So you say this is OK?

I say it is not OK!

At least they didnt use duct tape.

At least a couple of radiator clamps would be nice…:wink: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

What is this copper strap (original zip tie) for and called?

I write up all twisted GECs under a single lug.


I write those up all day long. What would be the proper verbage and code citation for that??

As ugly as that is, using 250.122 you are only obligated to end up on a wire sized to protect for the largest breaker in the cludge so you are left with a possible listing violation on the “bugs” (how many wires will it connect) and the nebulous “workmanship” catch all.
If each group of branches in the “tree” was made with a listed splicing device, within it’s limits and it all ended up on one wire that was large enough I am not sure where the violation is.

Where the panelboard is used with nonmetallic raceway or cable or where separate grounding conductors are provided, a terminal bar for the grounding conductors shall be secured inside the cabinet.


I see grounds “bundled” under a single, large terminal lug all the time. was permitted by the AHJ.

I even see neutrals bundled, as in older PushMatic panels. I always flag it.

I would raise concerns with what is seen in the pic, but not cite code.

Thanks Joe

My pleasure, and we are all aware that the code reference was for information only and that the HI does not include that information in their reports, as Joe mentions, by not citing code.

This is understood, the point being is that it should be noted.

You can wisper in the ear of the electrician though just to show that you are aware of the rules have good reasons to make the defect apparent to CYA.

code reference 408.40

Niether of those references prohibit tapping an EGC

Well…this is all new to me.

Whenever I find numerous twisted GEC’s tapped under one single bolt, I’ve been calling them out.

So you’re saying they are no big deal???

It is sloppy and bad workmanship, probably indicating unlicensed activity but strictly speaking I am not sure it is a code violation assuming listed splicing methods are used and the terminal wire is big enough to protect the highest ampacity circuit connected.

So if you were inspecting a panel with all the GEC’s twisted under a single bolt, you’d let the installation slide?

They would certainly be looking at the listing for the split bolt to show me how many wires it was listed for.

An example that I would have to hold my nose and accept would be 3 #12 EGCs plus a #12 pigtail under a red wirenut and the pigtail landed on the grounding bus.

why would you have to hold your nose at this set-up?
I believe reds are rated for (5) #12’s.

I’ve seen where like 8 egc’s (14-12#) go under a wire nut, and a signel 12# comes out and terminates on the bar.

I know this is sat, if nut is sized correctly, just another case of being messy.


Jeff the nose holding is only for consolidating the grounds instead of installing another ground bus. It is “not illegal” if they use listed splices but still undesirable. I would have to balance that against using an unlisted ground bus in an older panel where the listed bus is not available.
Certainly the best solution is a supplimental ground bus, listed for the panel in question. I would even prefer another brand bus (not listed in this panel) to this bundling but the question was what was legal.

If I had to make a decision about an unlisted ground bus I would be very happy to accept it if they jumpered it to the neutral bus (or main grounding bus in a sub) with a 250-66 compliant jumper and OK with a 250-122 jumper as long as the can was properly bonded. Personally I always looped a 250-66 jumper through all ground busses, landed on the proper bus for the panel configuration and did not depend on the 10-32 screws for anything but mechanical connection. … but that is not really in the code.