Grounded conductors

[Blaine Wiley]

OK, let me ask a stupid question.

Weren't all of the AHJ's approving panels with multiple grounded conductor terminations under one screw in the panels we find the condition in?

It was common practice here until 2000 to terminate one grounded conductor and one grounding conductor under the same terminal screw in the service panel. The approval stickers are still on most of the panel covers.

And yes, I have been and would be rebuked again in writing if I were to write up that condition on panels installed here prior to 2002.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

When will your classes start and when will the big show in NC be held?

The NC Electrical Institute sponsored by the NC Ellis Cannady Chapter of the IAEI and the Department of Insurance Office of the State Fire Marshall is always the first of April. I haven’t missed one of these in 10 years. This is where I first met Jim Pauley.

The Southern Sectional Meetings of the IAEI are posted on the IAEI website and the seminars sponsored by the NC Chapter of the IAEI can be found at the NC IAEI website.

Classes that I teach for the college can be seen at this link click on Building Trades in the index

I also do one day workshops for Electrical Inspector Continuing Education Credits but have nothing scheduled at this time.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

post a picture take off that Cowboy hat before sitting at my table.

Just for you Joe;

[jtedesco1]

Wow, thanks Mike, now I feel so much better! What do you do with your old clothes?

Do you have any published materials available in the market place that present materials for the home inspector industry?

I wore a beard for many years, but now its all white like Greg's beard, so I shaved it off!

We seem to have both maintained a head of hair though, and yours is not all gray yet, either, or was it? This picture if that was you could let the cat out of the bag!

Mine is not gray yet, and I don't use any coloring, I think that when I did, my beard turned purple just before my wedding so I shaved it off leaving the mustache.

OK, let's keep this friendly "you are and I am correct" until the showdown and just keep going at it, I have a long winded weigh lifters chest so I can handle it!

I will post my pictures soon, so many other are here too on this NACHI server as well, why even some showing some cleavage, oops got to be careful lots of youngsters view what we say and show here.

One more picture of you on that donkey showing his *** would be great.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

Wow, thanks Mike, now I feel so much better! What do you do with your old clothes? One more picture of you on that donkey showing his *** would be great.

That is not me taking the picture it is the husband of the lady that won the doll.

This is a picture of me and Pocco. Can you tell who is riding who?



This is me in 1967



One year later I started in the electrical field.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Quote: Mike Whitt {post number 2}
Out of curiosity how do you write it up when you find more than one under a screw?

The reason I ask this question is because as an electrician when I am called in to evaluate the write up if the panel was installed before the adoption of the 2002 code cycle I write in my report:
This installation is in compliance with all codes at the time of installation. I recommend that the problem be addressed as a safety issue for future maintenance of circuits but it poses no hazard as installed.
Mike, with all due respect you are contradicting yourself. Either it is a problem like you clearly state above or it is not a problem and it poses a safety issue {as you clearly state above} or it does not.
Period, end of story.


Quote: Mike Whitt {post number 5}
Upon arriving at the house I always introduce myself and give my credentials. Then I get a background on the house such as when it was built and any known upgrades and additions to the system.

If the electrical system was installed prior to the adoption of the 2002 code cycle I will check for any loose connections on the terminal bar and if none are present I then make the following statement on letter head.
{So are you telling us that if the electrical system was installed after 2002 that you do not check for any loose connections on the terminal bar?}

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Whitt This installation is in compliance with all codes at the time of installation. I recommend that the problem be addressed as a safety issue for future maintenance of circuits but it poses no hazard as installed.

So once again if it was installed prior to the adoption of the 2002 code cycle according to you... It is a "safety issue" for future maintenance of circuits.
Well in my opinion and I think in the opinion of many others a "safety issue" is just that a "SAFETY ISSUE" regardless of the day, week, month, or year that something was installed.

I also point out that the agreed fee was for an evaluation only and any other work that I do will be at a charge plus cost of material.
It is a good thing that you were not a member of NACHI because if you were performing work on any home that you inspected within 365 days of the inspection would be a violation of our Code of Ethics.
NACHI COE: section 11;
The InterNACHI member shall not perform or offer to perform, for an additional fee, any repairs or associated services to structure on which the member or member's company has prepared a home inspection report, for a period of 12 months. This provision shall not include services to components and/or systems which are not included in the InterNACHI standards of practice.


