Neutrals ganged together

Originally Posted By: pdacey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I did an inspection this morning and found this at the sub panel. Most of the neutrals from the branch circuits were bunched together and attached to the bus at one point. Is this common? It’s the first time I have come across it. To me it doesn’t seem right.


http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/IMG_0745.JPG


--
Slainte!

Patrick Dacey
swi@satx.rr.com
TREC # 6636
www.southwestinspections.com

Originally Posted By: lfranklin
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I can’t see the picture to good.


But if I understand you in all commons being under one lug. That’s not right and sure don’t sound right .


Originally Posted By: jonofrey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Patrick is that a remodel or new construction? How about that texture splattered inside the box? That’s an indication of lazyiness (poor workmanship) right there if you ask me. That’s a red flag.


Then it looks like you have four branch neutrals terminated together on the same lug meant for a thicker gauge wire. I know some panel manufacturers allow multiple neutrals under the same lug. I've seen it on Cutler Hammer panels but that allows for two at a time.

Excessive exposed conducter everywhere! This ones got Harry Homeowner written all over it.

The sparkies will give you the specifics but this one's got plenty wrong with it. Try turning your pictures for us next time so we don't have to turn our heads sideways. ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)


--
Inspection Nirvana!

We're NACHI. Get over it.

Originally Posted By: pdacey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



The picture is oriented correctly. The bus was at the bottom of the box. It is the original sub panel in the house. Home is 21 years old. I wrote it up as in need of repair for having multiple neutrals on one lug, neutral and ground bonded in sub panel and for the paint & texture in the box. Just wanted to see what other people had to say about it.


I read some of the other threads about double lugged neutrals. Some good info out there.


--
Slainte!

Patrick Dacey
swi@satx.rr.com
TREC # 6636
www.southwestinspections.com

Originally Posted By: shuggins
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Patrick,


This type of wiring is common, but I still write it up. You said the home is 21 years old, I see alot of new construction and the panel looks just like that. If the electrician would just cover the panel with cardboard, before the drywaller shoots the texture. The panels today come with bigger grounding and neutral bar, there is no reason to double lug.


Spencer Huggins


--
Spencer Huggins
H & H Inspection Services, LLC
Piedmont, Oklahoma
spencer@hhinspections.com
http//www.hhinspections.com

Oklahoma NACHI Chapter Vice President
shuggins@ok.nachi.org

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jonofrey wrote:
I know some panel manufacturers allow multiple neutrals under the same lug


John, are you sure you are not thinking about multiple ground wires under one ground lug, which most panels are listed for. A panel should not be listed for multiple neutrals on one lug (and it shouldn't be done) as this would be a violation of 2002 NEC 408.21 discussed in the Double Tap thread. Has been a no-no for quite a while.


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: jonofrey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Robert,


I've seen it spelled out inside a Cutler Hammer panel. No sh!t. I'll try to get you the quote on the next one I see.


--
Inspection Nirvana!

We're NACHI. Get over it.

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



That wiring is incorrect and needs to be changed, and it looks like it would be easy enough to do.


The main problem appears to be the contamination in the panel, the panel interior may need to be replaced (if the contamination is on the bus bars and terminals, the interior needs to be replaced). If just all over the interior of the enclosure, it should be replaced, but at least it would not be as bad.

There shall be no contamination on the interior surfaces, bus bars, terminal bars, etc., and, there is no approved method to clean it off.

Grounds can be multiple tapped, neutrals cannot.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Well stated, Jerry.


Although the contamination may or not manifest itself as an actual problem (I've seen some paint overspray inside a panel), the bundled neutrals are clearly a concern. They should be under separate terminal lugs on the bus bar. Grounds can be bundled, but on the neater panels, they too, are segregated. I dont care if this panel is old or new... the workmanship sucks.


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



John … the panel manufacturer may just be wording things in a way that is confusing to non-electrical professionals, but I guess a typo is also possible … icon_eek.gif


For engineers and electricians the white neutral wire is actually called a "grounded conductor" in general (and the hot wire is the "ungrounded conductor"). The term "neutral" actually only applies to describe a "grounded conductor" that does not normally carry current in a multi-wire circuit (it is "neutral"). And the green wire is the "grounding conductor" ... clear as mud, right ... lol. That is why most people just use the common terms "hot", "neutral", and "ground" anyway in all cases.

