Thread: Added neutral/ground bus bonding wire size in service equipment - main

phpEWgidDPM (1).jpg

The wire from the added neutral ground bus that connects it to the upper left is only a #12 THHN or THWN green wire. The exterior ground is on the upper right bar.
I am unsure if this is a proper ground wire connection size. To me, even though they are bonded, I would think that it should be a code requirement for a minimal bonding wire size/type?

Similar Threads:

• Bonding ground to service neutral at mast?
• Ground/Neutral bonding
• Bonding neutral and equipment bus to panel enclosure
• Service conduit bonding at service equipment
• Ground/Neutral Bonding

Personally I think there is need for an electrician to look at this panel. It sure looks like a homeowner job. More wrongs than right. Can't make head nor tails of it. Looks like multiple taps too.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Personally I think there there is need for an electrician to look at this panel. It sure looks like a homeowner job. More wrongs than right. Can't make head nor tails of it. Looks like multiple taps too.

No multiple taps, just an octopus....not very workmanlike. I really am curious as to ground requirement sizing?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Personally I think there there is need for an electrician to look at this panel. It sure looks like a homeowner job. More wrongs than right. Can't make head nor tails of it. Looks like multiple taps too.

No multiple taps, just an octopus....not very workmanlike. I really am curious as to ground requirement sizing? Jerry?

if the bond screw is in place there is no code requirement for a ground jumper.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

if the bond screw is in place there is no code requirement for a ground jumper.

However, I see (or think I see) a neutral conductor going to that added ground/neutral terminal bar, in which case the ground bond screw is likely not sufficient for the neutral current.

All panels I recall having seen which have more than one neutral/ground terminal bar require the neutrals to be on the same bar that the neutral conductor it terminated at ... unless there is a built-in bus from one neutral bar to the other neutral bar as that built-in bus is properly sized to carry all the neutral current of that neutral terminal bar back to the neutral conductor.

Some, Cutler Hammer if I recall correctly have specific installation instructions addressing this as the connection from one neutral/ground bar was not suitably sized for the neutral current - the neutrals were specified (required) in the label to be on the neutral/ground terminal bar where the neutral conductor was terminated. It's been a few years since I looked at those panels, but there were being used A LOT in several South Florida subdivisions at the time and the electricians were all not reading that restriction - which was clearly written on the label, but ... who reads labels anymore ...

Originally Posted by chris viscomi

phpEWgidDPM (1).jpg
I would think that it should be a code requirement for a minimal bonding wire size/type?

Depending on the impedance of the system, fault current levels can often be hundreds of thousands of amps relative to the normal current in the circuit. For this reason, the size of the bonding jumpers on the supply side of any overcurrent protective device and the grounded service conductor connected back to the source of supply must be sized large enough to conduct this potentially high fault current. Since the main bonding jumper is connected in series with the service grounded conductor and is subject to the same amount of fault current, it must be sized similarly to the grounded conductor.
Section NEC 250-28 requires an unspliced main bonding jumper to connect the equipment grounding conductor(s) and service disconnect enclosure to the grounded conductor within the service enclosure for each service disconnect.
Size of Alternating-Current Grounding Electrode Conductor, NEC 250-66 ... a grounded or ungrounded ac system shall not be less than given in Table 250-66.
I read it as the bonding wire should be the same size as the grounding electrode or similar.

If a neutral is terminated on the grounding bus it is incorrect as it is now imposing current on the enclosure.

- - - Updated - - -

If a neutral is terminated on the grounding bus it is incorrect as it is now imposing current on the enclosure.

Robert,

As Jim pointed out, there is no concern with the grounding conductors as they do not carry any intentional current and, if you think about it, when the installation consists of EMT, the grounding connection is the set screw in the fittings, which is no different than the bonding screw (albeit the bonding screw actually makes better surface contact as it is threaded into the metal enclosure instead of just pushing its end against the EMT).

It is the neutral conductors which are of concern. There are easy solutions to that: a) install a bonding jumper the size of the neutral conductor (or other size if so listed in the labeling); b) relocate a grounding conductor to the additional ground bar and relocate the neutral from the additional ground bar to the neutral/ground bar in accordance with the labeling.

The second choice, b), above is the simple choice and is an appropriate, and probably better, fix than trying to use the additional ground terminal bar for the neutral conductors.

Jerry, Jim, excuse me. I misread the OP.
Also, I am not familiar with that panel manufacturer.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Also, I am not familiar with that panel manufacturer.

