Okay, so service pnl ground bars are bonded to neutral bar..

Archive Public Archive
1

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


So is it okay to terminate neutrals and grounds on the same bus?


Black wires too?

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/challengerpanel1.jpg

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/neutralsgrounds.jpg

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/blackwireneutralgrounds.jpg

--
Inspection Nirvana!

We're NACHI. Get over it.

2

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


John,


Yes, and no.

In your case, with that panel being the service equipment with the main disconnect, the neutrals and grounds can be on the same terminal bar. In fact, the neutral is REQUIRED to be bonded to ground at that service equipment. Assuming, of course, that this is THE service equipment, and there is no another main disconnect upstream from this (extremely rare, but I have seen that done).

BUT, they are not allowed to be multiple tapped as shown in your photo. The neutral conductors must be one to a terminal, and no ground with it. One neutral conductor, one terminal, period.

I don't understand what you are asking about the "black wires", they are not on the neutral terminal bar, and should not be, they go to the breaker, unless "permanently reidentified to white".

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

3

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


Thanks Jerry,


That clarifies alot for me. You may have missed the black wire terminated to the neutral bus with the white and ground conductors. It being late and all. ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)

--
Inspection Nirvana!

We're NACHI. Get over it.

4

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


John,


That wasn't the problem, this morning I still couldn't see it, so I altered the brightness and contrast of the photo ... walla, there she be!

![](upload://mygajR80oCm7tWewxjZNvtsxflP.jpeg)

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

5

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


I want to amplify the question to our resident code quoters, and see a real world response.


Why is it that every time I call out an entire buss bar of neutral double taps, an electrician (several different companies with different electricians) comes in behind me and says there is not problem with neutrals being double tapped, or combined with grounds in a double tap situation. This makes me look real bad! We all know it isn't supposed to be done, so why don't the sparkies worry about it?

An agent showed me the receipt from the electrician the other day. Granted, this guy saw no problem with the Fed Pac Stab-Loc panel either. He did correct the hot double and triple taps, the 14 gauge wire to the 40 amp breaker, the aluminum wiring to CU only rated breakers, outlets and switches, the twenty three mis wired outlets, the 6 broken GFCI outlets, the abandoned wiring exposed and live, and the live wire that was hanging next to the main panel without wire nuts or a j box.

Gets frustrating at times.

And BTW. Where is Dennis Bozek. His answers are always right on target.

6

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


bwiley wrote:
I want to amplify the question to our resident code quoters, and see a real world response.

Why is it that every time I call out an entire buss bar of neutral double taps, an electrician (several different companies with different electricians) comes in behind me and says there is not problem with neutrals being double tapped, or combined with grounds in a double tap situation.


Well, a real world response is that 'they know not of what they speak', or, 'maybe they need some code training?'

If you are looking for a real world response which you can give them, try this: "Have you read the code book, or are you just 'guessing' that what you do is correct? In case you have not read the code book, go to 110-14(A), then read the last sentence. After you've done that, come back to me and we will go from there."

Here is what 110-14(A) says:

110.14 Electrical Connections.
(A) Terminals. Connection of conductors to terminal parts shall ensure a thoroughly good connection without damaging the conductors and shall be made by means of pressure connectors (including set-screw type), solder lugs, or splices to flexible leads. Connection by means of wire-binding screws or studs and nuts that have upturned lugs or the equivalent shall be permitted for 10 AWG or smaller conductors.
Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified.

Quote:
This makes me look real bad!


Only if you let it. You can preempt this by telling your client, in your report, "The electrician may come back and say this is okay. If they do, call another electrician, one who knows the code and knows what they are supposed to do and they are supposed to NOT DO." You'd be surprised (okay, maybe not surprised) how many electricians that pisses off, so much in fact that they look it up so they can shove it in your face ... only after they look it up, you never hear from them.

Quote:
We all know it isn't supposed to be done, so why don't the sparkies worry about it?


For the same reason that many electricians used to feel (and some still do, based on some posts to this forum) that a ground was not necessary and if it was there, there was no need to connect it.

Quote:
An agent showed me the receipt from the electrician the other day. Granted, this guy saw no problem with the Fed Pac Stab-Loc panel either. He did correct the hot double and triple taps, the 14 gauge wire to the 40 amp breaker, the aluminum wiring to CU only rated breakers, outlets and switches, the twenty three mis wired outlets, the 6 broken GFCI outlets, the abandoned wiring exposed and live, and the live wire that was hanging next to the main panel without wire nuts or a j box.


