Thread: Take a look at this panel please

I am having a brain seizure and all is blending together. Among other things, I do not see the neutral and ground seperated. Could folks weigh in on this thing for me. It is a sub panel in the garage.

Thank you in advance.

Similar Threads:

• Diagran for 4 wire 240 V circuit at load-side panel ("sub panel").
• Remote panel board feed from main panel buss bar
• Defects at service panel & distribution panel?
• Electical Panel/Sub Panel Question
• Feed From Main Panel to Sub Panel

As Vern said, looks like they took original SERVICE EQUIPMENT with main disconnects, installed new SERVICE EQUIPMENT somewhere else, then did not replace the original SERVICE EQUIPMENT with a proper PANEL.

That PANEL needs to be replaced with a proper PANEL which is wired with the neutral isolated from ground, along with installing properly sized feeders to this PANEL.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

As Vern said, looks like they took original SERVICE EQUIPMENT with main disconnects, installed new SERVICE EQUIPMENT somewhere else, then did not replace the original SERVICE EQUIPMENT with a proper PANEL.

That PANEL needs to be replaced with a proper PANEL which is wired with the neutral isolated from ground, along with installing properly sized feeders to this PANEL.

Jerry I deleted my post as I am having to rethink its position in a garage. With it in the garage it could be service equip. and neutral and gnd. were allowed to be tied together if i'm not mistaken.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Jerry I deleted my post as I am having to rethink its position in a garage. With it in the garage it could be service equip. and neutral and gnd. were allowed to be tied together if i'm not mistaken.

Vern,

It could be in a garage and not be service equipment.

Based on the information in the original post and the wiring in that panel, I think it is simply being used as a panel now, that it is no longer service equipment, that the circuits which are now no longer in that panel have been moved to the service equipment and its panel, and that this may only supply the garage now.

There is that 14-3 (looks like 14) which has the red attached to the ground, I suspect that it just tying an unused wire off to ground to abandon it - but not sure of that exactly.

Jerry I think you are right about the red wire. If the garage is detached it would make it more likely service equipment. If it is attached I would guess our first thoughts were correct.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

As Vern said, looks like they took original SERVICE EQUIPMENT with main disconnects, installed new SERVICE EQUIPMENT somewhere else, then did not replace the original SERVICE EQUIPMENT with a proper PANEL.

That PANEL needs to be replaced with a proper PANEL which is wired with the neutral isolated from ground, along with installing properly sized feeders to this PANEL.

Yes, there is an updated 100 amp panel in the main house grounded to the water entry. The panel in the garage is a sub panel, I am not seeing where the neutral is isolated from the ground. Am I correct in that I do not see them isolated.

Originally Posted by Michael Carson

Yes, there is an updated 100 amp panel in the main house grounded to the water entry. The panel in the garage is a sub panel, I am not seeing where the neutral is isolated from the ground. Am I correct in that I do not see them isolated.

You are correct.

If it is supplied by a breaker in the updated panel then they must be isolated and the only way is a new panel.

Originally Posted by Michael Carson

Yes, there is an updated 100 amp panel in the main house grounded to the water entry. The panel in the garage is a sub panel, I am not seeing where the neutral is isolated from the ground. Am I correct in that I do not see them isolated.

Michael,

Drop the "sub" and just call it a "panel" and then add "original service equipment" ... something like this:

The original service equipment in the garage is being used as a panel, which is wired completely wrong, including no provisions for isolating the neutral from ground - this original service equipment needs to be replaced with a proper panel, one which is approved for use as other-than-service-equipment.

The service equipment is where the main disconnect is located.

The panel may, or may not be, located in the same enclosure as the service equipment - all depending on what and how things were installed.

You may have service equipment with the main disconnect, with a remote panel elsewhere, or even next to it.

Or or you may actually have service equipment which has a panel in it, in which case that is simplest described as 'service equipment panel', or some may say 'service panel'.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Michael,

Drop the "sub" and just call it a "panel" and then add "original service equipment" ... something like this:

The original service equipment in the garage is being used as a panel, which is wired completely wrong, including no provisions for isolating the neutral from ground - this original service equipment needs to be replaced with a proper panel, one which is approved for use as other-than-service-equipment.

