Need help with main panel board buss bar

Specific Inspection Topics Electrical Inspections
41

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.

42

I have a copy of UL 67 and it is Not free!

Costs over $1,000.00.

The product manufacturers use it and many of your added comments are incorrect, and within UL 67 are clarified.

Contact UL and get on that committee.

You are surely in the minority here, and as far as I am concerned (we or I am) (are) finished, we will have to agree to disagree!

43

*Not for everyone. Do you have the other Standards that are referred to in Standard 67? I think that it references about 30 other standards. *CLICK HERE to see the other standards that are referenced. Look at the bottom of the page.

I agree that Standard 67 is the standard that UL uses to investigate panelboards and that the manufacture of panels is most certainly going to want to build the panel to that standard.
I would beg to differ with you as to the accuracy of my statements. I think that UL Standard 50 covers the enclosure, and UL Standard 486 covers the terminal bars or any connector that is allowed to carry current.
Please show me where I am wrong.

don’t want to be on the committee. In the first place I don’t have the time as I already sit several committees for other organizations.

I may be in a minority with this discussion but I don’t see how being there aren’t but two of us unless you are counting yourself as more than one,……heee…heee…heee. (that was meant to be funny Joe)

The only thing that we are in disagreement with is the use of UL Standard 67 to say that it has always been mandated that neutrals not be double lugged in a panel.

The only thing that can be used to mandate how an electrical system is installed is the adopted code. This is what the Code Enforcement Official will use to do his inspection and what the electrical contractor will use to make the installation.

Until the induction of 408.21 into the 2002 code cycle the only other code section that could be used to stop the doubling of the neutrals was 110.3(B) and unless the whole of UL Standard 67 was included in the instructions with the listing or labeling it could not be enforced.
The fact that you say you gave $1000 for your copy says that it was not included with the installation instructions thereby relieving 110.3(B) from enforcement.

On the label that was included with the UL Labeling of the panel was the information given as to the use of the ground bar wire sizes and number per terminal.

It is important to remember that in a service panel or one that is rated as service equipment that there has to be a bonding jumper that connects all of the following to earth, the equipment grounding conductors, the grounded conductor (the neutral), the grounding electrode conductor and the panel itself.

Most panel manufacturers would install a factory bonding jumper that would tie the two terminal bars together as in this CH panel;

706×448 57 KB

Now both terminal bars are the same and both the equipment grounding conductor and the circuit neutral can land on either bar.

This panel allows three #14 or #12 conductors per terminal screw. Until section 408.21 of the 2002 code cycle there was no code section that would stop three conductors being installed no matter which, EGC or neutral or both.
The instructions included on the label in the panel were all that could be enforced.

So to answer Mr. McIntire’s question UL Standard 67 would not come into play. To use links to people dying is not the proper way to answer Steve’s question either.
He ask what was used to stop the doubling of neutrals before the 2002 code cycle and the simple answer is, “nothing”

I don’t like seeing two neutrals under one screw and have never made any such installation. I also teach that it is not a good idea and have taught it as a code violation after 2002.
I also make sure that each student understands the danger of adding a bar to the back of a panel for more places to terminate and the need to have a bonding jumper install if it is a service and to never land a neutral on one in a remote panel.
This practice which is getting worse is common place around here due to the requirement in 408 where someone is doing work in an old panel and trying to clean it up.

Case in point;

Young couple bought an old house that didn’t have equipment grounding conductors in the existing circuits.
Couple remodels the old house and adds a laundry room to the end of the house that had the service and upgraded the service leaving the old panel as a sub. Deciding to tile the wash room floor and half way up the walls all the circuits were turned of so the devices could be removed.
After the tile work is completed and all the devices are reinstalled the circuits were turned back on and as the panel door was being closed she felt a shock.

A bar was added and neutrals landed on it. This made the panel including the cover part of the circuit and she was standing on the new tile which let current flow.
The addition of a bar is what needs more attention than two under one screw.

44

Thank you for your posts, Mike.

I’m not sure I follow you. Was the case in point because the neutrals (grounded conductors) were not isolated in the sub (remote distibution) panel which was the original main service disconnect?

45

See110.14, been in the Code for many years. I stand behind all of my comments. links, and continue with what I believe is what this industry has been taught for many years.

46

110.14 Electrical Connections.
(A) Terminals. Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified.

The terninals are identified for more than one conductor on the UL label

And you have this right to continue as long as you like no matter if you are right or wrong.

All I am looking to do is give the Home Inspector the correct information to make his call so there won’t continue to be the conflict between Home Inspectors and electrical inspectors and contractors that we have today and in the past.

We both have presented our case and given links to what each of us think is the intent of the process and all that is left is for the Home Inspectors to make up their own minds.

The bottom line is which can produce the best backing when it comes down to presenting the information.

As the contractor working for the seller of a home I will use the same material that I use to make the installation and that the code enforcement official used to inspect.
I will also ask you the Home Inspector working for the buyer to show me the data to back your comment.

Can you see the delimma that this would put the Home Inspector in Joe?
This means that the Home Inspector would need every copy of UL Standard 67 for the year every house he inspected was built. Even then there is no language that would allow it to be enforced.

I agree that two grounds (neutrals) under one screw is not good practice but there is nothing that can mandate them be changed if installed before 2002.

Being that you have a copy of 67 how about scanning the part where it covers the installation of neutrals for us all to see.

47

12.3.10 An individual terminal shall be provided for the connection of each branch-circuit neutral conductor.

48

Can you scan it and then post it so we all can see it. please.

Here (see1.1 a) is what I found by clicking on 486-A at the botton of this link

49

Don’t have a scanner, besides the document is a PDF file, I copied the section above.

50

Then could please post the link to that doc.?

51

**UL486A covers Wire Connectors! :slight_smile: **

52

How can I post a link to the UL 67 11th R2003.PDF file on my computer Mike?

I am not sure about what more you need?

53

If it is a file on you computer then you can copy and paste it to this forum. I would like to see the entire page if it isn’t to much trouble.

54

Joe

Being we were discussing the doubling of neutrals and how Stndard 67 could control the doubling of neutrals and the induction of the requirement in the NEC, wouldn’t we need the information to come from the Standard before it was revised in Feb. of 2003?

Seeing how the requirement was in the 2002 code what any Standard said that was published after that date would reflect the NEC to start with.

55

Looks pretty straight forward to me.

56

The pages are encrypted, and the product was provided by my employer and the following is found on each page:

Copyright Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Provided by IHS under license with UL
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

I did post the first page earlier, and there is a UL person identified who can be contacted.

PS: I found this site and saw where the first quote is the same one you use on JLC:

http://www.cowboyway.com/CowboyQuotes.htm

“Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction”

Who wrote that?

57

I don’t know who was first but it is something that my Grandpa said to my Grandma all the time when I was a kid a couple of years ago.

After saying that to her he would always say, “well honey you don’t look like a bull or a horse so what is left?”

At night we could hear her get even by saying, “watch your approach cause I ain’t a bull or a horse.”
I guess she was telling him to not approach from any direction :mrgreen:

58

Can you explain the differences between the two (ground/neutral) in a main panel, please.

Edited to Continue;

The NEC defines the “grounded conductor” as a system or circuit conductor that is intentionally grounded. It also defines “grounded” as being connected to earth.

The NEC also has one Article that explains the use and identification of “Grounded Conductor”, Article 200. This conductor is required to be white or gray.

200.6 Means of Identifying Grounded Conductors.
(A) Sizes 6 AWG or Smaller. An insulated grounded conductor of 6 AWG or smaller shall be identified by a continuous white or gray outer finish or by three continuous white stripes on other than green insulation along its entire length.

Through out the entire NEC it refers to the “grounded conductor” as what we call the “neutral”

There is a whole Article in the NEC that addresses the “Grounding and Bonding, This Article is 250. Article 250 mandates that the grounding conductor be green or bare.

250.119 Identification of Equipment Grounding Conductors.
Unless required elsewhere in this Code, equipment grounding conductors shall be permitted to be bare, covered, or insulated. Individually covered or insulated equipment grounding conductors shall have a continuous outer finish that is either green or green with one or more yellow stripes except as permitted in this section

In the picture that is posted it tells us that we can have up to three copper conductors sized #10 or smaller in the “ground” bar. It does not say which of the two is to be used, ing or ed. It only says that it is connected to earth.

If we look closely at 250.142 we can clearly see that the grounded (neutral) can in fact be the grounding conductor at the service.

250.142 Use of Grounded Circuit Conductor for Grounding Equipment.
(A) Supply-Side Equipment. A grounded (neutral) circuit conductor shall be permitted to ground non–current-carrying metal parts of equipment, raceways, and other enclosures at any of the following locations:
(1) On the supply side or within the enclosure of the ac service-disconnecting means
(2) On the supply side or within the enclosure of the main disconnecting means for separate buildings as provided in 250.32(B)
(3) On the supply side or within the enclosure of the main disconnecting means or overcurrent devices of a separately derived system where permitted by 250.30(A)(1)
— the word neutral in blue was added by me----

250.142 goes on to tell us that;
(B) Load-Side Equipment. Except as permitted in 250.30(A)(1) separately derived ac system ] and 250.32(B) [separate building or structure], a grounded (neutral) circuit conductor shall not be used for grounding non–current-carrying metal parts of equipment on the load side of the service disconnecting means or on the load side of a separately derived system disconnecting means or the overcurrent devices for a separately derived system not having a main disconnecting means.
—blue wording added by me for clarity—

Any where except in the service equipment the ed and ing must be keep separate but in the service equipment they both carry the same weight. Both can land on the same bar and be installed in the same manner until the adoption of the 2002 code which says;
408.41 Grounded (neutral) Conductor Terminations.
Each grounded (neutral) conductor shall terminate within the panelboard in an individual terminal that is not also used for another conductor.

It is simple to see that before the adoption of the 2002 code cycle the grounded (neutral) conductor could land as outlined in the wording on the UL label installed in the panel.
With the picture that Joe posted, should this have been the service equipment then it would have been permissible to land three grounded (neutral) conductors #10 or smaller under one screw as outlined on his label.

59

My prior post was simply stating that the panel label Joe posted clearly shows Ground bar wire size states 2 or 3 #14-#10 AWG etc.
Where as Neutral Bar Wire size makes no mention of multiple conductors telling this generalist that only ONE neutral conductor should be under each ground lug.
How many pictures like this do we have to see … IMHO ONE is too many.

60

And what I did in my post was show that the ground bar in the service equipment can accept either what the generalist calls the neutral and the equipment grounding conductor.
If the panel that Joe posted was the service equipment the generalist could land three neutrals on the ground bar under one screw in the year that Joe’s panel was installed and do it in compliance of the NEC.

The most important thing that we as professionals (the electrician, code eforcement official and the Home Inspector) are not generalist.
We are supposed to know that the neutral is the grounded conductor and as the panel pointed out the bar is for ground.

The bar did not say equipment grounding only