Ground Bundle Pigtail

[Bill Smith]

Saw this one today - fairly new service panel, several egc's were bundled, then pigtailed to a bus. The bundle seems wrong and the size of the pigtail definitely seems wrong (too small -16awg). The local Electrical Inspector passed it so I'm not going to shovel sand against the tide. Just wondering what you think.

[Marc D. Shunk]

I'm sorta stumped on this one. I wouldn't do that myself, but I think it's legal as well. If I ran 10 circuits into a junction box, for instance, I only need one ground that is rated for the single biggest circuit in that box. If this was a bundle of all 16 ga. reduced grounds, one pigtail to the bar is probably legal. I forget if the QO ground bars are rated for a conductor that small, though. I don't have one handy here at home to look at, but I'm thinking they're only rated for a #14 as the smallest conductor.

[Marc D. Shunk]

I don't use Greenies myself, but I just happened to think I should look up their capacity:

#14 thru #10 AWG
Min. 2 #14
Max. 3 #12 w/ 1#14

They're not even rated for however many #16's they're holding in that picture. The second picture appears to show another big azz bundle in one ground bar hole. If that's the case, that's improper also.

[Bill Smith]

Thanks Marc-

The ground bundle in the second pic is actually the ground from the sec.

[David P. Valley]

I write up all twisted/capped grounds. That's simply a lazy way out of installing the proper bar for a secure connection of all grounds.

[Bill Smith]

I do to David. The pigtail had me stumped though.

[Paul Dickerson]

Originally Posted by dvalley

I write up all twisted/capped grounds. That's simply a lazy way out of installing the proper bar for a secure connection of all grounds.

It does seem lazy, but is it wrong? I never see it in my area, but it sure seems like it could be done within the requirements of the NEC.

[Greg Fretwell]

There was a similar question on one of the BBs I watch about bundled neutrals on an isolated bus bar in a J box for a panel swap. The cludge was fed by a white insulated wire sized to 250.66 for the panel and nobody could really point to the exact violation (if there was one).
The grounds were done the same way with only the phases extended to the panel.

[Bill Smith]

It does seem lazy, but is it wrong? I never see it in my area, but it sure seems like it could be done within the requirements of the NEC.

EGCs in sub panels should be on their own bus (384-20) but I can't find anything about ground bundles in service panels.

[Paul W. Abernathy]

( as it stands now ) as long as the connection ( wirenut in this case ) is designed to handle the number of EGC's being terminated ( which I dont think this one is... ) it can connect the EGC's....you would need to run the bonding jumper to the buss bar sized to cover the largest EGC in the splice.

The problem here is that it is a 110.3(B) violation with this wirenut, it risks improper installation, pulling off and the poor connection of an effective fault current path to the source.......which is why we properly terminate in the first place.

[David P. Valley]

Originally Posted by pabernathy

( as it stands now ) as long as the connection ( wirenut in this case ) is designed to handle the number of EGC's being terminated ( which I dont think this one is... ) it can connect the EGC's....you would need to run the bonding jumper to the buss bar sized to cover the largest EGC in the splice.

The problem here is that it is a 110.3(B) violation with this wirenut, it risks improper installation, pulling off and the poor connection of an effective fault current path to the source.......which is why we properly terminate in the first place.

Thank you, Paul.

[Bill Smith]

I appreciate the clarification Paul. Thanks -