The service equipment is where the main disconnect is located.

The panel may, or may not be, located in the same enclosure as the service equipment - all depending on what and how things were installed.

You may have service equipment with the main disconnect, with a remote panel elsewhere, or even next to it.

Or or you may actually have service equipment which has a panel in it, in which case that is simplest described as 'service equipment panel', or some may say 'service panel'.

Thank you for the help, I really appreciate it.

Originally Posted by ben jacks

This panel may still be used if the original panel capacity rating supports the Branch Circuit loading. There is room in the equipment enclosure upper grounding terminal strip to correct the panel distribution set up.

Voila...the existing panel lives again. rbj

Ben,

No it cannot.

That old original service equipment panel would have been listed for use as service equipment, which would be its ONLY approved use.

Going back in and trying to MODIFY that panel is not allowed.

That original service equipment panel simply needs to be replaced.

I have a question Michael. Is the garage attached or detached?

If detached then the panel likely WAS fine when installed.

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Voila...the existing panel lives again.

Okay, maybe you were just joking but if not that seems like a lot of work just to save $25 on a new panel.

Would not adding a grounding buss bar not be "modifying" as well as not being listed??

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Please note that the OP stated that the panel in the house was updated.

It is also obvious that the panel in the garage has been completely re-wired, and that the service entrance to the service equipment panel in the garage (that is what you are apparently trying to imply that it is - the service equipment) will not in any way suffice as "service entrance conductors" for the entire house.

Therefore the service equipment panel in the garage is obviously no longer being used as "service equipment", which means the only other choice is as a regular "panel".

He did say the panel in the garage was a SUB-panel. rbj

Which is very astute of him as that installation does not appear to be in a submarine, and, in fact, he stated it was a "garage", therefore is cannot be a "SUB-panel" (your term above).

That panel would either be service equipment (which it probably originally was) or other-than service equipment (which is what it is being used as now).

It is UNFORTUNATELY ... VERY COMMON ... to find were electricians will install new service equipment outside, a new panel inside, and use the old original service equipment panel as non-service equipment - which is not allowed.

Nor is it allowed to modify that old service equipment panel and try to adapt it to being a non-service equipment panel - unless that modification simply amounts to "removing a bonding screw or a bonding strap" ... which does not appear to be the case in that photo.

If you would stop trying to insist on using the terms 'subpanel' and 'main panel' and instead start using and thinking 'service equipment' and 'non-service equipment' or 'other-than service equipment' you would readily understand where the neutral is REQUIRED TO BE bonded to ground and where the neutral is PROHIBITED FROM BEING bonded to ground.

That may help clear up some of your comments and apparent misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Good question. If it is detached, a 3-wire (in the old days) would normally be used but not in a 4-wire paralleled neutral-EGC hookup as in the pic...unless of course, the AHJ bought it off when the new wiring was installed on the permitted project....8j rbj

Wasn't the neutral and ground still isolated on the old 3-wire feeds to remote structure? Just a driven ground at the remote for the ECG?

Originally Posted by ben jacks

$25....On what planet did that come from? If that is a lot of work compared to driving around purchasing and picking up parts, and getting a permit for a changeout and inspection, then I would agree with you. rbj

Maybe in your neck of the woods they let you do everything you mentioned without pulling a permit, but around here you're supposed to pull a permit any time you alter the electrical system. And the difference between the work you described and what should be done is a $25 panel (well, $20 for the panel, and $5 for the breakers).

Originally Posted by ben jacks

The addition of a ground bus is permitted. In this case, the existing mounting hole(s) are an acceptable criteria for the addition. Listing is not an issue in that regard. rbj

The addition of a ground is permitted ... IF a listed ground terminal assembly approved for use in that panel is used, and when listed in that panels labeling, which always specifies the proper and acceptable additional ground terminal assemblies listed and approved for use in that panel, and, the existing mounting holes ARE NOT approved for that use, special mounting holes for those accessory ground terminal assemblies are PROVIDED IN THE ENCLOSURE, it is not permissible to 'just attach it any where you want to".

