Would you have a problem if the electrician made a blank cover that was the same thickness as this cabinet, and used it as a junction box?

This once enclosed a panelboard.

I'd be fine with a field constructed cover provided it was done in a neat manner. The cover and 'reuse' of the box might not meet the code in that it wouldn't be the OEM cover or it's intended use but IMO it would meet the intent. The wires would be protected. Really what's the diffenence between using this box and buying something new. What would be the improvement?

I'm assuming this person would clean up the mess, add some support for the bird's nest entering the box, and perhaps label some stuff.

If it was mine I'd clean it up and put a nice new cover on it with labels, etc. It's not nice and new but it's still functional.

Bring it on....

RSlater,
RSmike



[This message has been edited by RSmike (edited 07-01-2005).]

I wouldn't have a problem with a fabricated steel cover having adequate corrosion protection.

I might have a problem with the way the box is supported. There are some cables running behind it, so maybe it's not flat against or mounted to the wall (or whatever that is).

I'd want that top-center KO closed out.

And I'd take a real close look at one of the cables at the bottom, second out from the big EMT. There's something weird about it, almost like a short piece of new armor was spliced on for a little more length.

Then I'd wonder how a romex and BX are getting in through the same twin connector at the top right.

After all of which, the EC and I would have a chat about cable support.

But the cover? Ok with me.

Would it be better to use a "super" neutral wire of sufficient gauge than all the separate neutrals? You'd need a terminal bar insulated from the box to land all the neutrals to connect to the superneutral. But if there are circuits from both sides of the 110/220 line in there (likely if it was a panel) currents from one side would get shared at the bar in this box instead of having to travel to the new circuit breaker panel serving this box on one neutral and back again on another neutral wire. Less heat and wire in the big conduit that I presume is feeding to the main panel.

I avoid "super neutral" wires- for the simple reason that you are creating a place where a loose wire would result in the connected circuits receiving 220 volts. Sure, the code allows it, but I prefer to "join" neutrals only at the panel.

The cover?

What about the cover?

Make one out of metal and move on.

Shouldn't the entire box be replaced with a listed enclosure and matching cover?

What would a "Listed Enclosure" provide that this does not. More money for someone sure but what else. If I never hear listing violation again it will be too soon. Seems to be the hot catchphrase these days.

where do you stop/start cutting corners?

Who said anything about cutting corners. Putting a cover on this box and calling it done is not a problem nor should it be to a rationaly thinking person. This is NOT cutting corners. My point is that listing violation is thrown around as if there was a body count multiplying every second. I am sure there is not. There are probably an unlimited number of things that can be done that violate certain "listngs" that have no bearing on the use or safety of those products whatsoever. To me it is more code mumbo jumbo to for cya purposes likely championed by the manufacturers.

Scott, I pretty much agree with you. Somewhere along the line, folks seem to have forgotten the "skilled" part of our trade; we're not simply retarded monkeys slapping together bits & pieces!

The fact is, not only were many things- including pull boxes- once fabricated on site by tradesmen, a very large number of the tools and components that we buy were invented and perfected in the field by us.

When it comes to making or modifying something in the field, it certainly helps to understand the criteria an "approved" or manufactured it expected to meet. Let's not be silly, though- just how involved can the requirements be for a flat, square, piece of sheet metal? And to suggest that we are competent to punch control button holes into a cover, but not the holes for the mounting screws, is plain silly.

Cover the box and be done with it! Besides- just how many times are wires damaged by attempting to remove and replace the enclosure?

Technically, using a knock out cutter on a UL listed enclosure voids the listing. But we still continue to do it.

Well what would you do with a J&P with no factory KO's.

Just curious
Rob

[This message has been edited by sierra electrician (edited 07-13-2005).]

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, just making a point that the UL listing is voided all the time.

I've never been impressed with the UL listing as justification for anything. Explain why a 16 gauge hunk of steel bent into a junction box even needs UL listing while a strip of plastic with a six foot cord gets listed as an outlet strip instead of an incendiary device.

Just because UL listed hardware is used doesn't mean your installation is UL listed. Shouldn't UL be approving all electrical installation and not leaving it up to inspectors (or electricians) with various degrees of interpretations. Why aren't inspectors UL listed?

Look around Big-Mart and tell me that the UL listed junk didn't require some help to get listed under UL. I think we need a new listing company with an elevated standard.

And oh yeah, I still say make the cover. I have yet to see an existing electrical installation where something didn't have to be field modified to suit the conditions and keep things safe.

I take safety very seriously but sometimes think UL is a puppet for the manufacturers....and the NFPA, whom I respect, seems to be slowly leaning this way as well. Not good for us end users folks!!! Not good for our customers!!!

RSlater,
RSmike

I don't see any problem with fabricating a cover with suitable sheet metal. UL-listed or not, if it's as good as the original, it will be just as safe.

I would say the same thing.

The UL can go fly a kite for something like this. If it is going to be safe, and well made, and as good (possibly better) than the original what is wrong with it?

I sort of agree with the statements about UL not being the end-all judgement.
What do we really use the "UL" for. It's to determine adequacy of equipment construction for the intended use. For me as an inspector, I can field evaluate adequacy of one of the field-made covers (material,thickness,corrosion protection) the same as the contractor does when he makes it. No problem, it works. Where I rely on UL or other listing label is for the equipment that I cannot evaluate. How do I know that switchgear will handle 600A? How do I know whether you can double lug that connection? Listing label, that's how.

A lot of folks seem to be willing to speak for UL, without bothering to ask UL first!

Here is what UL has to say, in part, about field modifications:

"UL does not know what the effect of a modification may have....unless the field modifications have been specifically investigated by UL. Unless UL investigates a modified product, UL cannot indicate whether such changes "void" the UL mark.
"The only exception....is when a product has specific replacement markings. For example, a switchboard may have specific grounding kits added in the field."


In other words, only UL can say a listing is "voided," and then only after an investigation.

I say, there is nothing wrong with making your own parts. Indeed, modifying "stock" components is an integral part of the trade. Yet, it would be irresponsible to make such changes without having some idea as to what the original requirements may have been.