Robert,

The panel manufacturer is not really a part of the equation ... unless, that is, that grounding bar is not permitted by that manufacturer to be installed in that location. Most panel manufacturers make specific mounting hole locations for ground terminal bars and other items which are permitted to be attached to the panel. For ground terminal bars, the mounting locations are holes which are made for self-tapping screws (sheet metal screws are not allowed for that use) and the mounting locations are 'dimpled inward' into the panel to allow the screw to be inserted without hitting whatever the panel is mounted to - does not do much good if the screw 'feels tight' because the end of the screw is hitting a stud or piece of plywood behind the panel instead of being tight to the ground bar. or should that be ...

Gees Louise! I could not distinguish the neutral buses behind the breakers.
That being said. I concur, the green #12 THHN connecting the right side neutral bus acting as a neutral jumper to ground busis a concern.
Misinterpretation I predict.

Defect narrative anyone.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Robert,

The panel manufacturer is not really a part of the equation ... unless, that is, that grounding bar is not permitted by that manufacturer to be installed in that location. Most panel manufacturers make specific mounting hole locations for ground terminal bars and other items which are permitted to be attached to the panel. For ground terminal bars, the mounting locations are holes which are made for self-tapping screws (sheet metal screws are not allowed for that use) and the mounting locations are 'dimpled inward' into the panel to allow the screw to be inserted without hitting whatever the panel is mounted to - does not do much good if the screw 'feels tight' because the end of the screw is hitting a stud or piece of plywood behind the panel instead of being tight to the ground bar. or should that be ...

Panels can be updated / retrofitted Jerry.
That is what I meant by the term, I did not recognise the manufacturer.

Without jargon.

Please excuse. My Without jargon narrative. It requires polish.
Eaton supplies CH Retrofit Interior Kits. CH Retrofit Interior Kit for Replacement of Vintage Brands

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Panels can be updated / retrofitted Jerry.
That is what I meant by the term, I did not recognise the manufacturer.

Without jargon.

Please excuse. My Without jargon narrative. It requires polish.
Eaton supplies CH Retrofit Interior Kits. CH Retrofit Interior Kit for Replacement of Vintage Brands

Panels can be ... within limits ... with components the panel is listed for and components listed for the panel - but not just willy-nilly with anything that anyone wants to 'update or retrofit' into the panel.

Modify the panel with unlisted items or in ways not intended and the listing of the panel is violated.

Many things are taken into consideration in the design, testing, and listing of panels ... one is not permitted to do what they want to the panels - and if they do, they risk making the panel no longer in conformance with its listing and labeling.

Looks like the panel might have been re-utilized. Notice the dirt on the right side. Likely the panel was installed vertically at one time.

Also what is with the red tape on the neutral? Perhaps thats the only colour tape readily available.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Panels can be ... within limits ... with components the panel is listed for and components listed for the panel - but not just willy-nilly with anything that anyone wants to 'update or retrofit' into the panel.

Modify the panel with unlisted items or in ways not intended and the listing of the panel is violated.

Many things are taken into consideration in the design, testing, and listing of panels ... one is not permitted to do what they want to the panels - and if they do, they risk making the panel no longer in conformance with its listing and labeling.

I concur. "Within the manufactures recommendations."
Narrative?
Observation: 1: Modified panel. 2: Green #12 THHN connecting the right side neutral bus acting as a neutral jumper to a ground bus.
Recommend: Licensed bonded electrician assess the service panel.
Limitation: Did not attend the survey.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Also what is with the red tape on the neutral? Perhaps thats the only colour tape readily available.

Morning Ray.
A. Grounded (neutral) conductors 6 AWG and smaller must be identified by one of the following means [200.6(A)]:
1) By a continuous white outer finish.
2) By a continuous gray outer finish.
3) By three continuous white stripes along its entire length on other than green insulation.
4) Wires that have their outer covering finished to show a white or gray color but have colored tracer threads in the braid identifying the source of manufacture are considered to meet the provisions of this section. The use of white tape, paint, or other methods of identification isn't permitted for grounded conductors 6 AWG or smaller.
6) A single-conductor, sunlight-resistant, outdoor-rated cable used as the grounded conductor in photovoltaic power systems as permitted by 690.31(B) can be identified by distinctive white marking at all terminations.
Grounded (neutral) conductors 4 AWG or larger must be identified by one of the following means [200.6(B)]:
1) A continuous white outer finish along its entire length.
2) A continuous gray outer finish along its entire length.
3) Three continuous white stripes along its length.
4) White or gray tape or markings at the terminations.
Hope this helps.