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Wasn't the neutral and ground still isolated on the old 3-wire feeds to remote structure? Just a driven ground at the remote for the ECG?

Vern,

From the 2008 NEC, which allows the old practice to remain on existing buildings and existing installations.
- 250.32 Buildings or Structures Supplied by a Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s).
- - (B) Grounded Systems. For a grounded system at the separate building or structure, an equipment grounding conductor as described in 250.118 shall be run with the supply conductors and be connected to the building or structure disconnecting means and to the grounding electrode(s). The equipment grounding conductor shall be used for grounding or bonding of equipment, structures, or frames required to be grounded or bonded. The equipment grounding conductor shall be sized in accordance with 250.122. Any installed grounded conductor shall not be connected to the equipment grounding conductor or to the grounding electrode(s).
- - - Exception: For existing premises wiring systems only, the grounded conductor run with the supply to the building or structure shall be permitted to be connected to the building or structure disconnecting means and to the grounding electrode(s) and shall be used for grounding or bonding of equipment, structures, or frames required to be grounded or bonded where all the requirements of (1), (2), and (3) are met:
- - - - (1) An equipment grounding conductor is not run with the supply to the building or structure.
- - - - (2) There are no continuous metallic paths bonded to the grounding system in each building or structure involved.
- - - - (3) Ground-fault protection of equipment has not been installed on the supply side of the feeder(s).
- - - - Where the grounded conductor is used for grounding in accordance with the provision of this exception, the size of the grounded conductor shall not be smaller than the larger of either of the following:
- - - - - (1) That required by 220.61
- - - - - (2) That required by 250.122

I always remembered it as you said, then I was corrected and found out that either I had remembered it incorrectly or it changed and I did not catch the change - not sure which it was, but, nonetheless, it is now allowed to be connected to ground at the separate building IF IT IS EXISTING as such.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Wasn't the neutral and ground still isolated on the old 3-wire feeds to remote structure? Just a driven ground at the remote for the ECG?

NO, the neutrals and grounds were bonded just like in a main panel. THIS is where the equipment ground came from.
A ground rod DOES NOT provide an EGC, NOR does it provide a "ground" in the sense you are thinking.

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Good question. If it is detached, a 3-wire (in the old days) would normally be used but not in a 4-wire paralleled neutral-EGC hookup as in the pic...unless of course, the AHJ bought it off when the new wiring was installed on the permitted project....8j rbj

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
Are you saying the sub-panel had anything to do with the main service upgrade? If so, HOW?

It does look like the bottom buss is isolated if you look at the blurry label on the door cover. 4 positions for isolated neutrals at the bottom and room for grounds tied to the enclosure at the top.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

It does look like the bottom buss is isolated if you look at the blurry label on the door cover. 4 positions for isolated neutrals at the bottom and room for grounds tied to the enclosure at the top.

Not quite sure what you are saying (but I think I do) and I believe that label is showing the grounded terminal bars.

To verify, look at the service equipment panel itself and you will see that both the top and bottom ground/neutral terminal bars - at least appear to be - connected to the enclosure back. Even at 400 times zoom it looks this way.

In fact, at 400 times zoom, you can see a conductor line drawn from the top ground/neutral terminal down 45 degrees to the right, horizontally to the right, down vertically and out the bottom where what looks like the ground symbol is drawn. And the drawing shows/implies the bottom and top terminal bars are aligned and interconnected (through being connected to the enclosure back - I think, could be a bar connecting them, though).

Exception: For existing premises wiring systems only, the grounded conductor run with the supply to the building or structure shall be permitted to be connected to the building or structure disconnecting means and to the grounding electrode(s) and shall be used for grounding or bonding of equipment, structures, or frames required to be grounded or bonded where all the requirements of (1), (2), and (3) are met:
- - - - (1) An equipment grounding conductor is not run with the supply to the building or structure.

Does permitted mean the same as must be?

Originally Posted by ben jacks

So in Western Massachusetts a licensed electrician needs to get a permit to repair an electrical condition. (I.e. replacing a breaker, repairing an updated circuit such as a 3-wire to 4-wire appliance hookup or disconnect box.)

