Panel Question

  1. Inside this panel I see some knockouts missing at top but there is black goop on feeder inlet. Is this ok?
  2. I assume the conduit stubups are ok, for the branch wiring Advise if otherwise.
  3. There is a black wire on the neutral bar but no white tape or anything. Should I highlight this as a concern for an electrician to review?



Hutson Twyla St joe Inspection 063.jpg

The black “goop” is likely duct seal and is required {300.7(A)}(although almost no one uses it or a similar product). The two PVC nipples can be code complaint if they comply with all of 312.5©Ex. A black conductor can be reidentified as a grounded conductor if it’s #4 AWG or larger {200.6(B)}.

And I do not see it as being compliant with 312.5© in it’s present form…lol…just saying!

Close, but wrong for a variety of reasons.

Thanks Robert and Paul.
Jim, can you elaborate on “variety of reasons” Thanks


No bushing on the pvc sleeve. The sleeve looks shorter than 18" required to use this method. Possible overfill issues. See the requirements listed in Paul As post.

Perfect thanks!

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.

In fact in the Chicago Code 18-27-250.64

Could be a GEC. I would think that since there are separate EGC and neutral buses and an EGC in the feeder possibly making this is a sub-panel which wouldn’t have a GEC.

Could be a GEC but I would then wonder what the green conductor run with the feeding conductors is.

Paul - you are making them do research without giving them the answer. What a novel idea>

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.

Strange that Chicago does not allow a green EGC.

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.

Well…if they don’t own a code book then whats the point…

This is an example of local rule and another example of Inner Chicago’s ignorance in changing the NEC rules.

  1. 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…

  2. 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? 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.

Just sayin

If that’s the case then you’re saying that someone ran a GEC (the green conductor) through the meter enclosure all the way back to the panel?

More photos would help. :smiley:

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.

Of course. It just can’t bond with the neutral in there, which is usually what happens and why it is (sometimes) a problem.

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!