408.41 Grounded Conductors

[kwired]

It seems that this thread has veered off on a tangent to where we're trying to find ways to circumvent the NEC just to prove a point. If we get back to the OP Larry stated that he has three branch circuits (on different phases) entering a panel enclosure and wants to splice the three neutrals together and land one neutral pigtail on the neutral bar. This is code compliant because a MWBC has been created (as long as the MWBC requirements are also met). It does not create parallel conductors because the neutrals are not connected at both ends.

So the question has always been since post #2 are neutrals permitted to be spliced and pigtailed in a cabinet? The answer is yes, the unclear part is why the NEC refers to "within the panelboard" when applying 408.41, IMO it's just a poor choice of words.

Well worded and covers most of how I see this. Doesn't matter if you bring the neutrals to a common conductor in the cabinet housing the panelboard, in a junction box immediately adjacent to the panel, or in a junction box 100 feet away, you have created a MWBC by using the common neutral, common trip/handle tie rule applies. If you bring in other conductors supplied by other than one of each "phase", you have an improper MWBC per NEC, even if you compensate by increasing the size of the common conductor.

 

[JFletcher]

It seems that this thread has veered off on a tangent to where we're trying to find ways to circumvent the NEC just to prove a point. If we get back to the OP Larry stated that he has three branch circuits (on different phases) entering a panel enclosure and wants to splice the three neutrals together and land one neutral pigtail on the neutral bar. This is code compliant because a MWBC has been created (as long as the MWBC requirements are also met). It does not create parallel conductors because the neutrals are not connected at both ends.

So the question has always been since post #2 are neutrals permitted to be spliced and pigtailed in a cabinet? The answer is yes, the unclear part is why the NEC refers to "within the panelboard" when applying 408.41, IMO it's just a poor choice of words.

Going to this point, the article 100 definition of a panel board would include the neutral bar(s), yes? if so, the phrase "within the panel board" means to me that you cannot use a jumper of any size from the neutral bar to a connection that does more than create a multiwire branch circuit.

In other words, I do not see how one can compliantly connect four or more neutrals under a Polaris block to a jumper to the neutral bar and call that part of the circuit a feeder, tap, w/e, nor is it part of the panel board, relavent wording being "designed for assembly in the form of a single panel".

And infinity, you are correct, I was going to edit out the line about parallel conductors and ran out of time.

 

[kwired]

Where in the definition of a panelboard does it provide any clarity on whether the neutral bar is a part of the panelboard, and where in 408.41 does it say that the circuit conductors need to be terminated to the panelboard? I don't see either.

It doesn't, but it is the item that goes into the cabinet. Are you going to land your conductors (grounded or ungrounded) on the cabinet? Only EGC bars and main bonding jumpers attach to the cabinet, the neutral is one of the panelboard buses, it just happens to be a little differently constructed most of the time than the ungrounded buses.

Loadcenters that are already assembled and sold as one unit have the neutral bus attached to the panelboard frame and it comes out of the cabinet with the panelboard.

Commercial panelboards where you actually have to order/specify the panelboard and cabinet to use the neutral is also a part of the panelboard assembly.

I-line panels I think you may have to order the neutral assembly as a separate component - but it attaches to the panelboard portion, I think you order separately more because there may be more than one option more so then because it is not considered part of the assembly. I line is also one case that can have corner grounded delta, especially over 240 volts and wouldn't even need a neutral bus because there is no neutral in a corner grounded delta. You still have EGC's however.

 

[wwhitney]

The language that would preclude Wayne's installation of a Polaris connector from a feeder to branch circuits is in the article 100 definition of a panel board. That Polaris connector is not part of the panel board, thus would violate 408.41.

408.41 does not apply to every termination within the panelboard enclosure. It only applies to terminations within the panelboard itself, i.e. to a manufacturer supplied terminal bar.

While you can physically put 4 branch circuit neutrals into a Wago with a pigtail running to the neutral bar, this violates numerous Electrical Codes, which is that now you have parallel small conductors, and if you also happen to pull three or four of those branch circuit neutrals from circuits on the same leg, there is no way the pigtail to the neutral bar could be sized large enough for the additive load.

Sorry, I don't think you've come up with any violations. There are no parallel conductors. As to overloading the pigtail, it would obviously have to be sized appropriately.

Jaggedben, I'm going to wait for Wayne to reply before answering your question.

Oh, I was waiting for you to reply to jaggedben, because his response was spot on.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[kwired]

408.41 does not apply to every termination within the panelboard enclosure. It only applies to terminations within the panelboard itself, i.e. to a manufacturer supplied terminal bar.

I can agree with that, now what you have connected to it becomes a branch circuit conductor that happens to split into more than one diretion, the neutral of a MWBC or something that violates what NEC calls a MWBC, if you install a "pigtail to multiple conductors".

 

[wwhitney]

It seems that this thread has veered off on a tangent to where we're trying to find ways to circumvent the NEC just to prove a point.

I'm just trying to see if the NEC says what we think it says, or if we are just relying on additional convention not printed in the NEC.

If we get back to the OP Larry stated that he has three branch circuits (on different phases) entering a panel enclosure and wants to splice the three neutrals together and land one neutral pigtail on the neutral bar. This is code compliant because a MWBC has been created (as long as the MWBC requirements are also met).

If that pigtail is a branch circuit conductor, then I agree that it creates an MWBC. But if that pigtail is part of the feeder (like the neutral bar itself), then there is no MWBC. I don't see any NEC citations in this thread that resolve that question.

Regardless of what happens to the neutral conductors there is no OCPD on both ends therefore it cannot be a feeder by definition.

I don't understand your comment. The grounded conductor almost never has OCPD in it, so using the location of OCPD within the grounded conductor is not a useful way to determine the feeder/branch circuit boundary. It only works for the ungrounded conductors.

the unclear part is why the NEC refers to "within the panelboard" when applying 408.41, IMO it's just a poor choice of words.

Agreed.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jaggedben]

...
So the question has always been since post #2 are neutrals permitted to be spliced and pigtailed in a cabinet? The answer is yes, the unclear part is why the NEC refers to "within the panelboard" when applying 408.41, IMO it's just a poor choice of words.

:thumbsup:

The wording could no doubt be improved. Which is why I look back to the intent.

Going to this point, the article 100 definition of a panel board would include the neutral bar(s), yes? ...

I think it is a huge stretch to claim that the definition makes it at all clear. It seems a rather antiquated definition. In most 'load centers' I encounter, the neutral bar is a quite distinct component from the assembly that accepts the breakers, which is what I would call the 'panelboard.'.

 

[kwired]

If that pigtail is a branch circuit conductor, then I agree that it creates an MWBC. But if that pigtail is part of the feeder (like the neutral bar itself), then there is no MWBC. I don't see any NEC citations in this thread that resolve that question.


I don't understand your comment. The grounded conductor almost never has OCPD in it, so using the location of OCPD within the grounded conductor is not a useful way to determine the feeder/branch circuit boundary. It only works for the ungrounded conductors.

But is the pigtail only part of the feeder if it has same current carrying ability as the feeder neutral conductor? I don't think NEC really answers this question.

Like I said earlier NEC definition of feeder doesn't necessarily omit the neutral conductor, but primarily refers to things that only apply to the ungrounded conductors, making the line between feeder and branch circuit kind of blurry when talking about the neutral conductor.

 

[JFletcher]

Okay, I'm going to try this one last time a different way. In an average residential breaker cabinet, you have the cabinet itself, which we all agree is a place where splices can be made per 312.8.

We have a feeder supplying electricity to the panel board, yes?

The feeder stops at the point where it joins the lugs or terminals of the panel board, yes?

Now, I bring in the article 100 definition of a panel board, because it is a single piece that is manufactured and listed that way. Yes/no?

The factory-installed neutral bar connects to the factory-installed bus that goes to a factory-installed lug that is connected to the feeder correct? All of these parts are integral to a single panel board.

