Need help with main panel board buss bar

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by mlarson

All right guys.

Originally Posted by mlarson

Since you both are licensed electricains answer me this:

1. If this has been a requirement since UL 67 came out, why haven't those who teach electricians been able to communicate this fact to all interesed parties?

The simple answer to this question is because of the verbiage in the NEC.
The only thing that could be enforced with any UL document was if it was included with the equipment as part of the labeling of the equipment. Joe has posted the panel in his house and it does not have any language that would lead anyone to accept that they couldn’t be doubled up or even three under one screw.
For Standard 67 to be enforceable it would had to have been induced into the code or written on the label that was installed in the panel. There is no way that a UL standard can be enforced unless the jurisdiction adopts that standard into law just the same as the NEC is adopted.
In areas of the country where the NEC is not adopted then the UL Standard 67 would only be good to use in the out house.

Originally Posted by mlarson

2. I see a EGC and grounded conductor from the same circuit under a single screw very often. Why do so many licensed electricians do this? And what is the hazard associated with this?

There is no way to mandate that any panel with double neutrals be changed that was installed before 2002. It would be like saying that a house built in 1935 must have outside receptacles. Just ain’t gonna happen.
The only danger in having two or more neutrals under one screw or a neutral and an equipment grounding conductor under one screw can be found in this statement from the IAEI.

Read the last couple of sentences of this paragraph for a better understanding or why Standard 67 was written and inducted into the NEC in 2002. This is from the Analysis of Changes 2002 NEC published by the International Association of Electrical Inspectors



The only danger is from one of the neutrals being removed while the others are still energized.
This is why you still find electricians that will continue to install them and will never stop. There is no danger in the operation of the system itself only if it ever needs to be changed. Those electricians that continue to make the installations also think that no one should be working in a panel unless they know what they are doing so therefore they can’t see the danger.

As you said, “I see a EGC and grounded conductor from the same circuit under a single screw very often”
How many of these look like they have any kind of damage?
How many was working just fine?
Where did you see a danger other than all the hype that has been thrown around about the matter?
If you see it and feel that there is a problem by all means call it out but in the same sentence let me say, don’t be offended if an electrician comes along and says that it is not a problem or that there is nothing than can mandate it to be changed.
The bottom line is that any panel installed before the adoption of the 2002 Edition of the NEC can not be force to be changed.
UL Standards are not part of the code and the code before the adoption of the 2002 edition only said that the equipment had to be installed according to any instruction that came with the equipment.

For an electrician or an inspector to have the knowledge of all the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL) would cost a small fortune. There is Underwriters Laboratories, Met Laboratories, Intertec Laboratories, CSA International and National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) just to name a few. Each one of these will have a standard that is written just a little different.
Which one shall we enforce?
That is why 110.3(B) is in the code. The instructions MUST be included with the equipment or it is not enforceable. This is why there has been no big push with educators to inform the electricians and code enforcement officials about standard 67 until it was adopted into the NEC.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

Yes it is singular in the grounding terminal but goes on to say that two or three can be installed.

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

Yes you are correct for the

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

"Equipment Grounding Conductor" aren't we discussing the "Grounded (Neutral)" conductor?

Are we looking at the same thing Joe?

Where do you see "Equipment Grounding Conductor"?

Is the neutral not a ground?

Come on buddy I know you can do better than that.



By the way, why do you have all that blank space under your signature?

[jtedesco1]

The neutral is not a ground!


See the term Ground and Grounded Conductor defined in industry standards.

The two bars above serve different purposes when not in the main service equipment enclosure.

Sorry Mike but I must get back to my business, it has been fun though!

[jtedesco1]

PS: Make up your mind!

[Mike Whitt]

Ground. A conducting connection, whether intentional or accidental, between an electrical circuit or equipment and the earth or to some conducting body that serves in place of the earth.

Grounded. Connected to earth or to some conducting body that serves in place of the earth.

Grounded Conductor. A system or circuit conductor that is intentionally grounded.

ARTICLE 200 Use and Identification of Grounded Conductors

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.

Yes sir Joe I have enjoyed it. Hope you have a great day

[Mike Whitt]

I was messing around when I found this;

Up until I saw this I was finished with that thread unless someone had another question. Someone must have questions concerning this thread if they feel that I was wasting their time.

First let me say that in no uncertain terms am I saying to not call out anything that you as a Home Inspector feels is a danger. It has not been my intention to say that a doubled neutral should not be called out.

What I have been trying to stress is the answer to this question;

Originally Posted by smcintire

Need help with main panel board buss bar. how far back in the code books or any other listing is it a defect to double tap grounded conductors at the buss bar? I have found NEC 408.41 which appears to be 2005 code and NEC 408.21 from 2002 Code. I have always assumed this went back to the 60's. I am doing research on a house built in 1990 with numerous double taps. Prior to 2002 was it mostly dependent on manufactures or is there something else?

This was the question of the original poster as can be seen here

The simple answer to his question is that there is nothing that can be used to enforce the installation of one neutral per screw until the verbiage was added to the 2002 code cycle.
With all this rent and raving about Standard 67 I don’t see where anyone has posted a copy of this standard.
Just what is Standard 67? This is taken from the UL Marking Guide Panelboards 2004 that can be see here

The product names for modular panelboards are “Panelboard Module” and “Panelboard Accessory Module.”

