Using the holes in a neutral bar for more than one conductor is always a violation. Opinions vary as to the degree that it is a hazard.
1 Like
No need to put me in my place, bud.
Just trying to explain the logic behind the rule, which makes the rule itself clear to a non-electrician, IMHO.
If everyone was 100% cautious all the time and made no mistakes, permit or not, there would be no need for NEC or any other safety rules.
Yes!
In Ohio prior to May 27th 2006, that may or may not be true.
Rob, home inspections follow different rules. Home Inspections cover many different code cycles and adoptions. The codes that ‘We’ as code geeks cite will get the average HI in trouble if they don’t understand what a hazard is.
Most code violations, residential, aren’t hazards.
1 Like
Not trying to put you in your place. Your opinion is welcome.
1 Like
more grandfathered code bull 
Although this first appeared in the 2002 NEC the requirement was part of the panelboard listing for many years prior to that. Here’s the original proposal that was accepted by the CMP:
9- 113 - (384-21 (New) ): Accept
SUBMITTER: James T. Pauley, Square D Co.
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new 384-21 to read as follows:
384-21. Grounded Conductor Terminations. Each grounded
conductor shall terminate within the panelboard in an individual
terminal that is not also used for another conductor.
Exception: Grounded conductors of circuits with parallel
parallel shall be permitted to terminate in a single terminal if the
terminal is identified for connection of more than one
conductor.
SUBSTANTIATION: This revision is needed to coordinate the
installation requirements with a long standing product standard
requirement. Clause 12.3.10 of UL 67 (Panelboards) states “An
individual terminal shall be provided for the connection of each
branch-circuit neutral conductor.” The requirement has been
enforced in the past by a close review of the manufacturers
markings and by NEC 110-3(b). However, since it is a rule that
specifically effects how the installer can make connections, it is
important that it be in the NEC.
Even with the manufacturers markings, inspectors still indicate
that they see a number of panelboards installed with two (or
more) branch circuit neutrals under one terminal or they see an
equipment grounding conductor and neutral under the same
terminal.
There is very good rationale for the requirement in the product
standards. 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. One of the objectives of the
particular arrangement of bonding jumpers, neutrals and
equipment grounds is to allow circuit isolation while keeping the
equipment grounding conductor still connected to the grounding
electrode (see UL 896A - Reference standard for Service
Equipment). When the neutral is disconnected, the objective is
to still have the equipment ground solidly connected to the
grounding electrode. If both the neutral and grounded
conductor are under the same terminal, this cannot be
accomplished.
This addition to the NEC does not change any product or
permitted wiring arrangement from what it is today. It will
however, it will help installers to avoid wiring the panel in
violation of 110-3(b) and then have to contend with a red-tag
from the inspector.
The code language is proposed in a fashion to allow consistent
enforcement of the provision the the AHJ. Although the UL
wording is adequate for the product standard, it is important that
the NEC language is as clear an unambiguous as possible. This is
the reason for specifically noting that the terminal cannot be used
for another conductor. Furthermore, the code requirement has
been worded to make sure that both branch circuit and feeder
neutrals are covered since it is not uncommon to have feeder
breakers as well as branch breakers in the panelboard (the issue
for the neutral is the same regardless of branch or feeder). Also,
the term “grounded conductor” is used to be consistent with the
code terminology and to recognize that not all grounded
conductors are neutrals.
An exception has been proposed to avoid any confusion relative
to parallel circuit arrangements. In these instances, multiple
neutrals could be in a single terminal if the terminal has been
identified as acceptable for multiple conductors.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
In the proposed exception, change the second instance of the
word “parallel” to “conductors”.
PANEL STATEMENT: The correction of the typographical error
meets the intent of the submitter.
NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 11
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 11
1 Like
for 150x time 
It does not matter if this was perfectly acceptable in 1969, it is NOT acceptable in 2019, that simple! Recommend correction to bring up to modern safety standards, yes it’s 100% safety issue for people working on the system, appliances connected to the system, and fire concern when you by mistake run 240V instead of 120V through appliance meant for 120V only.
OMG ! This is like deja vu over and over again. Yep! 
1 Like
The documentation by the maker calls this a significant issue when trying to isolate a circuit. Others see this as a much lesser issue. I wonder why this was added as a direct code cite when it is considered to be so minor. Maybe they recognize the issue that some seem to ignore.
1 Like
It can become a major problem if it’s a double-tapped neutral from a multiwire branch circuit.
When disconnected to isolate one of the neutrals, as a result, this can expose 120V appliances to a voltage in excess of 200V under some conditions.
At any rate, it’s a sign of unqualified or sloppy work, and it should definitely be called out.
Then it’s the buyer’s decision as to what to do with that information.
Its only a problem if you are unqualified. If you loosen a terminal without verifying that ALL the conductors are isolated (off), you are stupid.
Why would you ever loosen a lug on a live circuit? You wouldn’t. I understand the reason for the rule. In its present condition ( a snapshot in time) it is probably perfectly safe. Now if you want to explain it to your client otherwise please do so.
My comments are meant for Ohio Home Inspectors. In Ohio if you say that it is a hazard make sure that you can proof it.
" SERIOUS HAZARD. A hazard of considerable consequence to safety or health through the design, location, construction, or equipment of a building, or the condition thereof, which hazard has been established through experience to be of certain or probable consequence, or which can be determined to be, or which is obviously such a hazard.
I’m saying watch how you report it.
1 Like
trust me for everybody in Ohio but You , that is a problem…it needs to be in the report…
Hmmm The State say no. It is not required to be changed.
Its a minor code violation and calling it dangerous does not make it so.
No one can make you change it.
1 Like
For 150x time, a home inspection does not force anyone to do anything. It is not a code inspection from the town that is either pass or fail.
1 Like
Low probability defect… There are probably 1,000,000 double tapped neutral connections in Florida alone, do you see buildings spontaneously burst into fire due to this defect, has one incident ever been recorded? Just saying… 
2 Likes
Exactly.
Don’t mistake commercial work with residential.
"The OSHA construction standard for electrical safety-related work practices states: “No employer shall permit an employee to work in such proximity to any part of an electric power circuit that the employee could contact the electric power circuit in the course of work, unless the employee is protected against electric shock by deenergizing the circuit and grounding it or by guarding it effectively by insulation or other means.”
The general industry standard states: “Live parts to which an employee may be exposed shall be deenergized before the employee works on or near them, unless the employer can demonstrate that deenergizing introduces additional or increased hazards or is infeasible due to equipment design or operational limitations. Live parts that operate at less than 50 volts to ground need not be deenergized if there will be no increased exposure to electrical burns or to explosion due to electric arcs.”
https://www.ecmag.com/section/safety/working-hot
No reason to remove wires from an energized circuit in a residential application. SO no hazard exists other than the possibility that the connections are loose. I agree that it is an issue. Just a very minor issue 99% of the time.
1 Like
That doesn’t matter. The point is if it is correct or incorrect.
1 Like
I am not going to get into the major/minor part of the argument;
Not sure if it’s up to a home inspector to delineate that, but the biggest point is - double tapped neutrals are a sign of a sloppy and/or unqualified work, and should be called out for that reason alone.
All I’m saying is that it has only been a ‘code’ requirement since 2002, I do not call our double tapped neutrals in homes built prior to that time.
2002 NEC Art. 408-21 Grounded Conductor Terminations.
Each grounded conductor shall terminate within the panelboard in an individual terminal that is not also used for another conductor.
Sounds like you’re saying it is “grandfathered” in, is that right?