Now, here is where my argument lies: I do not believe that extending the neutral bar via a jumper to Polaris connector or whatever is allowed by code. You are essentially creating a field neutral bar out of cobbled-together parts. Regardless of how well or how poorly this is done, you now have a neutral connection that is not "within the panel board", your field made jumper and Polaris connector are exterior to the panel board and thus in violation of 408.41. the panel board is a single manufactured piece, and although it has various replacement and bolt on Parts, all of these are manufacturer listed to be used as part of that panel board. If the jumper and Polaris connector do not violate 408.41, then they violate the listing of the panel by improperly extending its neutral bar. To me it is similar to using a breaker in a panel that is not listed for that manufacturer of breaker.

That jumper is not a feeder, and it is not part of the panel board. It is part of the branch circuit wiring.

Lack of neutral terminals seem to be a very common problem in older panels. Is replacing the factory-installed neutral bar with a longer one not an option?

I will also agree that there may not be any other better options than a neutral pigtail designed to carry the maximum current imbalance of the attached circuits, however at that point you do not have a proper multiwire branch circuit you have a code violation so we're back to where we started.

The neutral bar itself is part of the panel board, it is not part of the feeder.

 

[infinity]

In an attempt to stay on topic what does a feeder have to do with this thread?

 

[JFletcher]

In an attempt to stay on topic what does a feeder have to do with this thread?

Wayne's previous post was that the jumper between Polaris terminal block and the neutral bar was a feeder, and that because a terminal block is used, it meets the requirements for 408.41.. if I understood his post correctly.

And with all due respect, we are staying on topic by discussing 408 41 in its entirety, not just how it applies to the original posters question. yes, there has been discussion of a few different types of installs, a few other code articles, and a few definitions, however it couldn't really be more on topic in my opinion.

And to Wayne, I hope that my posts do not come off as aggravated or confrontational, I quite enjoy our debate regardless of if we agree to disagree, one of us convinces the other of our position, or we both agree that the code is open to interpretation and or that the language is just simply bad when it falls under this level of scrutiny.

 

[jaggedben]

Okay, I'm going to try this one last time a different way. In an average residential breaker cabinet, you have the cabinet itself, which we all agree is a place where splices can be made per 312.8.

We have a feeder supplying electricity to the panel board, yes?

Yes

The feeder stops at the point where it joins the lugs or terminals of the panel board, yes?

Not clear. By definition, the ungrounded conductors of the feeder stop at the branch circuit overcurrent devices. In other topics it has been argued that panelboard busbars are part of a feeder.

Now, I bring in the article 100 definition of a panel board, because it is a single piece that is manufactured and listed that way. Yes/no?

Yes, and by that logic, if the neutral bar is a separate piece from the breakers' assembly, then the neutral bar is not part of the panelboard.

The factory-installed neutral bar connects to the factory-installed bus that goes to a factory-installed lug that is connected to the feeder correct? All of these parts are integral to a single panel board.

Not necessarily. See last quote.

Now, here is where my argument lies: I do not believe that extending the neutral bar via a jumper to Polaris connector or whatever is allowed by code....

We'll I'm not going to respond in detail to a whole argument whose premises are questionable. If the 'pigtail' to the Polaris meets the requirements of a feeder, then what exact code section has been violated? I think you're argument is not persuasive without your pointing out some code section that addresses the question more explicitly.

In an attempt to stay on topic what does a feeder have to do with this thread?

The debate is whether a 'pigtail' from factory installed neutral bar to a connector with multiple terminals is a legitimate extension of the feeder neutral.

 

[wwhitney]

The feeder stops at the point where it joins the lugs or terminals of the panel board, yes?

No, I would say that that the busses of the panelboard and the neutral terminal bar are feeders. They are part of the circuit, and they conduct, so they are circuit conductors.

Regardless of how well or how poorly this is done, you now have a neutral connection that is not "within the panel board", your field made jumper and Polaris connector are exterior to the panel board and thus in violation of 408.41.