When my client comes across an electrician like that, I advise them to get a letter (so it is in writing) from the electrician, and a copy of their insurance, so they can pull both out at the first sign of a problem, and file a claim with that insurance company. The electrician, in those cases, has never issued their opinion, in writing, that the FPE is "good".

I'm not Dennis, but maybe that will do?

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
7

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


Very Good!


I do use most of that, except for the codes. I never quote codes because I am not a trained code inspector. I once had

the (1994 I think) NEC but haven't gotten one since.

Seems that most people will trust an electrician, no matter how bad, a plumber, no matter how bad, etc. over the inspector every time. The line of "tell them to put it in writing, I did" usually does work, though.

8

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


Quote:
When my client comes across an electrician like that, I advise them to get a letter (so it is in writing) from the electrician, and a copy of their insurance, so they can pull both out at the first sign of a problem, and file a claim with that insurance company. The electrician, in those cases, has never issued their opinion, in writing, that the FPE is "good".


I find that to be especially good, and stout advice.

What say you, sparkies? ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)
9

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


" (or “Potential Safety Hazard” and similar terms), and listing something as a ?Major Defect? (or “Major Concern”, “Safety Hazard”, and similar terms).


To me a "Safety Concern" is only something that doesn't meet current safety standards/codes, and could cause a hazard over time or under the wrong conditions. It really should be addressed, but it's not something major or an immediate hazard ... and there may be licensed professionals that don't see it as such a big deal and will let it go. So that is something that could be listed that the client may want to have further evaluated, but by itself may not warrant calling in a licensed professional right away.

Then a "Major Defect" to me could be something that is a clear hazard or defect that needs to be corrected right away ... where unless you get a licensed professional who is off base, there will not really be any disagreement that something needs to be corrected (like the latest double lugged panel main topic). So that is something that could be listed that the client should have corrected by a licensed professional right away.

I think the things that the sparky corrected on the job you mentioned were examples of "Major Defects". But the other things could be considered "Safety Concerns" or ?Potential Safety Hazards?. The concerns really should be addressed and need to be pointed out in your report, but there may be licensed professionals who will disagree it?s a real concern and just let them go.

The double lug neutrals, and more so the FPE panels (or more correctly FPE breakers), are good examples of pretty sticky issues sometimes. I think the old FPE breakers really could be a serious hazard and should be changed out. Something like that could cause a fire and burn your house down, and maybe take some family members with it. But, there are a lot of them out there that haven't failed (yet?), and some sparkies and building officials who say they can be left alone. This one is really border line and a judgment call, but it could be listed as a "Safety Concern" in your report, but make sure to point out the issues and that it could be a serious problem ... and maybe provide the client with something like the following (from CodeCheck.com):

http://www.codecheck.com/pdf/electrical/240overcurrent/FPE%20Article%20from%20DH%20-%20Nov2003.pdf

Sometimes there is a fine line between a "Safety Concern" and a "Major Defect", and the trick is to make the right call depending on how the sparkies/officials look at things in your area ... and especially not to list something as only a concern, when it really is a serious defect or hazard. But that's why HI's get paid the big bucks ... ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)

And I was thinking the same thing about where Dennis has been.

--
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

10

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


jpeck wrote:
Well, a real world response is that 'they know not of what they speak', or, 'maybe they need some code training?'

I don't think I would go that far, or quote codes in a report either ... very slippery slope.

jpeck wrote:
I advise them to get a letter (so it is in writing) from the electrician, and a copy of their insurance, so they can pull both out at the first sign of a problem, and file a claim with that insurance company. The electrician, in those cases, has never issued their opinion, in writing, that the FPE is "good".

jpeck wrote:
try this: "Have you read the code book, or are you just 'guessing' that what you do is correct? In case you have not read the code book, go to ... After you've done that, come back to me and we will go from there."

Good points and approach [for major items] ... but in talking to the sparky I might try a different way so they don't get their back up right off the bat and get defensive. Maybe ... "I am not a code expert, but I think it's pretty clear that it wouldn't be allowed by the code for new construction and therefore really is a concern and should be fixed. Take a look at section xxx.xxx and give me a call back". If there is still an issue or an unclear reference, you can try "maybe we can call someone from the building department to clear that up for us, so we are on the same page".

