Thread: Bonded remote panel

How does this pass inspection?? Check out the ground bus at the lower left corner.

Similar Threads:

• Aluminum wire Bonded to Ground Bus Bar
• Feed From Main Panel to Sub Panel
• a/c condensers bonded to pool equipment
• sub panel bonded with neutrals
• Electrical panel bonded ?

Originally Posted by Marc M

How does this pass inspection?? Check out the ground bus at the lower left corner.

MM: If by "pass inspection" you mean municipal inspection, why not? They almost never look at anything.

Originally Posted by Marc M

How does this pass inspection?? Check out the ground bus at the lower left corner.

If this is a "Remote" panel, why are the ground and neutrals tied together at the top?

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

MM: If by "pass inspection" you mean municipal inspection, why not? They almost never look at anything.

A.D. Your being unfair to AHJ's this time. There is no way that was done by an electrician with or without a permit.

Originally Posted by Marc M

How does this pass inspection?? Check out the ground bus at the lower left corner.

I'm not exactly sure what happened with the thought process for the person that installed that panel. If you notice the grounding bar is installed as per 4 wire supply. The bonding screw is not installed as per 4 wire supply. All correct ...then for some reason 7 equipment grounds were landed on the right hand neutral terminal bus (wrong) and one to the ground bus (correct) and the feeder egc is correct. The grounded legs for the branch circuits are also correct. Odd that they left out the bonding screw correctly and then added a ground bar and didn't use it ... except for the feeder egc and one branch circuit egc ???

As an added observation there should be an insulating anti abrasion bushing on the FMC fitting entering the panel to protect those conductors if they are 4 awg or larger. I say they are as that looks like a square d 100 or 125 amp mlo.... so if the down stream overcurrect protection is sized accordingly for the panel rating along with the conductors that bushing would be required.

marc,
am i seeing a wire connecting the grounding bus to the nuetral bus on the left? wtf!

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

marc,
am i seeing a wire connecting the grounding bus to the nuetral bus on the left?

Whew... your eyes are better than mine Brian....but you just may be right now that you made me focus.... And now that I focused in a little better I think what they did is take an egc from one of the branch circuits passed it through the grounding bar terminal hole and then landed it to the neutral bar.

People get real resourceful when they don't know what their doing....

Add to all the above that the enclosure should be flush to the surface or extend beyond the surface and tight fitting around the enclosure at the wood wall surface for a flush mount cover to be installed, otherwise there will be a gap between the cover and the enclosure through which flame and fire could escape.

No mention of the add-on breaker-ties....lets hear the comments on those. Could this be a manf spec issue, what about required ties for the multioutlet branch circuit, the apparent 240V circuit on the right, will both trip using the add-on tie, are either circuits required to trip both 'legs' when only one leg trips, and, is the reason for Miller's love of AHJ's due to his work always receiving a Red Tag?? U just have to wonder.

Bob Smit, County EI

Bob good call on the tied 240... I should have mentioned this is an addition that was just finaled.
There is a 100A disconnect at the SEP.

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

marc,
am i seeing a wire connecting the grounding bus to the nuetral bus on the left? wtf!

Yes you are brian... you gotta love it.

Originally Posted by bob smit

No mention of the add-on breaker-ties....lets hear the comments on those. Could this be a manf spec issue, what about required ties for the multioutlet branch circuit, the apparent 240V circuit on the right, will both trip using the add-on tie, are either circuits required to trip both 'legs' when only one leg trips, and, is the reason for Miller's love of AHJ's due to his work always receiving a Red Tag?? U just have to wonder.

Bob Smit, County EI

That was a great catch Bob ... you must not work in Texas........ to answer your questions will take some time and its past my bedtime. Maybe tomorrow.... as for code compliance we will have to discuss 240.15(A)&(B) and 210.4(B) for starts.

If the breakers have 'approved handle ties' and the two single poles being used in the top left positions are sharing a neutral then they would be compliant with current code for having a disconnect means that opens both ungrounded conductors simultaneously. A common trip 2 pole breaker would also be compliant but not required.

If they are serving both line to line and line to neutral then a common trip 2 pole breaker is required and the use of two single poles with handle ties would be a violation. For this situation the requirement is that the circuit breaker must open both ungrounded conductors simultaneously ... this is not a manual disconnect requirement that opens both hot legs as for line to neutral loads.

Handle tied single pole breakers do not insure tripping of both hot legs by the circuit breaker overcurrent/overload mechanism since the internal mechanism is not common to both breakers.

The two single poles handle tied in the top right two positions appear to be a 240 volt branch circuit not a multiwire branch circuit sharing a neutral. If this is the case then it would be allowed to use the handle tied breakers to protect each hot leg of the single phase circuit for a grounded system 240.15(B)(2).

Generally speaking just use two pole common trip breakers and you avoid all the confusion IMO.

I've never really understood why the NEC as many times as they have vistied this code language in proposals doesn't have a 'shall be' a 2 pole breaker common trip requirement and be done with it.

I threw those questions out there to get some discussion started.
Those particular handle-ties were produced by Square D, so are they manf spec'd?

I know from experience that they don't always trip both circuits when just one trips (sloppy fit).

Handle ties and/or 2pole breakers are not required on multi-wire branch circuits unless they are feeding a split circuit receptacle. Example would be a receptacle with one circuit serving a dish washer and the other half serving the garbage disposal. The tie between the 2 halves is removed on the ungrounded conductor side, but the neutral (grounded conductor) tie is left in place, thus sharing the neutral.
Bob Smit, County EI

Originally Posted by bob smit

Handle ties and/or 2pole breakers are not required on multi-wire branch circuits unless they are feeding a split circuit receptacle.

That used to be correct, but is no longer correct.

- 210.4 Multiwire Branch Circuits.
- - (A) General. Branch circuits recognized by this article shall be permitted as multiwire circuits. A multiwire circuit shall be permitted to be considered as multiple circuits. All conductors of a multiwire branch circuit shall originate from the same panelboard or similar distribution equipment.
FPN: A 3-phase, 4-wire, wye-connected power system used to supply power to nonlinear loads may necessitate that the power system design allow for the possibility of high harmonic currents on the neutral conductor.
- - (B) Disconnecting Means. Each multiwire branch circuit shall be provided with a means that will simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded conductors at the point where the branch circuit originates.

I threw those questions out there to get some discussion started.

That is what I understood so I started the discussion ...

Thanks Jerry, I'll just add that one to the other 10,000 things I have to look for when doing my inspections that I only have 15 min on average to accomplish.
In reality however, it is a good thing to have all m-wire branch cir tied, and I don't have to waste time finding out ifin there's a split receptacle in the mix.

I did think one of U's guys would of brought up the code req that the neutral conductor taps/splices cannot be Dependant on device connections, ie. must be pigtailed, this should include connections to a fixture lead as well. If a light fixture were to be replaced where the line cable enters the outlet box first, (switch leg to the switch), and just the switch is used to cut power to the fixture for replacing; when the neutrals are opened by removing the wire nut......= 240v downstream.
Bob Smit, County EI

Originally Posted by bob smit

Thanks Jerry, I'll just add that one to the other 10,000 things I have to look for when doing my inspections that I only have 15 min on average to accomplish.
In reality however, it is a good thing to have all m-wire branch cir tied, and I don't have to waste time finding out ifin there's a split receptacle in the mix.

I did think one of U's guys would of brought up the code req that the neutral conductor taps/splices cannot be Dependant on device connections, ie. must be pigtailed, this should include connections to a fixture lead as well. If a light fixture were to be replaced where the line cable enters the outlet box first, (switch leg to the switch), and just the switch is used to cut power to the fixture for replacing; when the neutrals are opened by removing the wire nut......= 240v downstream.
Bob Smit, County EI

Bob

You are right of course but I'm not sure we were expecting the discussion to be about MWBC's as a whole. My expectations were to discuss the requirements for the handle tied breakers. However I do agree that inspectors are very pressed for time due to work schedules.

The situation in this thread should not have passed inspection for all reasons that have been discussed lack of time or not but we may not have the whole story... It could be that this was the inspectors ex's house....

It is possible since I can only see 6 grounded legs for the 6 single pole breakers that neither if the double poles are mwbc.

I hear U Roger. I do see however, black and red conductors connected to the top left breaker. No one has commented on the the black and red conductors connected to the 'twin' breaker on the bottom left. I'm making an assumption here (as U also mentioned lack of info), that the two red/black are from the same cable. If this is so, the common neutral would possibly be called upon to carry double the amperage.

Bummer: Just double checked MI residential code Jerry. Handle ties still not req for MWB circuits.
Bob Smit, County EI

Yeah I see that too and the bottom right tandem appears to not have both circuits in action....only one conductor connected to it. I hope they are not doing a mwbc with that bottom left tandem but it sure is starting to look like it.

I would have never passed this panel as a sub panel and the correction notice would have been 2 pages long. Might be an apprentice did it or a homeowner who claims to be an expert. At least all the breakers are Homeline, made for this panel.