That wire attached to the neutral bar is not likely to be a neutral, more than likely it’s a grounding electrode conductor. Unlike a neutral (grounded conductor), a equipment grounding conductor, or an equipment bond, it does not need identification.
Raceways for grounding electrode conductors shall not contain other conductors. The outer finish of an insulated grounding electrode conductor need not be identified except that it shall not be white or green. Flexible conduit and armored cable shall be permitted to be used in existing buildings for grounding purposes only where this ground is concealed or a major portion of the ground is concealed. An approved nonferrous metal tag shall be attached to the ground clamp giving warning against its removal.
It does require green or for an EGC, but says no to a GEC. It makes sense because chicago says to pipe with no other conductors for GEC, so it is not possible to accidentally splice into it. It’s a lonely wire, who cares whether or not it is identified? An EGC, however, can be run in pipe with many other conductors along with it, so it must be identified to differentiate itself.
I would bet they are both GECs, the black to water, and the green to the rod. Either two different contractors, possible panel replacement, or green is just what he had on the truck. Either way, neither would be a violation if I’m right about the black being a GEC.
This is an example of local rule and another example of Inner Chicago’s ignorance in changing the NEC rules.
Nothing in the NEC prevents the GEC from being Green…in fact 250.119 of the NEC says that green just can’t be used for ungrounded and grounded conductors…nothing about bonding jumpers and GEC’s…
they are promoting a violation of 250.64(E)…since they say only RMC,IMC and EMT can be used…if they are going to mandate that they might as well tell them about 250.64(E) as well…since they are promoting the need for it to be done.
also it seems that they like to use the “need not” alot…is that shall be permitted or what…is that Chicago Slang?..so it sounds to me that it need not be identified…but if my need is to identify it…thats my right as need not sounds permissive.
Why does it sound like you’re arguing while simultaneously agreeing with me?
Not all states have adopted a state wide licensing requirement, Illinois included, and because of that, each municipality could technically make their own code. I’m just pointing out Chicago has some minor differences. They’re not changing the rules, they have their own. It does not make them ignorant. Using your arguement would mean that the entire country of Canada is ignorant for adopting their own (CEC) regulations.
It’s a fact. And I am not in Canada. Changing a national rule is one thing but changing a rule based on not using green for a bonding jumper or GEC if someone wanted too is a dumb waste of resources.
I have no problem with amendments as long as they are justified. Prohibiting AC or MC Cable or NM Cable just because of union desires, forcing installation practices that reduce or limit installer options when the current code provides them is and always will be ignorant in my view.
I have and always will take a stand that we should not accept amendments to the NEC and adopt it as written, permit AHJ’s to use 90.4 without imposing amendments…that’s my stance, it was the NEMA stance and that’s just how I’m programmed…sorry you we’re offended by it…as for Canada, they should dump the CEC and get on the NEC Bandwagon!