Fixing that panel wiring to me is within the AHJ authority compliance on the West coast. Is it bureaucratic structure hard up for revenue or is it plain poor State legislature that requires additional costs...or maybe does WM not require licensed electricians with a pay card? They need to get up to date and save the poor tax payer some money. rbj

From the IRC:
- R105.2 Work exempt from permit. Permits shall not be required for the following. Exemption from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.
- - Electrical:
- - - Repairs and maintenance: A permit shall not be required for minor repair work, including the replacement of lamps or the connection of approved portable electrical equipment to approved permanently installed receptacles.

Other than replacing lamps and plugging in cord and plug connected lamps and appliances into EXISTING receptacles ... you need a permit.

Start messing around with the bus bars in the panel ... you need a permit.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Exception: For existing premises wiring systems only, the grounded conductor run with the supply to the building or structure shall be permitted to be connected to the building or structure disconnecting means and to the grounding electrode(s) and shall be used for grounding or bonding of equipment, structures, or frames required to be grounded or bonded where all the requirements of (1), (2), and (3) are met:
- - - - (1) An equipment grounding conductor is not run with the supply to the building or structure.

Does permitted mean the same as must be?

No.

Permitted means "allowed", not "required".

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Jerry, Thanks for your keen observation. If that is the case then I have the termination bars connected in reverse. Good catch. rbj

Jerry I have read and read the code section and it sound like code talk with forked tongue . Says grounded wire with supply wires (neutral with hots) can be tied to the grounding conductor (driven gnd.) Then says it must me used to ground equip etc. ????

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Look hard at the line diagram on the door. At the bottom right corner the line comming from the top buss has a gnd. symbol. The bottom buss does not.

Look at the diagram closely and you will see that 'it looks like' the bottom terminal bar is connected to the top terminal bar, making them both connected to the enclosure and ground.

Also look at the photo and you will see the fastener head securing the bottom terminal bar to the back of the enclosure or to a bar which runs up to the top terminal bar, or maybe is secured to the back of the enclosure *and* runs up to the top terminal bar.

Unfortunately, the photos are not all of the right things and right angles to see all the above clearly.

Jerry I have read and read the code section and it sound like code talk with forked tongue . Says grounded wire with supply wires (neutral with hots) can be tied to the grounding conductor (driven gnd.) Then says it must me used to ground equip etc. ????

Not forked tongue, just not clearly stated or understood.

Exception: For existing premises wiring systems only, the grounded conductor run with the supply to the building or structure shall be permitted to be connected to the building or structure disconnecting means and to the grounding electrode(s) and shall be used for grounding or bonding of equipment, structures, or frames required to be grounded or bonded where all the requirements of (1), (2), and (3) are met:

The groundED conductor run with the 2 ungrounded conductors (and no groundING conductor) in the old feeders was "permitted" ("allowed") to be connected to the disconnecting means (the enclosure) and to the groundING electrode system ... not "required to be".

And, if connected to the disconnecting means (enclosure) and grounding electrode system, then the groundED conductor IS REQUIRED TO BE ("and shall be") used for the equipment ground.

I.e., IF (not required) the groundED conductor is connected to the disconnecting means enclosure AND grounding system, then IT SHALL BE used for grounding and bonding. However, IF (allowed) the groundED conductor is NOT connected to the disconnecting means enclosure, then it would not have been allowed to be used for grounding and bonding.

Which is probably why I have seen both installations and some AHJ enforced one and did not allow the other - they were allowed to exercise that option. And probably why I was confused about it for so long too.

Originally Posted by ben jacks

I appreciate your comments about Florida's requirements and quoting the IRC

Ben,

Not Florida's requirements, that was from the IRC.

Florida has given each county the power to adopt their own Administration chapter requirements. Not technical requirements, but for things like permitting, etc.

Originally Posted by ben jacks

So in Western Massachusetts a licensed electrician needs to get a permit to repair an electrical condition. (I.e. replacing a breaker, repairing an updated circuit such as a 3-wire to 4-wire appliance hookup or disconnect box.)

