Wrote up and kicked back… everyday it seems…
I clipped this from the pdf and didn’t show his name…
Maybe he knows something different than
**[FONT=Arial]**NEC 408.41 [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Each grounded conductor shall terminate within a panel board in an individual terminal [/FONT][FONT=Arial]that is not used for any other conductor. (Bold is mine)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Another day…:roll: [/FONT]
Picture too big.
His statement:
“The National Electric Code allows this wiring method in homes not required to have an outside disconnect. I checked all of the connections and they were tight”
Is he correct?
His statement doesn’t make any sense.
This has no relevance to the issue of “ganged neutrals.”
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’]Below is what I sent the client (buyer)[/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’][/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’][/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’][/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’][/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’]Here’s a picture to explain and a quote from the NEC and another to show why they should not share a lug…[/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]NEC 408.41 [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Each grounded conductor shall terminate within a panel board in an individual terminal[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]that is not used for any other conductor. (Bold is mine)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’]A Ground**ed Conductor is a Neutral (White wire) a Ground******ing Conductor is a bare wire.[/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’] [/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’] [/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’]They’re not correct and his NEC ‘quote’ is wrong. [/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’][/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’]-Mike[/FONT]
[FONT=‘Comic Sans MS’] [/FONT]
I would have omitted this part, but I agree with the rest of your assessment. 
My wife always says “Less is More” :mrgreen:
or that I “Talk like a teenage girl on the telephone”… :roll:
Don’t know where that came from; we have two grown sons…
My bet is his reference to the outside disconnect was his way of saying this was not a sub panel and the grounds can be on the neutral bar. Maybe he doesn’t know they codified the “individual terminal” language for grounded conductors in 2002. Plenty of electricians doubled up the neutral and ground for each circuit and lots of inspectors passed it. (not me, I was a Tedesco student)
Still seeing it nearly everyday (okay twice a week now, they’re doing it correct in most New Construction) 
Here’s what I tell em. They can like it or not!
======
The problem(s) discovered in the panel such as
So goes life. You can lead a horse to water. You can shove his head under the water, but you an’t make them drink.
Like this one built in 2003. Nice work, but a little lazy when there were plenty of screws left open on the bar.
That is a guy who thinks that is the “right” way. I know it was a very popular way to wire circuits. They thought grouping them was a good thing for some reason. That guy even twisted them together. It certainly wasn’t easier or faster
In NY this is not expressly forbidden in resi work. We follow the NY Residential Code and the wording in NEC 408.41 is absent.
You could quote the 408.41 all day long and you’d still be wrong by calling it out. I’ve even had one of the head inspectors in my area confirm this when I questioned HIM about it.
90% of the other guys I see do it this way.
Maybe SC is similar?
That said… I used to do this in every panel. It makes for a nice neat panel and there is no searching for the paired ground and neutral when working on a circuit. It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with “laziness”.
In recent years I have stopped doing it this way. Mainly because it is in the NEC and it is one less thing that can be questioned later. Obviously the NY code is lacking in some areas so I fill in with the NEC when I can.
this method must be infectious…just yesterday…some of the grounds aren’t under their lug screw just twisted around the rest…looked like homer had been here
Speedy…what about 408.21 when it was in the 2002 NEC? Did NY also ignore its statement then as well?
Even if NY ignored both how does that let them ignore UL67 and the mfgs. instructions?
Ahhh…Michael knew exactly where I was going with that leading question…lol…
Basically the intent of 110.3(B) says that equipment should be installed as the manufacture intends and regardless of UL 67 which supports the intent…the manufactures never allowed the “grounded” conductors to be grouped in a single terminal.
I agree it is seen alot…in fact my own brother does it…and knowing him probably still does it…he is an OLD dog that wont learn new tricks…or he learned the BAD trick someone back years ago and still does not understand it…lol
The intent of the addition in the 2002 NEC regarding 408.21 only added to shine the light on a problem that has existed for years…it also the spawn of many new statements about ensuring a reliable “grounded” connection in later code cycles…
Now practical wise…if both conductors are the same size and properly torqued…should not really see issues with it but is indeed a violation of the NEC which is a minimum safety standard…However, if installed improperly with different size conductors which would not allow proper torqueing and such and just plain poor connections as well as installed improperly by home owners…then I can most certainly see the hazard.
As for me…I always call it out because it is a violation ( when I am doing code inspections )…kinda like de-rating conductors in an area with a temp rise…never seen those conductors fail unless over a heat source…but we still have to de-rate…so being codie its a violation but as others have said…being code wrong may not always make it a blazing hazard RIGHT NOW anyway…but down the road it could be.
With that said…it brings another thought to mind…
As electricians we install for TODAY…meaning we are not required to assume what someone will do in the future. In other words if a circuit breaker in a standard panel is less than 6’ 7" to the center of the switch we are fine…but if their are openings above that breaker that are not used and WOULD be above 6’ 7" if used…we can’t call out because the code says switches and circuit breakers over 6’ 7" in this example…and none are ( right now anyway ) so we have to pass it…
Could it violate the CODE at a later date…YEP…but the CODE is not retrocative…
AS a home inspector we have to see into the future all the time, assume the intent of a person and provide SAFETY advice on the potential future outcome. We have to PEER into the darkness…YET our inspections are only a snap shot in time…more specific to that DAY of the inspection…
Interesting enough…HI’s are expected to forcast the future while some electricians only install for the day…I personally LOVE doing both as it is challenging to wear multiple hats.
NY has never been under the 2002 NEC, even for commercial.
Keep in mind I am only talking about residential in this thread.
I am not sure what the exact wording in UL 67 is. Similarly I can’t remember if the Mfg instructions refer to grounds or neutrals at all. I do know most allow two or three conductors of the same size per hole.
Ahh…got ya fella…no worries mate…since I have a close relationship with a certain manufacturer I have asked them this question directly and they tell me that while their label inside the panel cover allows for multiple equipment grounding conductors…they have never allow multiple grounded conductors to share a terminal.
In their words…since a terminal is rated for the allowance of conductors, unless they specifically make reference to allowing more than a single conductor ( as they do with the EGC’s via the inserted label ) then only a single conductor is allowed per termination.
Well, I like to think I always admit when I am wrong. And I was wrong.
I just went out and checked the cover instructions of a new panel. It does state in that multiple conductors are to be used for equipment grounding purposes only.
Like I said, I stopped this practice several years ago.
It is still very popular with my peers though. Especially when our inspectors have no problem with it.
Sorry for the confusion on my part.