Grounded conductors

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by mboyett

This topic has been debated several times here on the board. One such thread is at http://www.nachi.org/forum/f19/ok-11074/ . In it I mentioned that I had seen a GE panel with what I considered to be confusing terminology. Here is what I said then (still no real clarification even now) and a photo of the GE label.

Attachment 17492

The panel in the house I did yesterday afternoon had a similar sticker. It too was a GE panel, and indicated that 2 grounded conductors could be installed under the same terminal. The house was built in 2003. The panel may have been manufactured prior to 2003, but I couldn't verify that.

What supercedes? The code, or the UL rating/manufacturers instructions?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bwiley

The panel in the house I did yesterday afternoon had a similar sticker. It too was a GE panel, and indicated that 2 grounded conductors could be installed under the same terminal. The house was built in 2003. The panel may have been manufactured prior to 2003, but I couldn't verify that.

What supercedes? The code, or the UL rating/manufacturers instructions?

I thought the NEC specifically requires that the device be installed and used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I thought the NEC specifically requires that the device be installed and used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

That has been my understanding. Therefore we have a quandry. Panel manufacturer says two grounded conductors may terminate under one screw, NEC says no. Joe F. said no panel allows this. Joe T. says you can't do it period. Mike Whitt says you can do what the panel manuf. says you can. Where is Paul A. ? What is Speedy's opinion?

Until 2000 or 2001, it was allowed by the AHJ here that one grounded conductor and one grounding conductor could be terminated under one terminal, and I see those panels every week because it was standard practice for years and years.

And people wonder why we have questions about the electric system and what is right and wrong.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by bwiley

And people wonder why we have questions about the electric system and what is right and wrong.

Sounds like an education problem in their industry(AHJs and electricians) NOT ours.

We(HIs) get it. We report it. They complain.

[jtedesco1]

Here's a page from the 1947 NEC. In section 1117, it says that terminals for more than one conductor have to be approved for the purpose.

That phrase remained unchanged for over 20 years. Then in the 1971 edition, they changed it to, "Terminals for more than one conductors and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be of a type suitable for the purpose."

Then, in the next code cycle in 1975, they changed it back to "approved." "Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be of a type approved for the purpose."

In 1981, there was an important change. "Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified."

The phrase hasn't changed since then.

Courtesy: Jim Katen, Oregon

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Sounds like an education problem in their industry(AHJs and electricians) NOT ours.

We(HIs) get it. We report it. They complain.

This is why concerning one's self with "what the code says" in performing an inspection is not always productive.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

This is why concerning one's self with "what the code says" in performing an inspection is not always productive.

Agreed.

We report and issue to service our client for the sake of safety and to CYA only to have the AHJ disagree with us or a "professional" tell us we don't know what we are talking about. It just gets old.

[James H. Bushart]

This is why I believe that code officials should limit their dealings to contractors and not the public-at-large.

Believe it or not, there is a home inspection bill pending in NH where the local code officials will write a test for prospective home inspectors in order for them to be licensed.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by bwiley

What supercedes? The code, or the UL rating/manufacturers instructions?

The verbiage that was introduced into the 2002 cycle of the NEC is in most cases adopted into law. This language will prevail so any panel installed after the adoption of the 2002 code; Each grounded conductor shall terminate within the panelboard in an individual terminal that is not also used for another conductor.
110.3(B) was what controlled the installation of conductors on the ground bars of a panel until that time. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

Originally Posted by jbushart

I thought the NEC specifically requires that the device be installed and used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

This is true unless there is specific language in the code that address the installation.

Originally Posted by bwiley

TPanel manufacturer says two grounded conductors may terminate under one screw, NEC says no. Joe F. said no panel allows this. Joe T. says you can't do it period. Mike Whitt says you can do what the panel manuf. says you can. Where is Paul A. ? What is Speedy's opinion?

Well let’s at least try to get it right when quoting someone. What Mike Whitt says is that there in no legal language that can force the change in the installation if that installation was made prior to the adoption of the 2002 code cycle.

Originally Posted by mlarson

Sounds like an education problem in their industry(AHJs and electricians) NOT ours.

Originally Posted by mlarson

We(HIs) get it. We report it. They complain.

I agree that it is an education problem within the industry (AHJs and electricians) as you can see there are those that will try to use the code to prove their point when it can’t be done.

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

Here's a page from the 1947 NEC. In section 1117, it says that terminals for more than one conductor have to be approved for the purpose.

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

That phrase remained unchanged for over 20 years. Then in the 1971 edition, they changed it to, "Terminals for more than one conductors and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be of a type suitable for the purpose."
Then, in the next code cycle in 1975, they changed it back to "approved." "Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be of a type approved for the purpose."
In 1981, there was an important change. "Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified."
The phrase hasn't changed since then.

Thanks Joe I appreciate you posting that page as I shall add it to my past code pages.
What Joe is saying is that the terminals that accept more than one conductor or that accept aluminum conductors must be identified.
The label in the panel above identifies this terminal just for that purpose so there would be no violation of that section of the code.

Originally Posted by jbushart

This is why concerning one's self with "what the code says" in performing an inspection is not always productive.

I agree with this also unless one is going to take the time to study all the past cycles of the codes. Where a lot of problems come into play is when something is pointed out on a house that was built way back then is inspected and expected to stand to today’s standard. It is good that some things are pointed out but it shouldn’t be taken personal when someone comes along and says that the house is in compliance with the codes in effect when the house was built.

Originally Posted by mlarson

We report and issue to service our client for the sake of safety and to CYA only to have the AHJ disagree with us or a "professional" tell us we don't know what we are talking about. It just gets old.