Here electrical modifications and repairs require a permit, whether it's an unlicensed homeowner performing the work or a licensed electrician. In my town residential permits are a flat fee depending on the size of the job ($50 for repairs and small modifications, $125 for whole house).

Last time I spoke with my inspector he had just come from a meeting with an insurance rep looking to see if permits were pulled for a house that recently burned down. I wouldn't want to be the licensed electrician that hadn't pulled a permit on that job.

Originally Posted by ben jacks

The definition of job size is somewhat lacking the extent of the modification as in the permit for remodel circuit extension, additions? vs just updating old house wiring issues. In WA State, a licensed electrician can qualify for a pre-paid permit card with report to be sent in to the L & I for basically stating repair or change of correction for that project without getting an inspection.

I don't believe we have that option here. There is a provision for "work first, permit later" if an electrician finds a dangerous condition that needs repair. In that case they need to contact the town within 24 working hours (not counting weekends) of making the repair.

Note that I'm only aware of my town having this flat fee structure - other area towns may or may not have something similar. They define "minor" as installing/repairing/replacing 10 locations or less. So in my 250sf addition I have 8 receptacle locations, 2 switch locations, 2 outdoor lights, 4 recessed ceiling lights, 1 ceiling fan, and 1 panel which puts me into the "major" category and the same price as a new 3200sf residential dwelling. Doesn't seem like they're trying to make money on this - $125 is not that much for some of the large, multi-panel homes I've seen going up.

Originally Posted by ben jacks

JP, The SUB-choir is asleep. SUBPANEL is used in the NEC. Please get over it! 8j

Ben,

You need to get over it and stop using subpanel, etc.

Do you know where "subpanel" is used in the NEC? Is this that location?

Originally Posted by ben jacks

JP, What location are you referring? Look for it in the NEC, it is in there. rbj

I know where it is at in the NEC, you said it was, you are applying to this location, you show us where it is in the NEC and what section it is in and what it is applying to in the NEC.

Hint: It is not applying to this.

Originally Posted by ben jacks

JP, What do you mean by "It is not applying to this". The mention of subpanel is applying to subpanel.

Oh you found it? If you didn't, a little hint....

The article number is the same as a popular household cleaner. rbj

Ben,

And just what does that popular household cleaner article refer to?

Please post the article heading for its applicability.

Then post how that article applies to the discussion.

You can't even follow the NEC through its applicability and you say you write books on this stuff?

409.2(3)

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Jerry, You really do not know the Article number otherwise your reply would have been more constructive to our conversation. I will give you another hint...from the NEC,

Ben,

You are exposing your ignorance, that your knowledge is even less than I thought, making your assumptions as you do.

- ARTICLE 409 Industrial Control Panels
- - I. General
- - - 409.1 Scope.
- - - - This article covers industrial control panels intended for general use and operating at 600 volts or less.
- - - - - FPN: UL 508A is a safety standard for industrial control panels.
- - - 409.2 Definitions.
- - - - Control Circuit. The circuit of a control apparatus or system that carries the electric signals directing the performance of the controller but does not carry the main power current.
- - - - Industrial Control Panel. An assembly of two or more components consisting of one of the following:
- - - - - (1) Power circuit components only, such as motor controllers, overload relays, fused disconnect switches, and circuit breakers
- - - - - (2) Control circuit components only, such as pushbuttons, pilot lights, selector switches, timers, switches, control relays
- - - - - (3) A combination of power and control circuit components
- - - - - These components, with associated wiring and terminals, are mounted on or contained within an enclosure or mounted on a subpanel. The industrial control panel does not include the controlled equipment.

So, Ben, explain how this is an Industrial Control Panel.

To show you just how widely spread the use of "subpanel" is in the NEC, I did a search on my electronic editions, which produced the following results:
1996 - *0* hits
1999 - *0* hits
2002 - *0* hits
2005 - *0* hits
2008 - *1* hit - see above

Ben, as a book writer (that is what you said you are doing now) you really should do your research better.

So, Ben, explain how that term applies to this thread? I am all ears, and am really interested in your version of how the earth is flat.

See 230.66 in the 2008 NEC.