I don't read 408.41 to require all neutral connections within the panelboard enclosure to be made within the panelboard. Neutral connections are made in panelboard enclosures with wirenuts or other connectors all the time. Say your neutral bar and your busses are full and you need to add a circuit. You can combine two lightly loaded single pole circuits by connecting the ungrounded conductors to a jumper to a single breaker, and connecting the two grounded conductors to a jumper to a single neutral bar terminal.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[JFletcher]

No, I would say that that the busses of the panelboard and the neutral terminal bar are feeders. They are part of the circuit, and they conduct, so they are circuit conductors.


I don't read 408.41 to require all neutral connections within the panelboard enclosure to be made within the panelboard. Neutral connections are made in panelboard enclosures with wirenuts or other connectors all the time. Say your neutral bar and your busses are full and you need to add a circuit. You can combine two lightly loaded single pole circuits by connecting the ungrounded conductors to a jumper to a single breaker, and connecting the two grounded conductors to a jumper to a single neutral bar terminal.

Cheers, Wayne

Yes, you can combine circuits like that because at that point you have one circuit. One overcurrent protection device, one neutral connection to the panel bar, nothing in parallel. You could also free up neutral bar space by creating a proper multiwire branch circuit and running a pigtail to the neutral bar.

if I'm understanding your position clearly, you are stating that one could run an appropriately-sized jumper to a Polaris block of undetermined or infinite terminals, attach all your branch circuit conductors to that Polaris block, and you would have a compliant installation, even with no circuit breaker handles tied together, yes?

 

[jaggedben]

But is the pigtail only part of the feeder if it has same current carrying ability as the feeder neutral conductor? I don't think NEC really answers this question. ...

The requirement for feeder neutrals is to carry the unbalanced current or to meet table 250.122, whichever is larger. As long as you do that, I think the question is what code section has been violated. If you don't meet those size requirements, then you've violated 200.4(A).

 

[wwhitney]

if I'm understanding your position clearly, you are stating that one could run an appropriately-sized jumper to a Polaris block of undetermined or infinite terminals, attach all your branch circuit conductors to that Polaris block, and you would have a compliant installation, even with no circuit breaker handles tied together, yes?

Yes. I'm saying that nothing referenced in this thread says that you have to use the panelboard to make your neutral conductor connections. So either of the following scenarios would be fine:

1) I'm installing a new panelboard where only a few branch circuits will require a neutral connection, but I forgot to order the panelboard with a neutral bar. So instead I land the neutral wire of the feeder in a polaris connector, and I land the branch circuit neutrals in the other ports of the connector. Even though 408.41 doesn't apply, this meets the intent of 408.41, as each neutral conductor can be disconnected without affecting any of the other neutral conductors.

2) I'm adding circuits to an existing panelboard with a full neutral bar as in the OP, and I use a polaris connector instead of a wirenut. [I would argue that even using a wirenut complies with the letter of the NEC, as 408.41 doesn't apply, but it clearly violates the intention of 408.41.]

If anyone is interested, 408.41 was introduced in the 2002 NEC (the same time the article was renumbered from 384 to 408), and the proposal was accepted in the first draft, page 674 of this PDF: https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/70-A2001-ROP.pdf

Cheers, Wayne

 

[infinity]

In an attempt to stay on topic what does a feeder have to do with this thread?

Wayne's previous post was that the jumper between Polaris terminal block and the neutral bar was a feeder, and that because a terminal block is used, it meets the requirements for 408.41.. if I understood his post correctly.

And with all due respect, we are staying on topic by discussing 408 41 in its entirety, not just how it applies to the original posters question. yes, there has been discussion of a few different types of installs, a few other code articles, and a few definitions, however it couldn't really be more on topic in my opinion.

And to Wayne, I hope that my posts do not come off as aggravated or confrontational, I quite enjoy our debate regardless of if we agree to disagree, one of us convinces the other of our position, or we both agree that the code is open to interpretation and or that the language is just simply bad when it falls under this level of scrutiny.

My original question has nothing to do with feeders and none of the posts regarding them are germane to my question but since you guys seem to be having a lively discussion have at it.