If this panel has limited space for the termination of conductors on the supplied ground bars as allowed by UL Standard 67, the price of having the doubled neutrals move to single terminations can and has ran into several hundred dollars. Each ground bar is different for different panels so to stock one of each panel would not be an option.

I leave the finial discussion to the person that called me to do the evaluation of the electrical service. Unless there are loose connections and signs of arching I seldom do any changing.
Once again, if you were a member of NACHI you would be in violation of our code of ethics.

{Post number 6}
Originally Posted by Scott Schultz So if a house built before 2002 is noted to have doubled neutrals it's a safety hazzard and poses no threat but if it was built after 2002 then violates the code and needs to be repaired? Not sure I agree based solely on the year the home was built. If the NEC adopted the rule then I would think there is evidence behind it why it was changed. Personally, if I see doubled neutrals, I write them up.
Quote Mike Whitt: {Post number 6}
And I am not saying not too. What I am trying to point out is that there isn't the danger that has been so widely spread around about them. As was stated in the proposal for a NEC change the only danger is the unwanted effect when removing one circuit while the others are energized.
So once again you agree that there is a danger. That means that a person could get seriously hurt or even killed. You state there is a danger, and Joe Tedesco states that there is a danger. Other certified electricians and certified inspectors agree that there is a danger. The only difference is that you were quibbling about a specific year.


It is my contention that whether the electrical system was installed in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, or the year 2000 is meaningless.
If a safety issue exists as you have previously stated then it exists and you have a duty/obligation to write it up!
Period end of story!

Quote Mike Whitt: {post number 8}
Below is the proposal that brought forth the change in the 2002 cycle of the NEC. I have put in bold the only danger that Jim Pauley noted in his proposal.
So once again you agree that there is a danger .


Quote: Jim Pauly:
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.
End Quote


Quote Mike Whitt: {Post number 14}
There is no language in the past code cycles that can be used to enforce one grounded conductor under one screw until the adoption of the 2002 code cycle.
The reference to UL Standard 67 in the annex of the NEC although not enforceable can not be found in any NEC cycle until the adoption to the 2002 code cycle.
Well the bottom line is that the language is now in place and has been for at least five years now. Once again we have a duty and a moral obligation to call out any safety issues regardless of what year the system was installed. It would be criminal for you to let anyone become injured or die just because the system was installed prior to 2002.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Quote: Mike Whitt {post number 2}

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Out of curiosity how do you write it up when you find more than one under a screw?

The reason I ask this question is because as an electrician when I am called in to evaluate the write up if the panel was installed before the adoption of the 2002 code cycle I write in my report:
This installation is in compliance with all codes at the time of installation. I recommend that the problem be addressed as a safety issue for future maintenance of circuits but it poses no hazard as installed.
Mike, with all due respect you are contradicting yourself. Either it is a problem like you clearly state above or it is not a problem and it poses a safety issue {as you clearly state above} or it does not.
Period, end of story.

No sir I am not contradicting my self. Mostly what I am doing is showing respect to another professional by doing what I can to keep them from looking stupid. I could just as easily say, as a lot of electricians do, that the Home Inspector has no idea what they are talking about an it was a waste of money hiring them if they only thing they do is refer what they call a problem to someone else to look at.

This is not my personality. I try as hard as I can to help the Home Inspectors out there in any way that I can. What I do when doing an evaluation behind a home inspector is make sure that I have the proper documents to support my findings with me at the time that I need the support. This includes past versions of the NEC.

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Quote: Mike Whitt {post number 5}

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Upon arriving at the house I always introduce myself and give my credentials. Then I get a background on the house such as when it was built and any known upgrades and additions to the system.

If the electrical system was installed prior to the adoption of the 2002 code cycle I will check for any loose connections on the terminal bar and if none are present I then make the following statement on letter head.
{So are you telling us that if the electrical system was installed after 2002 that you do not check for any loose connections on the terminal bar?}

I don’t think I said that either, do you? When I am called to evaluate an electrical system that is just what I do.

