Thread: Help with clarification on sub-panel wiring

It appears that this subpanels neutral and ground bus bars are bonded? Can anyone help clarify? I just want to make sure that is the way I see it.

Thanks

Similar Threads:

• Transformer & Low Volt Wiring in Main Panel
• From the old board, Abandon Wiring
• Pool Light Wiring
• Protection of wiring in the attic
• From the old board, Knob and Tube Wiring

Originally Posted by Bob Lynett

It appears that this subpanels neutral and ground bus bars are bonded? Can anyone help clarify? I just want to make sure that is the way I see it.

Thanks

I can see the feeder assembly coming in on the bottom of the panel and the two ungrounded conductors back-feeding a properly tied-down circuit breaker.

I also see the grounded conductor (neutral) travelling up to the split-bus neutral bar. And I see an equipment grounding conductor travelling over to an equipment grounding terminal bus fastened directly to the panelboard enclosure. All of this is correct. Just make sure there is no electrical connection in this remote panelboard from the neutral terminal to the equipment grounding terminal. I don't see one, but my image of the picture isn't that clear.

Is the heavy black conductor terminated in the equipment grounding bus routed to a grounding electrode system?

This has what is identified as "Main"-"Principal", is this the service equipment?

If not, what is the main fed from? Is this in a detached garage?

You called it a "subpanel", however, being as there are no such things as "subpanels" where in line is this from the meter and the "service equipment"?

IF this is the "service equipment", then the neutral will need to be bonded to the enclosure, and I do not see that bonding jumper or bonding screw.

If this is not "service equipment", then Fred described and explained it quite well.

It is fed from the main house service to a dettached garage.

Originally Posted by Bob Lynett

It is fed from the main house service to a dettached garage.

Then it is a remote panel in a separate structure, the neutrals should be isolated from ground, and it looks like it is - see Fred's post.

Jerry and Fred. Q.

Just for my own info.

In this panel is it OK to have the 2 white wires on the breakers?
Is it OK to have sheet rock screws holdinjg the panel to the wall?
and do we not need a ground bushing on the service conductor?
and is it OK for the feeder wires to have that hard of a bend inside the panel?

Best

Ron

Thanks for quick repsponses gentlemen. Much appreciated, that is why this site is so great!

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

In this panel is it OK to have the 2 white wires on the breaks?

Those two white conductors 'just look like' they are going to the breakers, they are indeed actually going to the neutral terminal bar running down behind the breakers in that photo.

Otherwise, if the white conductors were going to the breakers, the answer is ... no, that is not allowed.

Is it OK to have sheet rock screws holdinjg the panel to the wall?

No, but I did not mention them because I did not want to create a distraction discussion from the original questions.

and do we not need a ground bushing on the service conductor?

Looks like those are okay.

and is it OK for the feeder wires to have that hard of a bend inside the panel?

The bend looks like it most likely meets the 4 times the diameter minimum bending radius ... the conductor is probably about 3/8", 3/8 x 4 = 12/8 = 1-1/2" radius = 3" diameter bend ... might make it - hard to tell from the photo.

But, do you want that loop-de-loop in there? Not really.

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

Jerry and Fred. Q.

Just for my own info.

In this panel is it OK to have the 2 white wires on the breakers?
Is it OK to have sheet rock screws holdinjg the panel to the wall?
and do we not need a ground bushing on the service conductor?
and is it OK for the feeder wires to have that hard of a bend inside the panel?

Best

Ron

Ron, actually I don't think there are any white conductors on breakers. They look somewhat like that, but under a closer look, you'll see they're terminated below the breakers on the neutral bus.
If the enclosure is mounted indoors and indoor-grade sheetrock screws are used, I do not see a problem. So-called "sheetrock" screws are used for zillions of fastening and securing tasks.
A ground bushing such as described in 250.92 in the NEC only applies to service conductors, not to feeder conductors.
Care should be exercised when bending conductors, but in my humble opinion there is nothing bent to excess in this panelboard. Not the neatest tie-in, but functional.

Bob: There may be some validity to Jerry's post about not using sheetrock screws. I am not familiar with that rule...

Also, there are times when one observes white-colored conductors on breakers, such as on GFCI and AFCI breakers. Often someone installing 240 volt electric heat with NM cable will forgot to re-identify the white conductor as a "hot" color on the double-pole breaker. It should be re-colored as any color other than white, green or grey.