The green jumper is not even needed and is doing no harm being there. I don't see the concern.

- - - Updated - - -

The green jumper is not even needed and is doing no harm being there. I don't see the concern.

It is easy enough to see that the red tape is clearly over the bare neutral of the SE cable. Tha t wrap was unnecessary and is the wrong color, but there is zero chance of it being mistaken for anything else.

The green jumper is not even needed and is doing no harm being there. What is the concern?

Without addressing any other issues - the main thing wrong with the additional ground terminal bar is that there are three neutrals connected to it - that is a no-no.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Without addressing any other issues - the main thing wrong with the additional ground terminal bar is that there are three neutrals connected to it - that is a no-no.

Jerry, if I looked at the ground bar kit any harder / longer for something wrong I bet you guys at Brian Hannagin's InspectionNews would have smelled smoke.
Gees Louise!
Thanks.

That being said...Schneider Electric make ground bar kits.
Does it go against any code or manufactures installation / modifying standards to add a different ground bar kit other than what was original installed?
Nevertheless I see no useful purpose the 18 terminal bar in Chris's thread.

Gees Louise..3 neutral on the ground terminal. %$**##!!!!

Chris, service panel manufacture please.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

That being said...Schneider Electric make ground bar kits.
Does it go against any code or manufactures installation / modifying standards to add a different ground bar kit other than what was original installed?

Yes ... sort of ...

The ground bar kit must be one which is listed on the label of the panel - how many panels will label another manufacturers ground bar kit? (Likely ... -0- ... )

That said, if one has a Siemens ground bar kit which is listed for use in a number of different panels they make, that would be okay too.

The basic point, though, is ... who will you know if the ground bar kit is one which is listed for use in that panel? (Probably won't.)

Which basically means ... forget about the listing/nonlisting issue as you will be barking at the moon ... write up the other items ... unless you were doing a forensic investigation, in which case EVERYTHING MATTERS.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Yes ... sort of ...

That said, if one has a Siemens ground bar kit which is listed for use in a number of different panels they make, that would be okay too.

The basic point, though, is ... who will you know if the ground bar kit is one which is listed for use in that panel? (Probably won't.)

Which basically means ... forget about the listing/nonlisting issue as you will be barking at the moon ... write up the other items ... unless you were doing a forensic investigation, in which case EVERYTHING MATTERS.

Absolutely agree.
Like playing contact bridge Jerry. "When in doubt play trump."
Recommend further evaluation.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Recommend further evaluation.

Nope.

Total waste of your client's time and money.

"Recommend further evaluation" is seldom (basically never) needed and typically represents a shifting of liability from the home inspector to the client simply for CYA.

On the rare cases when that may be needed, the wording should state what is being addressed - such as 'structural engineer needs to design appropriate repairs' ... not 'further evaluation'.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Nope.

Total waste of your client's time and money.

"Recommend further evaluation" is seldom (basically never) needed and typically represents a shifting of liability from the home inspector to the client simply for CYA.

On the rare cases when that may be needed, the wording should state what is being addressed - such as 'structural engineer needs to design appropriate repairs' ... not 'further evaluation'.

Jocularity Jerry.
I fully concur.
The subject should be addressed.
Recommend a licensed electrician evaluate the suspect modified service panel and the neutrals on the ground-bar.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Narrative...

What is "narrative"? "Further evaluation recommended"? Nope.

That is CYA and putting the client on notice that you did not even look at something well enough to write down what is needed ... the client just wasted their money on your inspection and report, might as well have brought in each different trade to look at things.

No reason to use 'further evaluation' in a report.

Here is another example: 'Multiple taps at breakers in electrical panel, neutrals on isolated ground terminal bar, neutrals multiple tapped - electrical contractor needs to make above corrections, any and all other corrections they find, and any and all items in need of correction which they create.'

How many times has a contractor said 'Your home inspector missed these things in the panel ... ' (because there were so many things in the panel which needed to be written up) - I addressed those comments in the above.

How many times has a contractor made repairs to something, and you have gone back and found that it is now worse than it was because of all the things the contractor did? I addressed that in the above too.

Yet no where in the above was the need for 'further evaluation' mentioned. It is not necessary - not if you look at what you are looking at and seeing what you are looking at, and writing it up properly - THAT is "narrative".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

What is "narrative"? "Further evaluation recommended"? Nope.