If they actually do list the neutral buss for multiple wires on each lug, get the panel model number and call the manufacturer to ask them how it is that the label/instructions allow a violation of the NEC code (2002 NEC Section 408.21) ...


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: jonofrey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Robert,


I had a Cutler-Hammer panel on one of todays inspections. I guess because of the way it's worded, I'll need a detail guy to 'splain it to me.

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/DSC00147.JPG
http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/DSC00148.JPG
http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/DSC00150.JPG


--
Inspection Nirvana!

We're NACHI. Get over it.

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Robert,


It would not be a violation of the NEC if the labeling on the panel stated the neutral could have two or more conductors, because the listing and labeling is based on tests, and all equipment must be installed and used in accordance with its listing and labeling.

110.3 (B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



John,


The label is giving permission to use unused neutral terminals for ground conductors when used as service equipment (has the main disconnect in it).

Then it goes on to state how many ground conductors may be installed in each terminal: one under all conditions; and up to three under specified conditions (wire size limitations and if of the same material and type).

Did I do any better than the label?


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jonofrey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Yes Jerry, thanks.


Are white wires (nuetral) considered ground conductors?


--
Inspection Nirvana!

We're NACHI. Get over it.

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



John,


No. Grounded conductors.

Neutrals are "grounded" at the service equipment. The "hot" ungrounded conductors are not (of course not).

Neutrals ("grounded") conductors are not to be confused with "grounding" conductors. "Grounding" conductors are equipment grounds.

The close terminology catches a lot of people.

There are "ungrounded" conductors, "grounded" conductors, and "grounding" conductors. Thus, thinking of them as "hot", "neutral" and "ground" conductors eliminates some of that confusion.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jonofrey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry,


Based on what the panel label says and the definitions provided, it seems to me that Cutler-Hammer is not recommending multiple neutral terminations under one lug.

Is that correct?


--
Inspection Nirvana!

We're NACHI. Get over it.

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



". There is now way around that code section, and therefore would not be permitted regardless of any listing/labeling.



Robert O’Connor, PE


Eagle Engineering ?


Eagle Eye Inspections ?


NACHI Education Committee


I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: pdacey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I had the identical situation again today. Townhouse about 21 years old. It was a GE box. I was going to take a picture of the label but it had so much over spray of paint it was illegible. This property was a HUD purchase. What a dump. Nothing worked in the house. I recommended further evaluation from every trade imaginable. Except an engineer, structure was good.



Slainte!


Patrick Dacey
swi@satx.rr.com
TREC # 6636
www.southwestinspections.com

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Robert,


110.3(B) is a general requirement and, as you stated, applies to everything.

EVERYTHING must be installed and used in accordeance with its listing and labeling.

Thus, when the listing and labling is more, OR LESS, stringent that the other code sections, the listing and labeling takes precedence. The manufacturers installation instructions and requirements rule. That is why there are product liability lawsuits. Tha manufacturer stated "this would work" and, when it does not ...

The same thing applies with other codes.

Most other codes state that if there is a conflict between code sections "the most stringent shall apply", however, if there is a conflict between a specific requirement and a general requirement "the specific requirement shall apply". The specific requirement is the installation instructions and the listing and labeling. The general requirement is the code itself.

Hense, because the product has been through independent third party testing and has show it ability to perform in accordance with those tests, that becomes part of its listing and labeling, and installation instructions state how to install and use it in accordance with the way it was test, listed, and labeled.

I will repeat it for you.

"110.3(b) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling."

Notice, if you will, the "SHALL BE INSTALLED AND USED", doesn't say "may be", it says "shall be".


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry … interesting interpretation.


There would indeed be a direct conflict between two mandatory NEC sections that contain the "shall" provision. However, keep in mind that Article 110 only has "general requirements" as stated in 110.1, while Article 408 has the specific requirements. The code is not intended to be an installation manual, which is the intent of 110.3(B), not to permit a code deviation in the event of a conflict.

Therefore the more specific/restrictive provisions of Article 408 and Section 408.21 would control as far as the code is concerned, and two neutrals on one terminal would indeed be a "code violation" even if listed as such per Article 110 and Section 110.3(B). It sounds like you are pretty savvy with HI issues, but Mike Holt has an excellent book called "Understanding the National Electric Code" which does a good job of explaining this and the provisions/intent of the basic code sections and resolving conflicts in general.

In any event, home inspections are not a code compliance review, and the double lug neutral would be a safety issue for both of us.


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong