Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: pigtailing multiple EGC's in a panelboard

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,650

    pigtailing multiple EGC's in a panelboard

    wirenutting several EGC's to a single which then goes to the ground (or neutral if service) bar. Is this compliant? I always thought it was, but looking at 250.122(C) seems to only mention raceway, cable, or cable tray. No cabinets. IS there another section I am not aware of?
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,586
    Well, the way 250.122 (C) is written it neither prohibits or allows doing the same thing elsewhere. It simply doesn't apply to panelboards. Unless you want argue that a panelboard is a raceway. Which it arguably could be.

    A point in favor of compliance is that 312.8 allows for splices in panelboards up to reasonable limits. Also see 250.148. I guess the required size of the pigtail might be a little hard to pin down if one wanted to be particular about it.
    Last edited by jaggedben; 02-20-18 at 11:26 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    23,383
    I have done it, mainly as part of residential panel upgrades. As long as the wire is at least as large as required for the largest connected circuit, you're golden.
    Code references based on 2005 NEC
    Larry B. Fine
    Master Electrician
    Electrical Contractor
    Richmond, VA

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryFine View Post
    I have done it, mainly as part of residential panel upgrades. As long as the wire is at least as large as required for the largest connected circuit, you're golden.
    I frequently do it too. Its hard to come up with what to cite for a violation. I cant really find anything, other than the logical progression that 250.122(C) exists therefor implying I must have permission to use a single EGC for multiple circuits, and then a cabinet or box is not listed.
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
    Posts
    15,218
    Quote Originally Posted by electrofelon View Post
    I frequently do it too. Its hard to come up with what to cite for a violation. I cant really find anything, other than the logical progression that 250.122(C) exists therefor implying I must have permission to use a single EGC for multiple circuits, and then a cabinet or box is not listed.
    Legal. You cannot find a section because no section exists.
    "Electricity is really just organized lightning." George Carlin


    Derek

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by jumper View Post
    Legal. You cannot find a section because no section exists.
    then they should delete 250.122(C) since it serves no purpose yes?
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
    Posts
    15,218
    Quote Originally Posted by jaggedben View Post
    Well, the way 250.122 (C) is written it neither prohibits or allows doing the same thing elsewhere. It simply doesn't apply to panelboards. Unless you want argue that a panelboard is a raceway. Which it arguably could be.

    A point in favor of compliance is that 312.8 allows for splices in panelboards up to reasonable limits. Also see 250.148. I guess the required size of the pigtail might be a little hard to pin down if one wanted to be particular about it.
    I am gonna tell you right now:

    There is absolutely no way on earth that a panelboard could be considered a raceway.......

    The enclosure/cabinet perhaps.......
    "Electricity is really just organized lightning." George Carlin


    Derek

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
    Posts
    15,218
    Quote Originally Posted by electrofelon View Post
    then they should delete 250.122(C) since it serves no purpose yes?
    No, I do not think so.

    Tying the grounds together in the panel is rare. Easier to just land them usually.

    Only reason I have done it is for making room in a crowded panel.

    The section is just a clarification that favors the installer really.

    Can you imagine if we had to prove it was okay to a single ground for multiple circuits to an inspector using theory?
    "Electricity is really just organized lightning." George Carlin


    Derek

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    25,867
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryFine View Post
    As long as the wire is at least as large as required for the largest connected circuit, you're golden.
    I agree, I have done it on some old panels where the neutral/EGC bus didn't have enough terminal holes for all of the conductors.
    Rob

    Moderator

    All responses based on the 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NE (9.1 miles @5.07 Degrees from Winged Horses)
    Posts
    9,965
    At one time panels never seemed to have enough holes for both neutral and EG connections. Makers seemed to expect us to use MWBC whenever possible and spare EG bars were special order. Never, ever, did I hesitate to splice EGs. There that makes it all correct.
    Tom
    TBLO

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •