Joe
Again you have tried to use a standard to back something that just simply can’t be backed with a “standard”
What you persistently quote is a standard used in the process of testing and it is not part of the listing and labeling.
Look closely at the verbiage of 110.3(B) and see if you can see the word “standard” in that section.
(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.
What I see is, with any instructions included in the listing or labeling. Standard 67 is not included anywhere and in order to obtain a copy of Standard 67 it must be purchased.
In the link to the White Book that you posted you highlighted the only two times that the standard is mentioned. The first mention is in relation to panels installed in RV vehicles. The second mention is describing what the standard is used for.
REQUIREMENTS
The basic standard used to investigate products in this category is ANSI/UL 67, ‘‘Panelboards.’’
Even the White Book tells us that the Standard is part of the testing process and is not part of the listing and labeling.
The wording in 110.3(B) is basically unchanged for the past 37 years and clearly states that the equipment is to be installed in compliance with the instructions **“included” **not the instructions that are required to be purchased as outlined in all these links that you keep posting to how to purchase the standard.
Could you post the standard so we could have a better understanding of what is covered in the standard?
NO?
Why?
Could it be because of the size of the standard? (it is fairly large)
Could it be due to the cost of the standard? (it is not free and certainly not included)
Now we come to the danger. Just what is the danger? Look at what Jim had to say in the proposal that Joe posted.
As can be seen the only danger lies in the disconnection of the circuit. All the hype that has been posted about the danger is nothing more than propaganda.
I leave a panel with a multiwire branch circuit (1-black, 1-red, 1-white conductor) and go to junction box “A”. I leave box “A” with 1-black and 1-white and go to one outlet. I leave box “A” again with 1-red and 1-white and go to another outlet. The three whites are tied together in box “A” with a wire nut.
I now turn off the black circuit so I can work on its outlet. I need to replace the conductors so I open box “A” and remove the wire nut from the three white wires. I am now in the same danger that I would be in with a doubled white wire in the panel. The red circuit is still energized and the white conductor is still carrying current.
It has never been part of the UL listing. It has always been part of the UL investigation (testing) process.
It has never been included in the listing and labeling that comes with the product and has always been part of a standard that has to be purchased.
In order for 110.3(B) to apply it MUST be included in the label of the product and not something that has to be purchased separately.
Part of Standard 67 was incorporated into the NEC in the 2002 code cycle and then and only then became enforceable.
If that part of the standard was enforceable before the incorporation into the NEC then there would not have been a need to incorporate into the code process, would it?
To summarize
A standard is not included with the instructions that come with the equipment therefore not enforceable.
The only substituted danger (from the proposal) is in the removal of one of the doubled conductors.
Any thing else is nothing more than propaganda.
My statements;
I recommend that the doubling of white conductors in a panel no matter when it was installed be called out as a safety issue by today’s codes.
Don’t feel hurt if an electrical contractor or inspector says that there is nothing that can be enforced about the installation.
Understand that there is no intimate danger of instantaneous fires or any danger to the operation of the system and the only sustained danger is from the disconnection of the circuits.
What I see happening due to this dilemma is the introduction of a much bigger danger which is also a code violation as well as part of Standard 67.
When there is not enough space to land all the equipment grounding conductors and neutrals on the terminal bar that comes in the panel another bar is installed to accommodate the conductors such as the one pictured below.
To add the neutral to this bar that was added for needed space makes the panel enclosure part of the neutral path.
This is by far a more dangerous installation than the doubled neutrals.
How many of the educators are covering this aspect of the dilemma? Please understand that this illegal installation is also part of standard 67 and should be part of the education process as well.