in conduit or armored cable.
But *inside* the panel, the wiring between terminal boards and
components is just single conductor or paired conductor wiring of
appropriate size, routed neatly in trays and harnesses.

Also *inside*, are some simple duplex receptacles (standard, 3-prong,
120V). On the drawings, these are labeled simply, 'convenience
receptacles' for maintenance personnel when working in the panel. They
have a pair of 12 gauge wires (twisted pair) for the hot and neutral,
and a separate 12 gauge wire tied to the frame ground bus-bar in the
panel (the frame ground is 1/4 x 2 copper bar that runs the length of
the panel, and is tied to building grounding with large copper strand).

So, along comes an OSHA inspector who says, "Since that is a 120V
receptacle, the feed to it must be in conduit as per NEC for all
commercial buildings." And he promptly quotes the paragraph for
receptacle outlets used in building wiring. He seems to think that
since the wires are single conductor, there is some sort of increased
risk that the user could come in contact with a frayed wire feeding the
receptacle (never-mind all the other wires and terminals inside the
panel!!!)

I'm trying to argue that when this panel was built, it supposedly was
built to all codes, and the wiring *inside* the panel is not 'building
wiring' that needs to be encased in separate conduit. I thought the
reason for armor/thin-wall was to protect the wiring inside walls/floors
from damage because you can't see exactly where they are. Like when a
carpenter drives in a nail or plumber drills a hole for pipe. These
wires, inside the panel, are protected by the panel itself, right?

The OSHA inspector didn't think the other 120V and 208V wiring in the
panel was a problem, just the wiring to the receptacles.

Any thoughts/opinions about the receptacle wiring? Do we need to go
back and re-wire those specific circuits, even inside this bench-board /
panel with armored cable or thin-wall conduit?

Thanks for any constructive comments, I could use a citation or
something to get this guy off my back (he's not a master electrician,
nor EE, just some guy with a copy of NEC and OSHA safety regs).

daestrom
P.S. Considering all the other wiring *inside* I don't see the point,
but some OSHA inspector seems to think it makes a difference.

P.P.S. Forgot to also mention that all the receptacle circuits are
protected by 15A GFCI's

Article 409 of the NEC covers industrial control panels and the wiring
contained in them. It has no references to "convenience outlets", but
these have been used inside control panels for decades. Their use is
for supplementary lighting, test equipment, and small tools. The
panels are not required to be listed. There is no mention of
"convenience outlets" in the code, but if they provide power to
equipment in the panel they could be considered "disconnects". On the
other hand, it they are for maintenance purposes, then the fact that
they are enclosed in a panel means that they are not readily
accessible, thus not subject to the same wiring rules as building
receptacles.

Try labeling them as "For panel maintenace only" and see if that
helps...

Article 409 is relatively new and did not exist when the "bench-
boards" were made in the 1980s and wouldn't apply to the
installation.

But you could say it does or doesn't apply whichever works out for
your argument.

====================
If I remember right, you worked in generation - utility?

NEC 90.2 covers what the NEC does, and does not, apply to.
quote
90.2 Scope
(A) Covered ... for the following:
...
(4) Installations used by the electric utility such as office
buildings, ... that are not an integral part of a generating plant,
substation, or control center.

(B) Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following:
...
(5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric
utility where such installations
...
b. Are on property owned or leased by the electric utility for
the purpose of communications, metering, generation, control,
transformation, transmission, or distribution of electric energy, or
[c and d. - other utility controlled locations]
end quote.

====================================
If utility, is there a utility electrical engineer that can say the
receptacle wiring is safe?
(Same for non-utility?)

====================================
If the boards are listed by UL or equivalent (as in gfretwell's post),
that agency would cover what is inside the equipment, which may be
*very* different rules from the NEC. This is explicitly covered in NEC
90.7 for listed equipment.

As Rich wrote, the NEC applies to wiring to the equipment, not wiring
inside. (If the boards are not listed/labeled, or equivalent, this
argument may not work.)

Is there a manufacturer name? Manufacturer comments?

=============================
Was there a permit and was the installation inspected? Why would OSHA
disagree with the inspector? (Utilities may not need inspection.)

Would converting the receptacles to an odd configuration, like twist
lock, make the inspector happy?

It may not matter that the access doors are not lockable if the
equipment is only accessible by "qualified" personnel.

He is really having the problem with OSHA, not the electrical
inspector so the NEC may not actually apply.

But the OSHA inspector is applying the NEC to the "bench-boards".

Another point of attack is whether OSHA can enforces the NEC. There is
a problem in that the NEC changes every 3 years and OSHA does not move
fast enough to add the new version of the NEC in a timely manner. At
one time I think they were enforcing an old version of the NEC. I
thought now they just enforcing general NEC principles. What OSHA reg
allows the OSHA inspector to apply the NEC as he is trying to do? It
is an argument for deferring to the electrical inspector if this was
permitted and inspected.

The NRTL will be the out if he can come up with a listing mark since
it is OSHA that certifies NRTLs the US.

I agree that if the boards are listed/labeled the inspector is real
likely to back off. My guess is they are an exotic application and not
likely to be listed. And if this is an electric utility application
where the NEC is not applicable they are even less likely to be listed/
labeled.

OSHA certifies NRTLs (Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories) for
OSHA.

Thanks for all the above, good info that I'll mull over.

The benchboards were custom built by a manufacturer, so they are not a
commercial-off-the-shelf type of panel and hence not U/L listed.

The original contract (took some digging to find), stated they were
built to NEC 1978 (current at the time) regarding the wiring to/from the
panel (raised floor, so everything is in conduit/armor cable going
in/out). But again, we couldn't find anything that would require
conduit inside the panels.

The opinion of one local inspector is that "If they were part of the
panel as supplied by the manufacturer, fine. But if you add new ones
yourself after installation, they would need conduit/armor." Since
these are all original equipment, that would be okay by us. But we
can't find anything like that in writing.

daestrom