Add a grounding electrode system, get rid of the solid equipment ground(if larger then #10) in the raceway, add a bushing (if larger then #6)--you would be on your way to code compliance..

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Then it is a remote panel in a separate structure, the neutrals should be isolated from ground, and it looks like it is - see Fred's post.

JP: Remote panelboard.

No, but I did not mention them because I did not want to create a distraction discussion from the original questions.

JP: Uh huh . . . .

Sub-panel or sub-fed panel is an industry wide accepted term. And every electrician and electrical contractor knows what it refers to. It is not however, a national electrical code term. And this creates some confusion for those that don't know what they are doing..
So feel free to use it.

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Sub-panel or sub-fed panel is an industry wide accepted term. And every electrician and electrical contractor knows what it refers to. It is not however, a national electrical code term. And this creates some confusion for those that don't know what they are doing..
So feel free to use it.

Agree. It is also in college level textbooks that way. There is a clear difference between code talk for legal purposes and everyday language that is easy to understand and accepted within an industry.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

Agree. It is also in college level textbooks that way. There is a clear difference between code talk for legal purposes and everyday language that is easy to understand and accepted within an industry.

Jeff and Roland: When writing reports and otherwise in life, we are terrific when we are specific.

Ever had an attorney rip you a new one because your language did not match up with the code you are quoting? I have, and it won't happen again.

Use common vernacular language in your everyday speech, no problem. Use it in you reports reports if you like. The code language is my report language of choice.

I think it is more important the ordinary and reasonable person understand what you write. They are your clients and the ones that will sit on your jury..

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

I think it is more important the ordinary and reasonable person understand what you write.

To that answer, this is applicable: "panel", or "electrical panel", regular everyday people do not know what a "subpanel" is, so, if you are trying to speak their language, it should be "panel" or "electrical panel".

I know the answer coming back is going to be (because it always is) "All of my clients understand the term "subpanel" as soon as I explain it ... ", yeah, well ... DUH! If you were to use the term "panel" or "electrical panel" you would not need to explain it! And, if you did need to explain it, it would be much easier to explain "this is a panel, and this is a panel, and this is a panel" (insert 'electrical' in front of 'panel' if you feel a need to) instead of "this is a panel, this, however, is a sub panel, and this, is a sub-sub panel".

As far as "service equipment" goes, clients also "get that" too, that is where the "main disconnect" is located, it shuts the entire house off from the "service" - r-e-a-l easy and quick to get and understand.

Rolland, and Jeff, you have not been on this site long enough to understand the need for those differences, you guys are 'new guys on the block' and instead of trying to understand why things are the way they are, you just pick on anything and everything which does not fit YOU. Well, YOU need to read and understand, that way YOU will be better able to communicate with the needs of the users of this board. Either that or you will always be just picking on everything without really contributing anything of value, if that is the case, why bother? Or is your goal just to be a pain in the arse to everyone here?

The reason for calling "service equipment" "service equipment" and 'non-service equipment' panels just 'panels" is that many HI schools (and electricians for that matter) think that neutrals get bonded to ground at "main" panels and not at "sub panels" where in fact "main" panels have nothing to do with where the neutral is bonded to ground.

Yes, you COULD have a "panel" which is part of the "service equipment" and the neutral is bonded to ground there, but not because there is a "panel" of any type there. The neutral is bonded to ground at the "service equipment" - "panel" or no "panel" as part of it - because the "main disconnect" is there, which makes it "service equipment" - THAT is why the neutral is bonded to ground at the "service equipment".

I've been trying to figure out just what you two guys intent is for posting here, and so far that is "to cause trouble and friction" and not to "help out".

Fred, on the other hand, obviously is trying to "help out". All three of you are "new" to this board, yet it is ONLY FRED who is trying to help out.

As some others have said, maybe you are just trying to stroke your own egos, but if you are, you are stroking in the wrong place ... or ... maybe your ego is down there?

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

Ever had an attorney rip you a new one because your language did not match up with the code you are quoting? I have, and it won't happen again.

No, in 8 years of full time business and thousands of inspections I perform a good inspection and report to my clients in a way they will understand so that I don't end up in court as a defendant, which I have not.

Are we talking about that box on the out side garage wall? the one with the glass thing above it.