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt This installation is in compliance with all codes at the time of installation. I recommend that the problem be addressed as a safety issue for future maintenance of circuits but it poses no hazard as installed.
So once again if it was installed prior to the adoption of the 2002 code cycle according to you... It is a "safety issue" for future maintenance of circuits.
Well in my opinion and I think in the opinion of many others a "safety issue" is just that a "SAFETY ISSUE" regardless of the day, week, month, or year that something was installed.

I am sure that I explain just what the ONLY documented safety issue is and it has nothing to do with someone being hurt. The only danger is the unwanted effect of the other circuits being turned off and this could be bad for some earlier made electronics such as computers.

Originally Posted by fcarrio

I also point out that the agreed fee was for an evaluation only and any other work that I do will be at a charge plus cost of material.

Originally Posted by fcarrio

It is a good thing that you were not a member of NACHI because if you were performing work on any home that you inspected within 365 days of the inspection would be a violation of our Code of Ethics.
NACHI COE: section 11;
The InterNACHI member shall not perform or offer to perform, for an additional fee, any repairs or associated services to structure on which the member or member's company has prepared a home inspection report, for a period of 12 months. This provision shall not include services to components and/or systems which are not included in the InterNACHI standards of practice.

I think that most members in this forum know that I am an electrical contractor not a home inspector although I do follow behind several from time to time. I hope to always do my best to hold them in the highest respect and not belittle them to their clients.

Originally Posted by fcarrio

If this panel has limited space for the termination of conductors on the supplied ground bars as allowed by UL Standard 67, the price of having the doubled neutrals move to single terminations can and has ran into several hundred dollars. Each ground bar is different for different panels so to stock one of each panel would not be an option.

Originally Posted by fcarrio

I leave the finial discussion to the person that called me to do the evaluation of the electrical service. Unless there are loose connections and signs of arching I seldom do any changing.
Once again, if you were a member of NACHI you would be in violation of our code of ethics.

See my last statement

Originally Posted by fcarrio

{Post number 6}

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Originally Posted by Scott Schultz So if a house built before 2002 is noted to have doubled neutrals it's a safety hazzard and poses no threat but if it was built after 2002 then violates the code and needs to be repaired? Not sure I agree based solely on the year the home was built. If the NEC adopted the rule then I would think there is evidence behind it why it was changed. Personally, if I see doubled neutrals, I write them up.
Quote Mike Whitt: {Post number 6}
And I am not saying not too. What I am trying to point out is that there isn't the danger that has been so widely spread around about them. As was stated in the proposal for a NEC change the only danger is the unwanted effect when removing one circuit while the others are energized.
So once again you agree that there is a danger. That means that a person could get seriously hurt or even killed. You state there is a danger, and Joe Tedesco states that there is a danger. Other certified electricians and certified inspectors agree that there is a danger. The only difference is that you were quibbling about a specific year.

I would like for you or anyone else that thinks that can post one incident where someone was killed or even hurt for that matter due to a doubled grounded conductor in a panel. It just can’t be done simply because it has never happened. If it had happened wouldn’t Jim pointed this out in his proposal? If there was a danger of the conductors heating up and damaging the conductors don’t you think this would have been pointed out in the proposal also?
None of this was mentioned in the proposal for a reason, it just hasn’t happened!

Originally Posted by fcarrio

It is my contention that whether the electrical system was installed in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, or the year 2000 is meaningless.
If a safety issue exists as you have previously stated then it exists and you have a duty/obligation to write it up!
Period end of story!

Having awnings over windows and doors “could” pose a safety issue should they have enough snow and ice buildup on them or even in a high wind. Do you also call them out?

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Quote Mike Whitt: {post number 8}

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Below is the proposal that brought forth the change in the 2002 cycle of the NEC. I have put in bold the only danger that Jim Pauley noted in his proposal.
So once again you agree that there is a danger .
Quote: Jim Pauly:
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.
End Quote

Yes there is a danger as Jim pointed out, even multiwire circuits pose the same danger. Do you call out multiwire circuits as a life danger?

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Quote Mike Whitt: {Post number 14}

Originally Posted by fcarrio

There is no language in the past code cycles that can be used to enforce one grounded conductor under one screw until the adoption of the 2002 code cycle.
The reference to UL Standard 67 in the annex of the NEC although not enforceable can not be found in any NEC cycle until the adoption to the 2002 code cycle.
Well the bottom line is that the language is now in place and has been for at least five years now. Once again we have a duty and a moral obligation to call out any safety issues regardless of what year the system was installed. It would be criminal for you to let anyone become injured or die just because the system was installed prior to 2002.