--
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
11

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


You also have to remember that the NEC is rewritten/updated every three years, the most current being 2002. It’s rules pertain to new and updated installations. What is required today wasn’t necessarly required 15 years ago. My 18 year old home has the noodles and grounds terminated on the same bar. Everything was done up to code as it stood 18 years ago. That doesn’t necessarily make it dangerous, they just found better ways of doing things in later years. It’s not fair to try to hold an older house up to todays standards. Your 20 year old car is not taken off the road because the 2004 models pollute less. What’s more important is finding items that are flat out dangerous. The black wire never belonged on the bar though; if it was intended to be a neutral (grounded conductor) then it should be reidentified to white on both ends so anyone working on the circuit knows which conductor is which. If someone down the road modifies or extends that circuit and doesn’t know the conductor colors are mixed you cold have reversed wired recepticals or worst, a metal framed ungrounded device like a drill or saw with the load side connected to the body. icon_cry.gif

12

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


Blaine


Your (and others) problem is that sparky says that it is OK or safe. They are correct.

The problem is that it is not code compliant.

No one cares about the code. They only care about the money.

Why not say that "although this installation may be safe it is not the standard practice". You are not stating any code this way. Or use your own words.

Mike P.

13

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


As usually things change and what was once code compliant way of doing things has become a non-compliant way of doing things (talking strictly new work not retroactive)


part of 110.14(A)
Quote:
Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified

Many terminal bars are listed for 1 or 2 - 14 or 12 AWGs.

However 408.21 makes it clear that listed for it or not the grounded conductor (white, neutral) must be in it's own lug.

Quote:
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.

Exception: Grounded conductors of circuits with parallel conductors shall be permitted to terminate in a single terminal if the terminal is identified for connection of more than one conductor.


There will be very few residences where the exception for parallel conductors could be correctly applied.

Parallel conductors are 1/0 minimum in size.

--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum
14

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


Typically I won’t write up double tapped neutrals on older homes (>10 years) unless there are other issues that a sparky needs to check. It seems that on newer homes (<5 years) the neutrals and grounds are almost always 1 per. Am I incorrect to assume that somewhere in the past 5 to 10 years is when the code changed?

15

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


I do not know when things changed, that is why I said not retro active.


It must be difficult to make any code related comments as it is not easy to determine if it was compliant at the time of installation.

I am fairly certain 408.21 is new to this code cycle.

--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

16

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


Quote:
It must be difficult to make any code related comments as it is not easy to determine if it was compliant at the time of installation.


That is why I make none, ever. I word it as a safety concern or hazard depending on the severity, or phrases like "generally accepted" or things like that. Quoting a code is just opening Pandora's box in this business, IMHO.
17

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


Mike Parks wrote:
Your (and others) problem is that sparky says that it is OK or safe. They are correct.

I don't agree. Just because a sparky will sign-off on it doesn't mean it's safe. It only means maybe it really isn't such a big deal to them ... and more importantly, someone else's butt in on the line ... lol. But amazingly, when you ask them to put it in writting you usually dont get that ... ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)

Talking about applying building codes to existing homes, I like to reference this topic for a general discussion on that:

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?p=10114#10114

An HI doesn't really care about actual code compliance, except that codes can help identify safety issues. Codes are only minimum standards that are generally not concerned with having an efficient or practical installation, and some actually state that (see NEC 90.1). But if something is in the codes, it's primarily there for safety. And safety is a concern for an HI. And I would use the latest codes, regardless of what is the legally adopted code. It's about "safety" and not "code compliance" ...

I would always note double lug neutrals, and other things that do not meet "current safety standards" or "current practice". But it may not be a "Major Defect" or something by itself to call for a sparky to fix ... unless you see other problems that indicate that or other things really need attention. Bob is right that 408.21 is new for the 2002 NEC, and was put there specifically to tighten up the code as they have found problems with double lugged neutrals (which was previously only covered by a debated UL panelboard standard).

--
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
18

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


Bob Badger wrote:
It must be difficult to make any code related comments as it is not easy to determine if it was compliant at the time of installation.


Not really. Simply preface it with something like (when referring to an older home) "while this MAY have been acceptable at the time this house was built, it is now recognized by national electrical safety standards (that's what the NEC is) that it is not safe, and thus is no longer allowed.

That makes the point that, regardless of whether or not it was, or was not (and it may not have been) , acceptable to code THEN, it is recognized as not being safe NOW. And NOW is when we are there.

