Thread: grounding of panel

I found this bond bar removed. Bare grounds were on one side of the panel and the white wires on the other side. Is this an acceptable practice?

panel1.jpgpanel 2.jpgpanel 3.jpg

Is this the service equipment or not?

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Is this the service equipment or not?

What do you mean by service equipment?

Originally Posted by cory nystul

What do you mean by service equipment?

Seriously????

Originally Posted by Cory Bates

Yes it is service equipment.

How did you confirm this?

Originally Posted by Jim Port

How did you confirm this?

Psychic Connection ??? Just a phone call away...

Cory , Was there a generator connected to system???

Looks like we are all having fun this holiday morning.

If service equipment, you mean is the panel a currently used panel, yes. It is not the primary panel, the primary was located on the exterior, which was where the main disconnect was located.

No there were no generators hooked up to the system.

Originally Posted by cory nystul

the primary was located on the exterior, which was where the main disconnect was located.

Cory,

The panel which contains the main service disconnect for the building or structure is the "service equipment" panel.

The other panels are not service equipment, they are simply panels, or remote panels because they are remote from the service equipment.

There may be a main service disconnect only, or a main service disconnect with additional breakers, that panel is not remote from the service equipment as it is part of the service equipment.

I prefer the terms "service equipment" or "service equipment panel" for the service equipment, and just use "panel" or "electrical panel" for panels which are not service equipment.

I find that adding in vague terms such as "main" panel and "sub" panel become part of the reason people don't understand what is allowed, required, not allowed at different panels.

A service panel is where the first means of disconnect exists and is where the neutral and ground bond takes place. A service panel does not just mean that the panel is being used or in service.

In looking at the photo (I was using my phone the first time), the photo showing the equipment grounding bar shows the wires twisted together in single terminals, twisting is not permitted, and also shows a white neutral from a GFCI breaker going to the equipment grounding bar when it should go over to the other side to the neutral bar.

Yes, many panels allow the metal cross-over bar to be removed to separate the two terminal bars, and many have restrictions on which bar is permitted to be used for which purpose, with some requiring a plastic cross-over bar be installed to replace the metal one which was removed. All that information is on the label. I don't recall for sure, but I believe it was GE which required the plastic cross-over bar be installed to replace the metal cross-over bar - but that would be on the label.

There is a green bonding screw shown in the equipment grounding bar, I presume that is in the correct hole and goes all the way through into the back of the metal enclosure (cabinet).

Originally Posted by cory nystul

Looks like we are all having fun this holiday morning.

Not to be rude, but no my comment was not meant in any way to be funny. I know we all needed to start somewhere but when a basic definition of an important part of a homes infrastructure is not even known I think it is a sad commentary, especially if someone paid for this inspection. If you are still in training I would have hoped this would have been covered or your mentor would have explained this.

I see an AFCI pigtail on the ground buss? Big no-no.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

In looking at the photo (I was using my phone the first time), the photo showing the equipment grounding bar shows the wires twisted together in single terminals,twisting is not permitted, .

Jerry-
Not to start a debate but please clarify where this is written??

Originally Posted by jack davenport

Jerry-
Not to start a debate but please clarify where this is written??

On the label.

The label will state the number of conductors permitted.

Two conductors twisted into one conductor does not meet the specifications for either one conductor or two conductors, nor does it meet the specifications of stranded conductors.

I think you would get a lot of push back on that Jerry. Two #14s or two #14s that happen to have a twist are the same conductor volume and the label does not specify holes for stranded or non-stranded. Using that example the screw is going to turn the two into the same orientation as if they were inserted side by side. I know I would ask for some kind of proof to back up your claim.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

I think you would get a lot of push back on that Jerry. Two #14s or two #14s that happen to have a twist are the same conductor volume and the label does not specify holes for stranded or non-stranded. Using that example the screw is going to turn the two into the same orientation as if they were inserted side by side. I know I would ask for some kind of proof to back up your claim.

You would ask for some kind of proof ... As the inspector I*point you to 110.3 (B) and put that burden on you.

*I* can look conductors and their properties up in the NEC and point out what those properties are, solid or stranded, and nothing in the code will match that one twisted conductor with only two strands.

*You* now have the burden of offering satisfactory proof for you position - I will accept a letter from the manufacturer's technical engineering department or from UL (and my previous conversations with UL have been that there is no standard or test for twisted conductors - that they would need specifications for the twist, as in how many twists per inch, etc.

You provide satisfactory proof and I will accept it.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

You would ask for some kind of proof ... As the inspector I*point you to 110.3 (B) and put that burden on you.

*I* can look conductors and their properties up in the NEC and point out what those properties are, solid or stranded, and nothing in the code will match that one twisted conductor with only two strands.

*You* now have the burden of offering satisfactory proof for you position - I will accept a letter from the manufacturer's technical engineering department or from UL (and my previous conversations with UL have been that there is no standard or test for twisted conductors - that they would need specifications for the twist, as in how many twists per inch, etc.

You provide satisfactory proof and I will accept it.

I agree UL would need to technical data as to the number of twists ,size,and material provided they are listing/approving it as one conductor. having 2 conductors twisted does not qualify them as one conductor. Using that method of to define would mean that every splice makes every conductor one conductor. Example I have a 2 gang box with three 14-2 NM cables entering it. The blacks are twisted together and the whites are twisted together, the bare grounding conductors are twisted together. Using your method I now only have 3 conductors as opposed to 9 ?
Sorry my friend but I am in Jim's camp here

Two conductors from two raceways or cables that happen to have a twist around each other does not make them one conductor. They can be separated without destroying their integrity and there would be no reduction in ampacity. Suppose someone dressed the conductors similar to the neutral from SE cable but kept each end separate. Would you say they are paralleled.

Would you fail someone for inserting each strand of the SE neutral into one lug without being twisted? If so why?

Having two conductors twisted together makes it no longer suitable for termination in that terminal in the Po anel.

Jim and Jack have an easy solution ... should they elect to continue their debate here: post a letter from the major panel panel manyfacturers stating that twisting is acceptable ... otherwise, no amount of their twisting will work.

Jerry
You keep saying it is on the panel label. I have never seen anything of the sort on any panel label.
And yes I have seen thousands of panels and their labels.
Please post what panel and the label you seem think this is listed on.
I do admit the panel label states the number of and size of conductors per grounding terminal, but have yet to see anything about twisting the conductors.

Please provide proof to back up your statement

To paraphrase the panel labels I am familiar with they state the number of conductors and a size range and conductor materials. I have never seen anything about twisting.

Originally Posted by jack davenport

Jerry
You keep saying it is on the panel label. I have never seen anything of the sort on any panel label.
And yes I have seen thousands of panels and their labels.
Please post what panel and the label you seem think this is listed on.
I do admit the panel label states the number of and size of conductors per grounding terminal, but have yet to see anything about twisting the conductors.

Please provide proof to back up your statement

Originally Posted by Jim Port

To paraphrase the panel labels I am familiar with they state the number of conductors and a size range and conductor materials. I have never seen anything about twisting.

I couldn't have said it much better myself - the labels state what is permitted and, as you both state, twisting is not listed.

It also does not say prohibited. As you know the NEC is a permissive document. Unless there is a specific exclusion it is allowed.

I left out that the labels do have a torque value also stated.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

It also does not say prohibited. As you know the NEC is a permissive document. Unless there is a specific exclusion it is allowed.

I left out that the labels do have a torque value also stated.

As you know, while the NEC is a permissive document, the UL listing and labeling is not. The listing and labeling is specific as to what is permitted / required, and, we ARE referring to the listing and labeling information, not to the NEC - the only reference to the NEC is to 110.3(B) which states that it is to be installed in accordance to its listing and labeling.

Another fine twist you attempted Jim (almost qualifies for the twist professional level), but the only applicable twist is going to be a letter from the manufacturer of the panel which says it is okay (or from UL but I already know that UL will not provide said letter).

Having just read the 2012 UL Marking and Application Guide for Panelboards there is no mention of twisting being prohibited.

This standard also does not mention a prohibition against twisting.
http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=0486E.html

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Having just read the 2012 UL Marking and Application Guide for Panelboards there is no mention of twisting being prohibited.

And was mention made of twisting being allowed?

Again, you are looking at listing and labeling information, not NEC information - remember the difference between the two, the NEC is permissive, the listing and labeling is specific.

Added with edit: copied from the January 2014 UL Marking Guide for Panelboards (bold is mine)
14. TEMPERATURE RATING OF INSTALLED CONDUCTORS
In general, the testing and construction of panelboards are based on the use of 60°C ampacities for
wire size Nos. 14±1 AWG and 75°C ampacities for wire size Nos. 1/0 AWG and larger, taken from
Table 310.15(B)(16) of the NEC, with no adjustment made for correction factors. Panelboards are
marked to indicate temperature ratings and sizes of conductors that can be used.

Very specific there.

I think this is one of those things like what type of fasteners to mount the panel with that are too myriad to be addressed. I cannot think twisting would even hit on an inspectors radar.

Given the extra time to twist I just see this as a non issue since it takes less time to slide the two conductors in the bus and tighten up the screw.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

I think this is one of those things like what type of fasteners to mount the panel with that are too myriad to be addressed. I cannot think twisting would even hit on an inspectors radar.

Given the extra time to twist I just see this as a non issue since it takes less time to slide the two conductors in the bus and tighten up the screw.

The answer is simple, and I keep pointing it out - get the manufacturer to provide a letter stating that twisting is acceptable.

Not sure why you keep trying to beat around the bush and find some other way through the brier patch ... unless you suspect the manufacturer will not say it is acceptable to twist the wires? That would explain your resistance to actually wanting to know and support your position ...

It is not resistance, but a difference of opinion. Two #14's or two #14's twisted are still 2 #14's. If the terminal states that 2 #14's allowed that is the end of the conditions. If they wanted other criteria to be considered it would have been spelled out.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

It is not resistance, but a difference of opinion. Two #14's or two #14's twisted are still 2 #14's. If the terminal states that 2 #14's allowed that is the end of the conditions..

That's the end of the conditions us correct - and two know what a #14 conductor is, you go to the NEC and it will specify EXACTLY what a #14 conductor is. If two are permitted, then two individual conductors are installed to be installed ... NOT one conductor consisting of two twisted conductors.

As I stated - get the letter from the manufacturer.

Instead, you started off on a different course - that you likely wouldn't be caught doing it wrong.

Getting caught has nothing to do with what is allowed and permitted.

Get your letter. It's as simple as that.

Jerry-
Instead of "twisting" the requirement for proof - please provide the actual proof you are attempting to defend. I asked you many posts ago to provide it and so far all you have done is state your opinion. NO facts have been produced by you stating it is not allowed.
Like Jim stated 2 # 14 conductors are still 2 # 14 conductors regardless if they are twisted or not.
I am asking YOU to defend your statement with the facts in writing . 110.3(b) is the weakest call any inspector can make. The listing and the label DO NOT it can not be done.
Defend your statement and stop trying to twist it on Jim and I to defend ours.

How do you approach the SE neutral twisted in the lug? Is that a violation? What is the proper twist ratio?

Wire nuts do not call for pre twisting but the instructions do not say not to.

Many things are not spelled out in the UL standards and we know that every possible option cannot be tested nor are the manufacturers willing to pay for every conceivable method of use.

I did not state that twisting was wrong, but simply a waste of time. In the end you still have two conductors in the bus, nothing more nothing less.

Originally Posted by jack davenport

Jerry-
Instead of "twisting" the requirement for proof - please provide the actual proof you are attempting to defend. I asked you many posts ago to provide it and so far all you have done is state your opinion. NO facts have been produced by you stating it is not allowed.

Jack,

*I'm* not the one stating that something which is not in the code or the listing information is allowed because ... well ... because you and Jim say it is.

You and Jim need to offer proof that what is not stated as being permitted is permitted - the ball is in your court and you and Jim can't seem to get it past the net.

Provide the documentation which is missing, documentation which says that twisting is allowed.

It really is that simple.

I'll keep checking back on this thread every now and then over the next week to give you and Jim time to get your documentation.

Until you or Jim provide such documentation, your case falls flat.

I am sorry Jerry, but my position is going to remain that two #14s are allowed in accordance with the label as they are in the range allowed based on gauge and number. The twist factor is irrelevant. What if the twist was away from the end in the bus and was several inches away. Are they still twisted?

I think this position is more defensible than yours. You have not presented any evidence of a hazard or how two conductors somehow morph if there is a twist in them. Your position seems to be because I said so.

What is your view on pre-twisting before installing a wire nut? Do you consider that a listing violation?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I couldn't have said it much better myself - the labels state what is permitted and, as you both state, twisting is not listed.

Jerry, you sometimes take interpretation of codes to a new level. Twisted, untwisted, really? Also, what you state as fact sometimes is your interpretation of fact.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And was mention made of twisting being allowed?

Again, you are looking at listing and labeling information, not NEC information - remember the difference between the two, the NEC is permissive, the listing and labeling is specific.

Added with edit: copied from the January 2014 UL Marking Guide for Panelboards (bold is mine)
14. TEMPERATURE RATING OF INSTALLED CONDUCTORS
In general, the testing and construction of panelboards are based on the use of 60°C ampacities for
wire size Nos. 14±1 AWG and 75°C ampacities for wire size Nos. 1/0 AWG and larger, taken from
Table 310.15(B)(16) of the NEC, with no adjustment made for correction factors. Panelboards are
marked to indicate temperature ratings and sizes of conductors that can be used.

Very specific there.

I'm sorry, forgive my ignorance. Does it say at what angle the ends of conductors must be clipped? I've got some here that appear to have been clipped with linesman's pliers, and some others which inexplicably terminate with a square cut as if by a saw. Which of these is permissible? or do you take issue with both since the listing does not specify the geometry of the cut? Can the ends of two conductors in a single terminal touch after the connection, or must they be splayed to avoid further contact and possible interpretation as "a single conductor with slightly less than 1 twist?" What is going on here? This has got to be the stupidest thread derailment I've seen in at least a week.

Originally Posted by Krow Bar

What is going on here? This has got to be the stupidest thread derailment I've seen in at least a week.

I expect nothing less from someone who goes by the name "Krow Bar" ...