No matter how you feel about calling out a doubled neutral in a panel it does not change the fact that if the panel was installed prior to the 2002 code cycle there is nothing that can be forced toward the seller of the house to change anything. It is the same with two prong receptacles.
The issue is not a life safety issue and does not deserve the hype that has been posted about doubling of neutrals.
For most experienced electricians the only thing that section does is makes it easier for the handyman that shouldn’t be in a panel to start with.

Now the bottom line is simple; You as the Home Inspector can either call out every one you see and then be shot down by electricians or you can do the research and find out which code cycle the house falls under and be right when you make the call.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

This is partially true, in that the Seller cannot be COMPELLED to change anything they are unwilling to. As to the initial statement, this is absolutely incorrect. It goes DIRECTLY to manufacturer's specification and UL rating, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the NEC. If the panel is installed out of spec, it is likely that the liability falls DIRECTLY on the shoulders of the electrician who installed it, and the inspector who okayed it. An attorney would have you for lunch.

Any attorney would have to prove malice in any civil case. What I would have on my side would be the Law as adopted by the jurisdiction in which the installation on my side. UL Standards are not adopted into law but the wording of the NEC is what is adopted into the building codes and becomes law. What the NEC clearly states is “instructions included” and the UL standards are not included in the installation instructions therefore making them inadmissible as evidence in any law suit concerning any electrical installation.

Originally Posted by Mike

I would like for you or anyone else that thinks that can post one incident where someone was killed or even hurt for that matter due to a doubled grounded conductor in a panel.

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

This statement is born of total ignorance. For an intelligent person, the author of this gem really come off as a know-it-all and, in this instance, a horses *****.

Unless you know of an incident where someone was hurt of killed it would sound to me like the author of that statement might know a little something about what was said. The bottom line is that not even one incident can be documented.

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Mike,

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

With all due respect, I challenge electricians like you all the time. I do not have nearly the electrical code knowledge you do. No doubt you are a smart guy. Funny, because more times than I can count, the expert winds up with his foot in his mouth.
BUT...
The NEC many times deferrs to the manufacturer's installation guidelines.

The NEC always defers to the manufacturer’s installations instructions. See 110.3(B)

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Many of the panels you claim the NEC has no enforceability over DO have installation instructions that limit the number of neutral conductors to one per lug.

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

So, I disagree. All I ask the electrician to do, after they try and make me look like a fool in front of my client, is agree that I was comletely wrong.

Every panel on the market has installation instructions for the circuits being installed on the label that UL requires them to have on the inside of the panel and visible after the circuits are installed. This is part of the information found in UL Standard 67.
When I run into a hard headed Home Inspector I substantiate my findings by using the NEC from the time period of the installation and the UL label found inside the panel itself. This is very easy to do.

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

I then ask them to put their findings in writing, on letterhead dated with their license number included... and ask them to provide an accompanying confirmation from the panel manufacturer. I then press them if they are willing to do this for their client, and ask them for a timeline to get these items. None have EVER complied with my reasonable request. Actually,, I NEVER quite "code". As we know, all too many times, the electrician could have easily influenced the electrical inspector to pass something that maybe shouldnt have passed. Would YOU provide the manufacturer's specs? I seriously doubt it.

I always give my client a written report of my findings on company letterhead. All prudent information from the panel manufacturer will be on the label inside the panel so it is already provided. The time line that I follow in giving this information is at the completion of my evaluation.
Should there be any questions concerning my findings I gladly meet with all parties involved and yes as I have already said I bring my documentation with me in the hopes that I can teach the Home Inspector the err of their findings should they be willing to accept what I have to offer.
What will never happen is a Home Inspector press me to do anything unless they have a check in their hand made out in my name. This my be the additude of all these other electricians that you are trying to press into doing something that you are not paying for.

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

You see, I dont always CARE about the code. We are not code inspectors. Common sense and manufacturer's guidelines are as important as anything when performing an inspection. Wouldnt you agree?

