ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat Box
Recent Posts
Southwire Recalls Electrical Outlet Boxes
by Admin - 08/21/19 06:39 PM
Fuse blower plug?
by HotLine1 - 08/20/19 01:50 PM
100 year old Light Bulb
by HotLine1 - 08/20/19 01:26 PM
Forum Updates Coming Soon.
by Admin - 08/18/19 01:55 PM
Anybody Remember this?
by Bill Addiss - 08/17/19 09:07 PM
New in the Gallery:
What is this for?
Plug terminals
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 5 guests, and 12 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: EGCs - Proper Terimation in Panel #85243 06/14/03 11:36 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 270
E
Elzappr Offline
Member
Have to agree with Don. I don't see any working that would prohibit such a pigtail arrangement. Lots of service replacement jobs have spliced conductors in panels. It ain't pretty, but it suffices... as long as the panel has adequate room for the splicing.

2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
Re: EGCs - Proper Terimation in Panel #85244 06/14/03 11:50 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 196
C
Cindy Offline
Member
my humble vote goes for the original post at the top where he says it is a devisive issue..... i'm not convinced by any of the code sections here that you can't pigtail them in the panel, but i've never seen anyone that does it... the commentary reasonoing sounds right, 1 fault at a time, so i guess if you have two-8awg's two-10awg's and two-12awg's in the right splicing device, it should be ok to use the 8awg[40a] as the pigtail, right? i wouldn't bet any money against this in a lawsuit, and if an inspector turned it down, he'd be doin' a lot of tap dancing, imho [Linked Image]

Re: EGCs - Proper Terimation in Panel #85245 06/15/03 11:42 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member
Here's a good example of what not to do, or approve when it comes to the equipment grounding conductors that are terminated in any type of cabinet:
[Linked Image]
The rule in 384-20 or now 408.20 was added to the code a long time ago to put a stop to this method.

You are entitled to your opinions, and I respect them, but the bottom line is that you will get a "RED TAG" from me if you do it this way in a new panelboard!

What's so hard about installing a simple terminal bar in an existing panel?


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Re: EGCs - Proper Terimation in Panel #85246 06/15/03 12:11 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
resqcapt19 Offline
Member
Joe,
In your last picture, there are code violations in the use of the split bolts. They are not listed for use with that many conductors and you could cite that violation. The panel also does not have an equipment grounding terminal bar which has been required for many years by 384.27 and later by 384.20 or 408.20.
Quote
The rule in 384-20 or now 408.20 was added to the code a long time ago to put a stop to this method.

The rule was placed into the code to prevent the direct connection of EGC to the panel enclosure. Nothing in the current code section says that every EGC must be directly landed to the equipment grounding bar. In the '87 code section 384.27 required that "all" of the feeder or branch circuit EGCs to be connected to the equipment grounding bar. When the section was rewritten and relocated to 384.20 in the '90 code the word "all" was deleted from the section. The code no longer clearly requires that all of the EGCs be directly connected to the equipment grounding terminal bar. There was no reason given in the TCR for the deletion of this word. It may have been unintentional. The word "all" should be put back into the section, but as the code stands now, it does not support the opinion that all of the EGCs must be directly landed to the terminal bar.
Quote
What's so hard about installing a simple terminal bar in an existing panel?

Nothing is hard about this and this is the way that the installation should be done, but this thread is not about how things should be done. It is about the absolute minimum requirements that can be supported by the current code language.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
Re: EGCs - Proper Terimation in Panel #85247 06/15/03 01:48 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member
Don:

OK, Ynow you need to show me what you are thinking about.

Please, supply a picture or drawing.

I am surprised that you are defending the strange way in which this is, or has been interpreted here just because of a simple word!

Most electrical inspectors would disagree with you, unless they are supporting a rule in the Chicago code?

What does the IBEW Apprentice program have to say about this type of installation?