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

No, in 8 years of full time business and thousands of inspections I perform a good inspection and report to my clients in a way they will understand so that I don't end up in court as a defendant, which I have not.

Jeff: So, I understand that you are saying that performing a "good" inspection inoculates one against litigation? My, my, you are naive.

As some others have said, maybe you are just trying to stroke your own egos, but if you are, you are stroking in the wrong place ... or ... maybe your ego is down there?

JP: Could you be more specific?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

........Fred, on the other hand, obviously is trying to "help out". All three of you are "new" to this board, yet it is ONLY FRED who is trying to help out.............

Thanks for noticing that, Jerry. The neat thing about a forum such as this one is that there are many watchful "eyes" and if, for example, I give misinformation which I earnestly believe to be "true", someone will undoubtedly catch it and correct it. Then the readers don't learn it "wrong" and I learn it "right".
So, as you know, it's a two-way process.

By the way, I have a lot of respect for licensed home inspectors. I think the industry has matured leaps and bounds and I believe a lot of it has to do with testing as a precondition of licensing. When a person must demonstrate competence by passing a test, this activity entitles them into an "elite" status.

I've been able to increase my knowledge quite a bit on this site by browsing around. Kudos to all who are of help.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: Could you be more specific?

Nope!

I agree with Jeff--There has not ever been a job I inspected that I couldn't have turned down for a code violation. If inspected to the minimum standard and held to that standard nothing would ever get done. Anyone with a different opinion has apparently not ever been an electrical inspector, building inspector, plan reviewer or AHJ. The end result is always a compromise from the standards.

Jerry the reason I am here is to learn and share code knowledge and some opinions. Hopefull it could be without your constant insults and BS. The crap that you post would get you tossed from most forums. It seems to be OK for you to do it but not OK to respond to some of your idiotic, anal, narrow minded circle jerks... Your lack of professionalism far exceeds anything you may have to offer anyone...

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Jerry the reason I am here is to learn and share code knowledge and some opinions.

Then, if that is the case, start doing so.

Maybe that will get you out of YOUR ...

constant insults and BS

... mode you have been in.

Try it, you'll like it.

"Your lack of professionalism" has all that you have been showing us.

How can I learn and post code--IT's all I can do to keep up reading your rediculous BS.. Your lack of experience (real world) and no common sense really does hold you back. I didn't know BS was a profession until I ran into you.

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

How can I learn and post code

I don't know, maybe by trying it instead giving your BS all the time?

I didn't know BS was a profession until I ran into you.

I've got an excellent teacher - you - and I'm a fast learner ... got anything else you can teach me about BS?

You are real quick with offering up BS, but real slow with offering any real help.

Maybe if you paced yourself better you would find more time to offer real help and less time for your BS ... just a suggestion ... just trying to help.

Roland,

One thing you need to understand, as long as YOU WANT to keep ratcheting this up another notch, I WILL assist you in doing so, likewise, when YOU are ready to simmer down, I will assist you in that too.

They say that things never boil in a watched pot, but I've been watching you boil for some time now, your call.

Jerry--If you would just let go of all the hot air you have, you could reduce you posts by 85%.. Give it a try... You aren't getting paid by the word and BS is not worth more then the rest. End result is everyone is better off..

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

End result is everyone is better off..

I've been telling you that for quite some time now ... cut the BS and stop trying to cause friction, and everyone will be better off for it.

I can see you are starting to come around and understand what I have been saying. That is a good start.

sputter, sputter sputter--get a stream going Jerry

I don't seem to understand--Jerry could you give me the code one more time. Things are a little blurry.. Teach me if you are so wonderful . All I am learning is BS, do you have any code for me??

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

I don't seem to understand--Jerry could you give me the code one more time. Things are a little blurry.. Teach me if you are so wonderful . All I am learning is BS, do you have any code for me??

I see the pot is definitely boiling over ... it has begun spewing questions throughout the forums, guess I need to remove some heat from it.

My apologies members, I did not intend for that pot to boil over so vehemently while I was away.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I see the pot is definitely boiling over ... it has begun spewing questions throughout the forums, guess I need to remove some heat from it.

My apologies members, I did not intend for that pot to boil over so vehemently while I was away.

JP: Nothing to do but hose the boy down . . .

Do you have any code for us or just more BS--I feel wet

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Do you have any code for us or just more BS--I feel wet

You feel wet ... again ... ?

I think you need to take up another exercise then.