Is this a problem???

[mnahrgang]

Originally Posted by kluce

The picture in question are not two neutrals. They are a neutral and a ground wire.

I agree that two neutrals are not allowed and clearly noted in the NEC. City Inspectors around here would also not allow that kind of installation.

In your left picture... Second set from the top... Is that a neutral and a ground or two neutrals? I thought it was two neutrals.

[Frank P. Newman]

Originally Posted by dedwards

Here, read this. It will "esplain" it.

http://static.schneider-electric.us/...0100DB0705.pdf

The reationale (for not having neutral and ground under same screw) given in the referenced article concerns only the desire to maintain the integrity of the ground connection if and when the neutral is disconnected. While there is no doubt that maintiainng the ground connection maximizes safety under the most unlikely conditions, it is equally easy to see how very many AHJ would not see it as necessary, because after you turn off the breaker there is no power being supplied to the served load at all. Thus, it really does not matter a lot whether any of that circuit's conductors are connected.

All that said, the code really doesn't leave room for any such intepretation. Hopefully future code editions will clarify further. Personally if I saw a panel that well done otherwise, I probably would not write it up unless the home was very new.

[Buck Hartley, CMI]

The house was built in 2006.

[Frank P. Newman]

Originally Posted by bhartley

The house was built in 2006.

Given that date, I would call it out because any electrician working in today's world should know better, whether or not, it is "really" that large a hazard.

[kluce]

Originally Posted by fnewman

Given that date, I woudl call it out because any electrician working in today's world should know better, whether or not, it is "really" that large a hazard.

If a home inspector want's to call this out, how old the panel is shouldn't be a factor. If I, the home inspector, feels this can be a safety issue, then I should call it out on all panels (just like we do for the lack of GFCI receptacles). If I know that a city/town is allowing this type of installation, I would think that should also be noted.

In other words, this type of installation is no safer or dangerous now than it was 20 years ago.

Regarding me calling it out, you guys have convinced me that my clients should be aware. While I still don't feel this is a safety or performance issue, I plan on including it in my reports. It will be interesting to see if I hear anything from the builder from today's report.

[Blaine Wiley]

That is common here and was ok with the AHJ until around 2002.

[Frank P. Newman]

I don't disagree, in general, but H.I.s have to make safety judgements every day and clearly some issues are much more significant than others. I can almost guarantee that few, if any, H.I.s actually observe and report every possible safety hazard in the houses they inspect. When it comes to elecrical systems, I feel comfortable making those judgements and, in this case, given that this type of installation was permitted until recent years and represents almost "0" hazard to a homeowner, I would not mention it if found in older installations. JMHO

[tmcsweeney]

This is an accepted practice in upstate NY and in Rhode Island. In any case from what I understand it is not a safety issue and bottom line is that local jurisdiction approves the installation.

[kluce]

Ok, the city inspector considers the installation acceptable.

Originally Posted by jpope

The panel listing allows for 1 neutral per termination, and up to 3 grounding conductors per termination.

What about what the manufacturer has written?

[Jim Port]

Originally Posted by fnewman

The reationale (for not having neutral and ground under same screw) given in the referenced article concerns only the desire to maintain the integrity of the ground connection if and when the neutral is disconnected. While there is no doubt that maintiainng the ground connection maximizes safety under the most unlikely conditions, it is equally easy to see how very many AHJ would not see it as necessary, because after you turn off the breaker there is no power being supplied to the served load at all. Thus, it really does not matter a lot whether any of that circuit's conductors are connected.

All that said, the code really doesn't leave room for any such intepretation. Hopefully future code editions will clarify further. Personally if I saw a panel that well done otherwise, I probably would not write it up unless the home was very new.

If the neutral and grounding conductors are terminated in the same hole and the screw is loose, not only would you have a high resistance connection with the associated heat you would also have a compromised safety ground. Should the hot contact any conductive surface there would not be a reliable path for tripping the breaker. IMO this seems fairly serious. This would be even more important on a multi-wire branch circuit.

The NEC has spelled this rule out for the last 2 code cycles. It was always on the panel label instructions.

[Erby Crofutt]

What happens when the screw is slightly loose?

[Frank P. Newman]

Originally Posted by Jim Port

If the neutral and grounding conductors are terminated in the same hole and the screw is loose, not only would you have a high resistance connection with the associated heat you would also have a compromised safety ground. Should the hot contact any conductive surface there would not be a reliable path for tripping the breaker. IMO this seems fairly serious. This would be even more important on a multi-wire branch circuit.

Absolutely true - and the same could be true if any neutral, or ground wire screw were to be left loose. Loose connections can cause many type of havoc in electrical systems. Again, I am not saying that installation to the letter of the code is not the best way, just that the other configuration has been acepted for many years by many AHJs and represents a relatively small hazard. If I were doing a code inspection, I would call it our for homes wired during the time when the code required it, but not for earllier installations because I don't belive that provision is retroactive.

[Doug Edwards, CMI]

Using a reasonable man approach, anything that is discovered that has been already been determined to be unsafe bears more than being mentioned in a report or worse, just ignored because the AHJ passed it 15 years ago. If we take the attitude that just because something used to be common practice it does not require a response from the inspector than the customer really does not need our services. They can do their own inspections with similar results. Does everything always require a giant red flag to be raised? No, I don't think so but something that could cause harm to the occupants and we know of potential consequences, we owe it to the people who hire us to say something. Would we apply this same logic in reporting aluminum wiring or a Federal Pacific panel in a home? I think not. It doesn't require anyone going to General Quarters, but it should be included in the verbiage of the report if for no other reason than to CYA and provide the customer with the most thorough report you can and let them make an informed decision.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by jpope

In what part of the world would that be? Even the panel listing will tell you this is wrong. . .

That panel is new enough and clean enough you can read this info in the panel..............

[David P. OKeefe]

Mark and Erby, those are some great photos. May I use them on my web site?