That is CYA and putting the client on notice that you did not even look at something well enough to write down what is needed ... the client just wasted their money on your inspection and report, might as well have brought in each different trade to look at things.

No reason to use 'further evaluation' in a report.

Here is another example: 'Multiple taps at breakers in electrical panel, neutrals on isolated ground terminal bar, neutrals multiple tapped - electrical contractor needs to make above corrections, any and all other corrections they find, and any and all items in need of correction which they create.'

How many times has a contractor said 'Your home inspector missed these things in the panel ... ' (because there were so many things in the panel which needed to be written up) - I addressed those comments in the above.

How many times has a contractor made repairs to something, and you have gone back and found that it is now worse than it was because of all the things the contractor did? I addressed that in the above too.

Yet no where in the above was the need for 'further evaluation' mentioned. It is not necessary - not if you look at what you are looking at and seeing what you are looking at, and writing it up properly - THAT is "narrative".

I can see your side Jerry but I am not an electrician remember.
Yes further evaluation is required by a licensed professional to which I am not.

In my province, I have been told pretty much point blank "opening panel fronts is illegal" but keep doing what your doing should be OK.
I almost feel over.
Long story conflicted individual.

If I have to stroke the wide brush. I will and I do it every time.
I tell my clients plenty and limit my reports to limit my liability.
As an AJH you did not have to worry about that.

The software I use Observation are narrative for defects and defiences.
Recommendations will point to the trades professional to further evaluate and it sure beats serviceable.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

I can see your side Jerry but I am not an electrician remember.
Yes further evaluation is required by a licensed professional to which I am not.

Incorrect. Apparently you do not see my side, if you did you would be 'seeing' what I wrote and why 'further evaluation' is NOT necessary.

In my province, I have been told pretty much point blank "opening panel fronts is illegal" but keep doing what your doing should be OK.

In which case you STILL do not need 'further evaluation', if you don't remove the covers, then you did not do any evaluation, in which case you would call for 'evaluation' by a licensed electrical contractor.

If I have to stroke the wide brush. I will and I do it every time.

Wide brushes do not paint a very good picture of anything, except maybe the see or the sky ...

The software I use Observation are narrative for defects and defiences.
Recommendations will point to the trades professional to further evaluate and it sure beats serviceable.

I agree that "serviceable" is just as bad as 'further evaluation' ..."serviceable" is that wide brush you are talking about using.

Bob Ross could paint some happy trees with a broad brush.

Jim, please, no need to insinuate a hypothetical.
I did not use the correct term or phrase when posting.

"Incorrect. Apparently you do not see my side."
Incorrect. You were an AHJ both skilled at the art of defect recognition and recommendations.
all of which you have posted about.

I am paying attention, so there is no need to be condescending.
My misuse of a phase is duly noted.

In my province, I have been told pretty much point blank "opening panel fronts is illegal" but keep doing what your doing should be OK.

(In which case you STILL do not need 'further evaluation', if you don't remove the covers, then you did not do any evaluation, in which case you would call for 'evaluation' by a licensed electrical contractor.)

Jerry, what if the homie used a tool, a volt meter, on the circuitry and determined there was enough voltage on the neutral under the NEC guild-lines, reversed polarity or open grounds, to which I do every assessment, would the phrases further evaluation followed up with any corrective measures, to insure safe operations, by the acquitted professional be suitable?


In the context of high learning, and getting past my ill worded post "wide brush strokes" to which I readily admit was an inappropriate method for recommending and a total lapse of clarity to say the least Gees Louise, and certainly not used during my reporting efforts, if a home inspector assesses a component, narrates the defects effectively, then why is further evaluation followed by a recommended course of corrective action be to broad a phrase to use?

Further: additional to what already exists or has already taken place, been done, or been accounted for.
Evaluation: making of a judgment about the amount, number, or value of something.
Further Evaluation: To determine the importance,effectiveness, or worth of...

Thank you for your patients.
Much appreciated as always.

Sorry for the edits.

Robert

A snippet from Cdn. case law.

In Cudmore v. Home Chec Canada Ltd, 2000 MBQB 138 (CanLII), the Court said reports from home inspectors should be clear and unequivocal, especially where further inspection is recommended: Cudmore at para 62. The Court also suggested that verbal recommendations be kept to a minimum and be consistent with the written report: Cudmore at para 62.