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Re: EGCs - Proper Terimation in Panel #85248 06/16/03 07:33 AM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
resqcapt19 Offline
Member
Joe,
I am not defending the practice, I am only saying that the current cosde wording does not support a "red tag" for the installation. There is a big difference between how I would like to see the installation made and the code minimum requirements. The CMP made a mistake in this section in the '90 code when the word "all" was left out.
Quote
Here is a very devisive issue - if several EGCs enter a distribution panel [or service panel], can you connect two or more of them together and pigtail a properly sized conductor to the EGC terminal bus? (e.g. 3 #12s enter the panel, you connect them together and run a #12 pigtail to the terminal).

The above quote is the orginal question in this thread. All I am saying is if the installer brings in #12 EGCs and pigtails them to a single EGC and lands that EGC on the terminal bar, there is no code violation as long as the splicing device is installed per its listing as to the number of conductors. Should each EGC be directly connected to the equipment grounding bar? Of course they should be. Is there a code section that forces the installer to do that? I don't think that in the current code there is.

Don


Don(resqcapt19)
Re: EGCs - Proper Terimation in Panel #85249 06/16/03 09:17 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member
Quote
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.


The words are here -- all of the grounding conductors are required to be secured to a "Terminal Bar" not "Terminal Bars" or to each other, or to separate lugs, or bundled!


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Re: EGCs - Proper Terimation in Panel #85250 06/16/03 10:01 AM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
resqcapt19 Offline
Member
Joe,
Nothing in that section requires any of the branch circuit equipment grounding conductors to be connected to the equipment grounding terminal bar. That is certainly implied, but not specified in the wording. The only code required connection to this bar is the EGC that is installed with the panel feeder. This is just very poor code wording. We all know how it should be installed, but the actual code wording does not require us to make the installation in the correct way. In the '87 code this section (then 384.27) said that "all feeder and branch circuit EGCs shall be connected to the equipment grounding terminal". This wording was lost in the revisions for the '90 code. The old wording needs to be returned to the code. This would be a good section for a 2008 proposal.
Quote
... to be secured to a "Terminal Bar" not "Terminal Bars" ...
Are you saying that the code wording prohibits more than one equipment grounding terminal bar? Many large panels require more than one bar.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
Re: EGCs - Proper Terimation in Panel #85251 06/16/03 10:54 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member
Don:

The NEC 1989 TCR, on Page 352 for Proposal 9-142, Section 384-27, Log #1039 was "Accepted in Principle" and included in the substantiation were the following words:

"The second sentence is changed to eliminate superfluous wording"

The committee also changed the Section number from 384-27 to 384-20.

The way I see it is that the committee CMP-9 never agreed to what you interpret, and the only reason for this change was to eliminate wording "beyond what is required or sufficient."

I will stand fast with my interpretation and will look for your proposal in the 2008 NEC.


[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 06-16-2003).]


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Re: EGCs - Proper Terimation in Panel #85252 06/16/03 05:49 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
resqcapt19 Offline
Member
Joe,
In my opinion, CM-9 screwed up. They deleted the meat of the section. They removed the only words that commanded the installer to connect the branch circuit EGCs to the equipment grounding terminal bar. The words that they left in the section only command you to install the terminal bar, but they make no command that you actually use it. Of course, the use of this bar is implied in the code section, but implications cannot be enforced. If I remember, when it comes time for the 2008 proposals, I will submitt one to put the '87 wording back into the section.
Sometimes errors in the code wording are missed for many code cycles before they are brought to the surface and a proposal to make a correction is submitted. How long did the code say that you could install conduit with 360° of bends between each fitting before the error was caught and the wording changed? The use of the word "fitting" actually permitted 360° of bend between each coupling!! Was this ever the intent of the code? No way. It was just an error that was not caught for many code cycles. I think that the section being discussed in this thread is another error of this type. Everyone really knows what the code wants the installer to do, but the words just don't actually say it.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Featured:

2017 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2017 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
Joe Tedesco
Joe Tedesco
Boston, Massachusetts USA
Posts: 2,749
Joined: October 2000
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
Admin 23
GeneSF 8
Popular Topics(Views)
257,934 Are you busy
193,668 Re: Forum
183,283 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3