Here is where we part company due to the fact I am bound by law to follow the adopted codes in my jurisdiction. I do care about the codes as they mandate the proper installation methods that are to be followed when making electrical installations. These same codes will mandate that I follow any instructions that are included with the panel as I make the installation. What you seem to be missing is that the manufacturer’s standard is not part of the installation instructions included with the panel and therefore not an issue. What is an issue if the instructions included with the sale of the panel and that is all that the electrical contractor and code enforcement official is concerned with.

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

BTW... I have seen panels where all neutrals are twisted together and ganged under a single large lug. Is this okay too?

If the installation instructions found on the panel says it is okay I see nothing wrong with the installation. With the same breath let me say that experience tells me that 99.9% of the ground terminal bars in panels will allow a maximum of three conductors size #10 and smaller.

Let me also point out that if I saw a panel that was installed yesterday that had two grounded conductors under one screw I would not say it was a life safety hazard but I would say it is a code violation.

[Joe Farsetta]

Mike,

Come to NY, the litigation capitol of America, and have your ***** handed to you in court. Come to one of my inspections. Make that same asenine argument. Bring a pocket full of quarters with you.

Compel you without a check in my hand? I wont have to compel you. I'll make you look like an ***. You put the NEC ahead of the client's safety. I mean, that's what your argument is. Then you challenge someone to prove a death from a sloppy installation. I cant wait to see the look on the clients face when you make THAT statement. I'd laugh so hard, I'd likely pee my pants.

So, let's make it a REAL question, and not one of convenience, shall we. Here goes: How many deaths have occurred due to failure to comly with manufacturers installation guidelines?

What a jerk.

As soon as you get UL or a single manufacturer to agree with you, let me know. Oh, yeah, get ISO to back your comments. Be sure and have an electrical engineer or two on your side.

By the way, arent "qualified" electricians the ones who ususlly get electrocuted in electrical panels? Maybe your next stroke of genuis will be to tell electricians to stay out of those darned things.

And, one final thing... Tell us all how the mighty NEC is interpreted differently by different electrical inspectors. Also explain to us how all states arent on the same version of the code.

Finally, explain how you explain to the judge that doubled neutrals are okay, because the NEC didnt mention them prior to 2002, yet the manufacturer says "no". My money is on the manufacturer's spec, which would mean that you are WRONG.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Mike, Come to NY, the litigation capitol of America, and have your ***** handed to you in court. Come to one of my inspections. Make that same asenine argument. Bring a pocket full of quarters with you.

have it handed to me by whom? As long as the adopted code was followed during the installation process the courts could find no fault. That is the good thing about our court system, they look at the truth not what we want the truth to be.

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

What a jerk.

So because we disagree I am a jerk? Is everyone you disagree with a jerk? Is this an example of your professionalism?

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

As soon as you get UL or a single manufacturer to agree with you, let me know. Oh, yeah, get ISO to back your comments. Be sure and have an electrical engineer or two on your side.

I am here letting you know now but you just can’t accept what I have posted in black and white.

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

By the way, arent "qualified" electricians the ones who usislly get electrocuted in electrical panels. Maybe your next stroke of genuis will be to tell electricians to stay out of those darned things.

I would suspect that most of the people that work inside a live panel are qualified electricians therefore they will have a higher electrocution rate than anyone else. This is just common sense.

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

And, one final thing... Tell us all how the mighty NEC is interpreted differently by different electrical manufacturers. Also explain to us how all states arent on the same version of the code.

I did not realize that manufacturers interpreted the codes differently. The reason that all jurisdictions adopt the codes at different times is the same reason that some places have Democrats and others have Republicans in office.

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Finally, explain how you explain to the judge that doubled neutrals are okay, because the NEC didnt mention them prior to 2002, yet the manufacturer says "no". My money is on the manufacturer's spec, which would mean that you are WRONG.

I sure wish that you could produce these panels that don’t allow multiple conductors under one screw on the label installed on the inside of a panel. I would simply bring a panel into court along with the code book from the era of the installation and let the judge do the talking.
Why would a judge be involved in the first place?
There is a big difference in a UL Standard and a manufacturer’s spec as you call it. What you are referring to is the UL Standard and not what is written on the label installed on the inside of the panel.
All the judge would be interested in would be the installation instructions not the manufacturing standard.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

No sir I am not contradicting my self.