I know that this takes place all the time especially when dealing with electrical contractors. This can be seen on some of the electrical discussion boards from time to time.
The one thing that I can promise is that I have never and never will belittle someone that has a job that carries the burden that the Home Inspector carries. I do and will continue to advise based on the codes that were in place at the time of installation and then it is left between the buyer and seller.

Originally Posted by jbushart

This is why I believe that code officials should limit their dealings to contractors and not the public-at-large.

How could this be accomplished? They are a public official.

[jtedesco1]

PEOPLE ARE GETTING HURT

Mike:

Drill a small hole in the corner of the book you quote and put a string through that hole and hang it on a hook near the roll of TP to be used when that roll is finished!

The 1947 rule is the law of the land, and all other changes, and GE has been contacted to advise of their label that says otherwise.

I think that you should think about the possible hazards.

You on any panels?

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

PEOPLE ARE GETTING HURT

Joe please tell me what this link has to do with the subject at hand?
NOTHING AT ALL

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

Mike: Drill a small hole in the corner of the book you quote and put a string through that hole and hang it on a hook near the roll of TP to be used when that roll is finished!

Joe I have three bathrooms in my home and there is a current NEC in all three of them.

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

The 1947 rule is the law of the land, and all other changes, and GE has been contacted to advise of their label that says otherwise.

Take a day and visit some of the supply houses looking at every panel on the shelf. I think you might be surprised.

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

I think that you should think about the possible hazards.

Maybe I just don't understand the hazard. Would you be so kind as to point them out to me? Please use material that stays with the topic.

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

You on any panels?

Strange you would ask that question. I am sitting on an old ITE panel as I type

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

Well let’s at least try to get it right when quoting someone. What Mike Whitt says is that there in no legal language that can force the change in the installation if that installation was made prior to the adoption of the 2002 code cycle.

My point was not to misquote you, sorry about that. I was attempting to point out that different people with differing electrical backgrounds, some of whom teach courses to inspectors, have differing opinions about many things electrical.

Personally, I just want the proper information to do a competent visual home inspection, and to report actual safety issues when discovered.

Is there any record of a fire or shock or something that caused the change in grounded conductor terminations?

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by bwiley

My point was not to misquote you, sorry about that. I was attempting to point out that different people with differing electrical backgrounds, some of whom teach courses to inspectors, have differing opinions about many things electrical.

As an instructor of the NEC I do everything I can to make sure that my statements are correct. Many times over the years I have made some bold statements concerning the NEC to later learn that I was way off base.
Having had to eat crow I have learned that it is best to be well advised before debating a subject matter that is opposed my many.

The subject matter discussed here I have done extensive research on and will stand pat on my statements. Any person can contact UL to find out anything they need to know about Standard 67 and how it relates to the installation process.
This is a quote form UL, “UL 67 is a Certification Standard, not an installation standard.” This means that no part of Standard 67 can be used to mandate any part of the installation process.

Originally Posted by bwiley

Personally, I just want the proper information to do a competent visual home inspection, and to report actual safety issues when discovered.

This is why it is so important to stay within the guide lines of the SOP. It is when the guide lines are crossed that the conflict starts between the Home Inspector and the trades or the Home Inspector and the code enforcement officials.

Originally Posted by bwiley

Is there any record of a fire or shock or something that caused the change in grounded conductor terminations?

The only substantiation given was the unwanted effect when removing the NEUTRAL if they were two under one screw. It is important to realize that the only circuits that have a NEUTRAL will be multiwire circuits.
During the comment stage the proposal was carried on to cover the grounded conductor which a lot of people calls the neutral.

Understanding how a simple 120 volt circuit works gives a better understanding of the danger involved. If I had three grounded conductors under one screw and opened the circuit it would simply turn the circuits off just as opening a switch.

If these were neutrals that are part of a multiwire circuits and they were opened in a 240 volt single phase panel such as in a home then it wouldn’t simply open the circuit it would then make the multiwire circuits become a series 240 volt circuit.

One of the lab experiments that I do in the classroom is take a two pole breaker and wire two 100 watt bulbs using one “neutral” With both 100 watt lights burning I remove the “neutral”
What happens? The answer will follow.
Then I replace the “neutral” and change one bulb for a 40 watt again I remove the “neutral”
What happens?
With the two 100 watt bulbs with the “neutral” removed nothing happens. There is no change in the lights at all. When the 40 watt bulb is used and the “neutral” is removed the 40 watt gets real bright and the 100 gets real dim.

This is the unwanted effect that occurs when two neutrals are under one screw and one of them is removed. If these bulbs were electronic equipment the equipment wouldn’t last but a couple of seconds until they burn up.

If someone decides to do this experiment at home please use rough service bulbs as there is a danger of the bulb bursting although I have never had it to happen. But then again I use rough service bulbs. I have on more than one occasion had the bulbs to burn out. Again the unwanted effect.

[Paul W. Abernathy]

Guys this is BS.........Give my NACHI MEMBER of the year for 2007 to someone else...I am done with this board.

People come here to help and it was NICE for about 8 months and then name calling and bickering started YET again when NICK and his relatives decided to ALLOW old news to come back and the name calling starts yet again.

I have been quiet on it....but alas people seem to forget issues of the past and resort to name calling and attacks YET again......Screw it.......it is just not worth it......

I am done dealing with this garbage.......

I have talked with Mike personally.....I respect him and more than OTHERS i might add.....personal shots are simply uncalled for and If I were mike i would not help another person because of the statements I read here....he does not CUT and PASTE responses, he does not post 10 year old images for a 2 hour debate over obvious things....he trys to help and what does he gt for it...insults.......for get it............

[cduphily]

Originally Posted by bwiley

What supercedes? The code, or the UL rating/manufacturers instructions?

Which ever requirement is most stringent supercedes all... or at least that is what I was taught.