Code then? Who cares (to some extent), if the current safety standard has been changed to added protection, then the current safety standard is recognized as 'more safe'. Isn't that what we want for our clients?

It is not our job to protect a seller, or a deal for a real estate agent, from disclosing the things we find 'not right'. It is our job to advise and explain to our clients as to what we observed. It is our clients job to determine what they are willing to accept. It is NOT our job NOT to point out what is 'not right' because we think 'the contract doesn't cover updating to code' (who cares? are you are party to the contract? did you sign the contract too?).

Here is an example: In a 1950 house, the bathroom receptacle (not required then, but assume one was installed) was not required to be GFCI protected. Today, it is recognized that the bathroom receptacle needs to be GFCI protected for safety reasons. Do you:

a) ignore it?
b) write it up has not having GFCI protection and needs this as an improvement?
c) write it up has not having GFCI protection and state that it should, for safety reasons?

If a), why?

If b), why call it an improvement, it is an improvement, but it is also for safety reasons. Let your client be able to negotiate that is they can.

If c), you are right, it is for safety reasons.

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
19

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


I would not write it up as “needing improvement”. When I find no GFCI protection in a 1960’s home, I write it up kind of like “There was no GFCI protection found in the bathroom outlets. When the home was built, GFCI protection was not standard construction. Recommend upgrading the bathroom outlets to GFCI protected outlets”.


We can not force the seller to upgrade, nor can the buyer, agent, county or state. That is , unless the house is being remodeled ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)

20

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


Jerry,


I respect your opinion, but I feel that in this instance you are wrong. The only acceptable route is to write it up as a recommended improvement. For the past month I have read your commentary regarding electrical codes, and spouting all sorts of stuff. You are a really knowledgable guy, that's for sure. But I also feel that you sometimes need to decide which hat you wear. You are either a code enforcement official or you are a home inspector. Sometimes the two run contrary.

Some Code officials up my way would actually be advising sellers to sue you, because, in fact THEY decide the applicability of the codes, not the HI. They have seen this kind of reporting before, were dragged into the fray by a frantic seller or attorney, and are starting to get really pissed at what they perceive legally and ethically, as the HI overstepping his/her bounds. And whether you approve of the practice or not, each municipality enforces the rules differently. For instance, AFCIs are NOT required on new housing up my way, old armor sheathing on BX cable is an acceptable grounding conductor, etc. So, in the end, it's HOW things are worded to make the correct point; and, there's a clear distinction between saving the sale by soft-selling things, and what we are speaking of here. The two should not be mixed, and in my style of reporting, never are.

So, again, I respect your level of knowledge and certifications. I also respect your opinion, but there is definitely areas where simple black and white will not suffice. There are areas of grey, and for that matter, shades of grey. This is one of them.

So long as the HI notes or suggests the need for improvement in the report, we have done our jobs. To state that something is now "not allowed" is an absolutely false statement. The electrical code has evolved, and continues to evolve. Things which were installed or engineered to yesterdays standards are still allowed to exist. Upgrades are NOT an automatic requirement of law. Tere are millions of grandfathered electrical installations throughout the us. To believe that each standard which has been improved upon automatically warrants an upgrade is ridiculous.

Sorry for the outburst, but the finite interpretation of the electrical code, and its applicability to each house we inspect, especially older homes, is not what our jobs are about.

Bob Badger had it right. He is the guy who will be called to the house when we call out todays standards on a 1950's house, and when it's not black and white, will look at the client or seller, scratch his head, and say "Huh?"...

To Rob O's point, he's right in that you will rarely get the electrician to put it in writing. Regardless of if they do or not, the HI is rarely there at the time the electrician shows up. In the end, whether in writing or not, this guy's opinion will probably hold water in the client's and the seller's eyes. In some instances up this way, the electrical inspector has gotten involved and DID put some things the HI called out as "not allowed" in writing as false statements. There's the danger of playing code enforcer/interpreter. These guys look at the applicability of the codes at he time of construction or upgrade. They also may spin things. And that is the point.

Use common sense. So, for me: Do I comment on double tapped neutrals? Yup. Do I recommend they be separated? Yup. Do I state that the electrical code doesnt permit it? Nope. Because, in fact, I dont know if the AJH permits it. Do I recommend GFIs where there are none? Yup. Do I call it a defect? Nope. Not if it wasnt a requirement to have them when the home was built.

We're getting lost in the sauce here...

--
Joe Farsetta

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