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

Maybe the entire problem is your lack of reading and or comprehension skills. Go back to the beginning and read what you have typed. Several times you claim that the situation "poses a problem" and poses {in your words now} ....... "a safety issue". Any reasonable man, judge, or jury would interpret "safety issue" to pertain to the safety of human beings. So you can't have it both ways Mike.
Either it is a "safety issue" or it is not! So are you changing your mind now? Now are you saying it is not a safety issue?

Mostly what I am doing is showing respect to another professional by doing what I can to keep them from looking stupid. I could just as easily say, as a lot of electricians do, that the Home Inspector has no idea what they are talking about an it was a waste of money hiring them if they only thing they do is refer what they call a problem to someone else to look at.

This is not my personality. I try as hard as I can to help the Home Inspectors out there in any way that I can.
In my opinion that is a very sleazy way to sneak in an insult!

It is like me saying" oh by the way....... most home inspectors think electrical contractors are stupid and sleazy! But don't get me wrong ........that is their opinion not mine!

What I do when doing an evaluation behind a home inspector is make sure that I have the proper documents to support my findings with me at the time that I need the support. This includes past versions of the NEC.
Good for you! When I do an inspection I point out each and every safety hazard regardless of what you've system was installed. It is up to the homeowner, seller, or buyer to do with that information what they will.

I don’t think I said that either, do you? When I am called to evaluate an electrical system that is just what I do.
Once again, good for you! You had me worried for sec.

I am sure that I explain just what the ONLY documented safety issue is and it has nothing to do with someone being hurt. The only danger is the unwanted effect of the other circuits being turned off and this could be bad for some earlier made electronics such as computers.
So now are contradicting yourself from what you have written earlier! First YOU say that it is a "Safety Issue" and NOW saying it is not a "safety issue".

I think that most members in this forum know that I am an electrical contractor not a home inspector although I do follow behind several from time to time. I hope to always do my best to hold them in the highest respect and not belittle them to their clients.
I tried to do the same when it comes to electrical contractors even when they have so clearly butchered a job!

See my last statement

I would like for you or anyone else that thinks that can post one incident where someone was killed or even hurt for that matter due to a doubled grounded conductor in a panel. It just can’t be done simply because it has never happened. If it had happened wouldn’t Jim pointed this out in his proposal? If there was a danger of the conductors heating up and damaging the conductors don’t you think this would have been pointed out in the proposal also?
None of this was mentioned in the proposal for a reason, it just hasn’t happened!
Why was the NEC written? Why is it revised/amended on a regular basis? Do you think it was because of life safety issues?

Why was it revised and this specific issue addressed in 2002?
Do you think it was because of "safety issues" or just because someone was bored?

Having awnings over windows and doors “could” pose a safety issue should they have enough snow and ice buildup on them or even in a high wind. Do you also call them out?
Yes there is a danger as Jim pointed out, even multiwire circuits pose the same danger. Do you call out multiwire circuits as a life danger?
As a professional inspector I have a legal duty and moral responsibility to inform my clients of each and every "safety issue".

No matter how you feel about calling out a doubled neutral in a panel it does not change the fact that if the panel was installed prior to the 2002 code cycle there is nothing that can be forced toward the seller of the house to change anything. It is the same with two prong receptacles.
I have never said nor has anyone on this thread indicated that they would "force" a buyer, seller, or owner to change anything at all.
All we have said is if there is a "safety issue" it should be noted in our report.
Period, end of story!

The issue is not a life safety issue and does not deserve the hype that has been posted about doubling of neutrals.
The only "hype" that I see is coming from you!

For most experienced electricians the only thing that section does is makes it easier for the handyman that shouldn’t be in a panel to start with.
There you go with your "backhanded insults" again.

There are many past and present master electricians, electrical contractors, and electrical engineers who were members of NACHI and contribute regularly on this bulletin board.

I do not appreciate your "backhanded insults" and I am sure that they do not appreciate your attitude either!

Now the bottom line is simple; You as the Home Inspector can either call out every one you see and then be shot down by electricians {I am laughing so hard I have tears coming down my face!} or you can do the research and find out which code cycle the house falls under and be right when you make the call.

I have been in this industry since 1972. I will continue to conduct myself as a professional and whenever I see any "safety issue" I will note it in my report.

[jtedesco1]

This problem will never go away, and the proposer of the code change was calling attention to a subject that was in the standards long before some of the installers were even born!