The basic Standard used to investigate products in these categories is the Standard for Panelboards, UL 67. In addition, each accessory module in a modular panelboard system is investigated in accordance with the applicable UL Standard.
Panelboard markings may be molded, die-stamped, paint-stenciled, stamped, etched in metal that is permanently secured, or printed on a label secured by adhesive and located so that it will not be covered when the units are installed. Some markings may be located on a wiring diagram in a pocket within the panelboard.

With this information from UL it is easy to see that the verbiage used on the label is what the electrical contractor and the code enforcement official uses to determine how to install conductors.
Using the label form a panel that was posted in this thread it is easy to see that there was no verbiage to stop the doubling of the neutral under one screw.

More information on Panelboards can be obtained from the UL White Book found here Type in QEUY to go straight to panel boards in the search box.
You will find that there is no mention of Standard 67 to be found in the White Book.

PANELBOARDS (QEUY)
GENERAL
This category covers lighting and power panelboards rated 600 V or less. Panelboards are intended for mounting in cabinets or cutout boxes which may be provided with the panel or provided separately. Only panelboards marked to indicate that they are for use in a specific box and panelboards labeled as ‘‘Enclosed Panelboards’’ have been investigated to determine that box wiring space is adequate.
USE, INSTALLATION AND MARKINGS

The information found in the White Book is what the electrical contractor and the code enforcement official will use in determining if the installation is in compliance or not. If there is no mention of one screw one wire in the White Book then there is no mention of one screw one wire in the use and installation of the panel.

I want to point out that I have given references to every statement that I have made that backs my statements and links to the same information. The links are to UL and what the listing and labeling is on panelboards. I have also given the sections of the NEC that pertain to the question that was asked in the original post as well as the year that the section was added to the code.
I have also posted what the IAEI, the biggest educator of electrical inspectors, has to say the reason was for not doubling up the neutrals on a terminal and the only danger they mentioned was the danger involved with the removal of one of the conductors.
What I have not done is post a bunch of pictures and links with unfounded information and gibberish that means absolutely nothing concerning the subject matter. I have not tried to make it sound like the doubling up of neutrals was a life safety issue simply because it is not.

I can also promise that for every one person that thinks I am wasting their time and wants to post a red flag there are dozens out there that will use the information to be better at what they do and do it with the proper information. These will be the ones that don’t come back belittling the electrician that overturned their findings as they will have a better understanding of just what is and was required at the time of the installation.

In closing I would like to also say that a UL Standard is the guide lines used during testing and the wording contained there in has nothing to do with wording in the listing, labeling and installation instructions.

You as the Home Inspector have a choice. You can blindly follow what someone has to say just because they painted a pretty picture or you can follow those words printed by UL and the NEC.
What I have given you are these words and links that you can follow so you can see them for yourself and have not tried to influence your decision in anyway.
The final call is yours to make. The accuracy of your call will be better establish with backing from a NRTL such as UL and the codes be it the NEC or the ICC than if you use something that someone has posted on a discussion forum without any substitution other than a bunch of pictures and unfounded links.

Also remember that when I am called in as an electrician to check your findings I will be bringing with me the information that I have posted. If we both use the same information I would bet that we will both have the same findings.

[Steve McIntire]

Mike, Thanks for the info. I have not seen were any of the other information disputes what you are saying. I also like to have references for my defect statements, which helps keep me from looking like an idiot. I do appreciate the reference's given. Have a good weekend!

[jtedesco1]

Originally Posted by smcintire

Mike, Thanks for the info. I have not seen were any of the other information disputes what you are saying. I also like to have references for my defect statements, which helps keep me from looking like an idiot. I do appreciate the reference's given. Have a good weekend!

See the attached UL Pages from the Directory where UL 67 is identified!

Always was required, that's the key!

Look again!

"In case you’re interested, UL 67 has always required the one-neutral-per-terminal rule but the NEC has only specifically articulated that requirement since 2002. (See the attached code panel log.)"

[Steve McIntire]

Joe, When was Standard 67 accepted as part of the UL listing ?

[jtedesco1]

Originally Posted by smcintire

Joe, When was Standard 67 accepted as part of the UL listing ?

1917

Scope

Table of Contents

[Mike Whitt]

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.

Doubling up on the neutrals creates a significant problem when the circuit needs to be isolated. In order to isolate the circuit, the branch breaker is turned off and the neutral is disconnected by removing it from the terminal. If the terminal is shared with another circuit, the connection on the other (still energized) circuit will be loosened as well. This can wreak havoc, particularly if the neutral is part of a 120/240V multi-wire branch circuit. Also, the neutral assemblies are not evaluated with doubled-up neutrals in the terminals. The connection of a neutral and equipment grounding conductor creates a similar issue.

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.

Originally Posted by smcintire

Joe, When was Standard 67 accepted as part of the UL listing?

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.

[jtedesco1]

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!

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

I have a copy of UL 67 and it is Not free! Costs over $1,000.00.

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.

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

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

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.

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

Contact UL and get on that committee.

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.

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

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!

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;

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.

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

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.

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?

[jtedesco1]

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.