 

[wwhitney]

My original question has nothing to do with feeders and none of the posts regarding them are germane to my question but since you guys seem to be having a lively discussion have at it.

I think we resolved your question in post #2 of this thread early on, so now we are discussing Larry's original question in post #1. In his situation, if the jumper to the neutral bar is a feeder, then there is no MWBC created.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[JFletcher]

Yes. I'm saying that nothing referenced in this thread says that you have to use the panelboard to make your neutral conductor connections. So either of the following scenarios would be fine:

1) I'm installing a new panelboard where only a few branch circuits will require a neutral connection, but I forgot to order the panelboard with a neutral bar. So instead I land the neutral wire of the feeder in a polaris connector, and I land the branch circuit neutrals in the other ports of the connector. Even though 408.41 doesn't apply, this meets the intent of 408.41, as each neutral conductor can be disconnected without affecting any of the other neutral conductors.

2) I'm adding circuits to an existing panelboard with a full neutral bar as in the OP, and I use a polaris connector instead of a wirenut. [I would argue that even using a wirenut complies with the letter of the NEC, as 408.41 doesn't apply, but it clearly violates the intention of 408.41.]

If anyone is interested, 408.41 was introduced in the 2002 NEC (the same time the article was renumbered from 384 to 408), and the proposal was accepted in the first draft, page 674 of this PDF: https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/70-A2001-ROP.pdf

Cheers, Wayne

Are we looking at two different 408.41? 2008 version reads:

Article 408 switches and panel boards

408.41 Grounded Conductor Terminations

"Each grounded conductor shall terminate within the panel board in an individual terminal that is not also used for another conductor"

You cannot bypass the panel board because you ordered one without a neutral bar, or the supply house messed up, etc. Also, if you order a breaker panel without a neutral buss, isn't it going to be listed or marked as a single phase 3 wire or 3 phase 3 wire? If the answer to yes is either, you now have a 4-wire feed inside and a violation there.

To your second point, I maintain that is only code compliant if you are creating a multiwire branch circuit, which by definition of only has one neutral. You cannot combine numerous branch circuit neutrals on to a Polaris connector that is either attached to the feeder or jumpered into the neutral bar.

If your installation is code compliant, then why do we even have 408.41 in the book? individual holes are covered by manufacturer listing, and if it was just individual holes, the phrase within the panel board would not be in that code section. If the word enclosure or cabinet was after panel board, then I would agree with you.

I would also stipulate that by articles 90.4 and 110.2 that any of your installations of this type that have passed inspection is de facto approval of such installations.

 

[wwhitney]

Are we looking at two different 408.41? 2008 version reads:

Article 408 switches and panel boards

408.41 Grounded Conductor Terminations

"Each grounded conductor shall terminate within the panel board in an individual terminal that is not also used for another conductor"

You cannot bypass the panel board because you ordered one without a neutral bar, or the supply house messed up, etc.

There's a few different ways to interpret the scope of the phrase "each grounded conductor", namely:

1) Each grounded conductor in the premises wiring system. This is nonsensically broad.
2) Each grounded conductor within a panelboard enclosure. As the word "enclosure" does not appear in the text, I do not find this plausible.
3) Each grounded conductor terminated on the panelboard.

So I choose option (3). If you terminate a grounded conductor on the panelboard, you have to use an individual terminal that is not also used for another conductor. That is it. If the grounded conductor doesn't go to the panelboard, then 408.41 doesn't apply.

If your installation is code compliant, then why do we even have 408.41 in the book? individual holes are covered by manufacturer listing, and if it was just individual holes, the phrase within the panel board would not be in that code section. If the word enclosure or cabinet was after panel board, then I would agree with you.

If you read the original proposal I linked to above, you will see that the intention was just about individual holes. People were putting two neutrals into one neutral bar hole. While the listing instructions prohibited this, it was still happening, so the proposer (from Square D) thought it would help inform installers if the requirement were repeated within the NEC. It was not intended to require anything the listing instructions didn't already require.

Cheers, Wayne