I have had many discussions with some of the "old timers" who never had the options we have today with the vast amount of information available on the INTERNET. Many of the issues we argue about here are so old they can vote.


I guess we must take a firm position, and as far as I am concerned the issue is real and the subject is one that will put the person in front of a Judge and Jury in the minority.

I will stand behind any Home Inspector here who confronts someone who says it is OK and does not know of the hazards involved.

You should always identify all the defects you find!

Look at this video:

That NEUTRAL will kill you under certain circumstances.

Afterwords, let's go into the garage downstairs and remove the cabinet front from the cabinet. Check the wiring there, and especially the neutral bar for the types of connections described here in this discussion.

OK, the doors are closed because its so funking cold outside, and you found that the twin neutrals are terminated into 3 of the many there.

The loads on the circuits are on the line, and the other load is the two lamp fixture with a ballast on the ceiling, and it is on the line too.

You find one of smaller sized neutrals loose and while doing so accidentally remove it and there's an arc, not enough to blind you, but enough to cause those fumes nearby to cause an explosion because of the gasoline.

Think about it Cowboy!

[Mike Whitt]

Joe once again you have posted a video that has nothing to do at all with double neutrals using scare tactics to get your point across.

Again you have made a comment about a standard that is part of the manufacturing process and even commented that it is older than dirt without posting any documentation to back yourself.

I have from the start posted documentation that the standards wasn’t mentioned in the NEC until the 2002 code cycle and even you posted the words from the NEC that says that the standards are not part of the codes.

I agree that today through the use of the internet that people can get information both correct and incorrect. It takes someone with a little initiative to determine if the information they are receiving is correct or a bunch of hype posted by someone that simply don’t know what they are talking about.

I suggest that you keep posting all these pictures and videos so the friction between the Home Inspectors and electrical professionals such as electrical contractors and code enforcement officials will continue to get worse instead of better.

I suggest that if a Home Inspector is going to point to a manufacturer’s standard as a defect in an installation that you obtain a copy so you can retrain all of the electricians and code officials across the nation.

When we hit the court room I will have my code book in hand that makes the statement both in the front and back that the standards are not part of the code and I will then ask for your copy of the standard. I will want to know what the standard says about the thickness of the metal of the enclosure and if you checked to see if the enclosure met the thickness as outlined in the standard. Yes the thickness of the enclosure is a safety issue as it is part of the grounding path in a lot of panels.

[jtedesco1]

Mike:

For the tenth time I never suggested that anyone look at the standard in order to pass the job, I said that the product was investigated to that standard in order for it to get a label!

Posting that video again, and viewing it showed where the neutral was the issue.

Mike I am gonna lay it out for you real quick now, this must go public and I Will bet you $100.00 dollars that the restriction was long before you think, as NACHI Nick, Ben Gromicko, and Tiny are here -- they will set the betting, and time for the conclusion of this story.

We'll do a video on energized equipment and show the hazards.

Put a load onto two circuits, and the twins as I described and pull one.

What's a matter, you didn't read the story about the garage inspection, done any work in the place. If they saw you on that donkey wearing that cowboy hat the Sopranos would probably show up to watch the parade.

Hey Nick another idea, have a HI parade and get all members to participate, I just love the fun we could have or we could do the boat party.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

You find one of smaller sized neutrals loose and while doing so accidentally remove it and there's an arc, not enough to blind you, but enough to cause those fumes nearby to cause an explosion because of the gasoline.

Think about it Cowboy!

Joe I have a class today and tomorrow that will be all day long. As I was getting a shower I was thinking about this statement and wondering how I made it to the panel.

Please help me to better understand just what you are wanting me to think about here.

I have gasoline stored in an air tight room with all doors and windows close because it is so cold outside. Am I right so far?

This room has a light that is controlled from a switch on the wall that I will need to turn on before I get to the panel so I can open her up. Am I still right?

What is giong to happen to all them fumes when I turn on that light and the switch arcs?
I don't guess the panel really matters cause I am gone in a blaze of glory long before then anyway.

Oh yea. The class I have got today is Electrical Code Enforcement Officials. I will be sure to point out the paragraph in Annex A that states that these standards are not part of the code as you have posted here.
Thanks