Ben: Tell them about the book you already wrote and include some examples.

Definition of a Subpanel

Here's an old proposal for the 2002 NEC:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/A100.pdf

(Log #2499)

1- 191 - (100-Subpanel (New) ): Reject

SUBMITTER: Andre R. Cartal, Bldg Dept., Princeton Borough, NJ
RECOMMENDATION: Add a definition of "Subpanel" as a
panelboard located in the same building as the service equipment
that supplies it.

SUBSTANTIATION: The use of the term subpanel seems to be on
the increase in many code articles and seminars and while the NEC
does not use this word we would then all know what the word meant
when it was used.

PANEL ACTION: Reject.

PANEL STATEMENT: The term "subpanel" is not used in the Code
and therefore does not warrant a definition.

NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Macias

NOTE: Up until the 1993 NEC the term "subfeeder" appeared in Article 339, and in the examples, later to be deleted in the 1996 NEC.

QUESTION: If I am using the 1993 NEC and I install or inspect a "subfeeder" which was included in the examples for calculations in this edition would they (the subfeeders) be run into a "subpanel" or into to a panelboard inside of a cabinet?

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Michael,

This panel may still be used if the original panel capacity rating supports the Branch Circuit loading. There is room in the equipment enclosure upper grounding terminal strip to correct the panel distribution set up.
First up, that grounding bar additionally requires a grounding electrode conductor (sized according to 250.122) to bond a new 5/8'x8' ground rod outside.

Secondly, removal and relocation of the #10 Awg neutral (white) conductor to the lower terminal strip along with removing the bonding strap from that bar will essentially correct the four wire hookup as intended. Make sure the 'neutral' bar is isolated from the enclosure case.

Third, correct the 14-3 NM cable wiring by finding out what it is supplying in the garage. I think the red wire is being used as an EGC for device bonding. If so, then re-route the red conductor, strip the red insulation away and terminate it on the upper grounding terminal bar. (Make sure other end is an EGC) Also, remove the bare conductors from the lower neutral bar and reconnect them to the upper grounding bar.
Finally, there is enough room on the isolated neutral terminal bar to accommodate all four white grounded conductors in their own terminal connection.

I'm going to ignore the pissing match going on and return back to the specifics outlined here. Ignoring the permitting process, I still don't think you can do what you're recommending.

My principle reason for saying this is that I don't think you can isolate the neutral bus from the enclosure or the grounding bus. I don't see anything indicating that there is a plastic standoff behind the lower bus or that the strap bonding it to the case can be removed.

Second, I don't see four positions on the upper grounding bus. I doubt those terminals are designed or rated for double tapping (as they are incorrectly done below). Relocating the grounds and isolating the neutrals therefore doesn't seem like it's going to be possible.

As an aside, how do you figure that's 10AWG feeding the panel? That seems more likely to be 12AWG based on the photo. Not that it matters, I suppose, as long as the over-current protection device upstream matches the "feeder" rating. I suppose whoever made the changeout didn't have any #8 or #6 on the truck (assuming this wasn't just a handy homeowner).

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Jerry,

What is your point about copying [409.2(3)] on this forum site wasting everyone's time.

Ben,

Not wasting everyone's time, in fact not wasting anyone's time.

I kept asking you to post what it said, *I* already knew what it said, and where it was.

Your refusal to post what that section was about is why I posted it, so that everyone would understand what you were trying to bring into the discussion.

If showing you what that section was about wasted YOUR time, so be it, you could have posted it yourself.

Originally Posted by ben jacks

It's a new day and I would like to start out on a positive note.

Ben,

I like starting out anew and on positive notes.

I also respect your knowledge of electrical, which may well be (likely is) more than mine.

What are some of the books you've written / are writing?

I searched on Google and found a listing for you, but I found a listing for several Ben Jacks, so I am not sure which one, if any, were you.

Ben

Please post here and send me all of the information about your books so that I can add a link on my web site.

Also, I will look forward to seeing your bulletin board.

I believe your book is in its 5th printing?

I know that you wrote it before the "magic of the internet" and probably on a Royal Typewriter!