M. General Remarks

[62] I believe it is common practice now in most purchases of homes of a certain age and condition to include an inspection clause. As purchasers are expected to bear the burden of repairs that become necessary and the buyer is cautioned to be wary, the inspection becomes an important part of the process. The reports issued by home inspectors should be clear and unequivocal, particularly where further inspection is recommended. Further, it is suggested that verbal recommendations be kept to a minimum, and they should be consistent with the written report.

Also from your province.

Kremer c. Maloney Home Inspection Inc., 2009 QCCQ 11517 (CanLII)
[23] Our courts have found building inspectors negligent when, given revealing signs of a more serious problem, they did not further their investigation or recommend either a supplementary or a more detailed examination. At the very least, an inspector must inform his client of the possibility of having a major problem. In other cases, the inspector was found to be negligent for failing to inquire further when faced with a defect that could easily be noted or when he simply indicated his findings without providing any recommendations.

Thanks Ray.
I am sure I cover all the necessary conditions that inform my clients as well as limit liability.

Observation: Vertical foundation crack on the east side of the building.
Condition: Wider at the top than the bottom.
Suspect: Uplift.
Recommend: A licensed RBQ foundation repair company evaluate and provide any necessary repairs.
Limitations:Inspection limited/prevented by: Ground soil, wall, floor and ceiling coverings Insulation

Ray, I have read Cudmore v. Home Chec Canada Ltd,
I gleam Home Inspection Case Studies now and then.

I tend to agree with the 2002 article.
More recently, in December 2002 one of the major professional insurance providers forASHI (The American Society of Home Inspectors) reported the most common claimsituations. This list included the following:
1. The inspection report understates the significance or meaning of a problemcondition.
2. The inspector orally dilutes the significance or meaning of a problem conditionidentified in the inspection report.
3. The inspection report fails to suggest that the client retain an expert to more fullyevaluate a problem condition.
4. The inspection report fails to identify or understates a limitation which prevents orhinders more thorough inspection of an area of the premises.
5. The inspection report identifies a problem condition but not its significance ormeaning.
6. The inspector does not obtain a signed pre-inspection agreement from the client.
7. The inspector presents the inspection agreement for the first time immediatelybefore, or during the actual inspection.
8. The inspection agreement does not provide a limitation of liability provision andother key contracted for limitations.
9. The inspection agreement does not identify what services are being offered andthose excluded.
10. During a re-inspection, the inspector makes admittance of liability to the client oragent.

Robert, my post was never meant to be condescending. I am not sure which part you thought was.

My comment about Bob Ross was a reference to the painter and was based on things he said in his show. It was meant as humor. I left off the Grin.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Robert, my post was never meant to be condescending. I am not sure which part you thought was.

My comment about Bob Ross was a reference to the painter and was based on things he said in his show. It was meant as humor. I left off the Grin.

Jim,
Kneejerk reaction from a prior MB I use to post on regularly combined with fatigue.
Please accept my apologies.

No problem. My posts are meant to help, never demean.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

No problem. My posts are meant to help, never demean.

Thank you Jim.
I can honesty say everyone here helps.
As I explained to Jerry, I will get use to posting here.

Bob Ross that landscape painter on TV?
I am going to google the name.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Bob Ross that landscape painter on TV?
I am going to google the name.

Bob Ross with his broad brush (used at the very beginning of the episodes ...
- https://www.youtube.com/user/BobRossInc

Bob Ross used wide brushes and painters knifes period.
I can not recall an episode where he used a brush less than 1/4".
The majority of episodes I watched he used, mop, fans and chisels and 1" or 2" wide flat brushes to blend.

I suspect others, as well as myself, enjoy his style of painting due to the simplicity, nature and how the instructor, Bob Ross narrates the lesson. Happy little clouds, soft tones and a Mr. Rogers approach to the viewer.

An acquaintance, much more actually, painted with oils. Lovely Quebec Northern landscapes which included animals in the nature senses at times. Her agent could not get enough of Clair's work as it was distributed all over Canada.
When I was in my early thirties, he was back frequently, every 6 weeks, as she painted long hours.

I started my humble masonry repair company from her garage and yard.
I worked with her companion from time to time. A strong man with horse sense but no patience, common or business sense.

I kept an eye on Clair until her unfortunate death when I found her lying quietly on the couch after using my ladder on every window of the duplex left to her by her mother because I knew someone was terribly wrong.
Born and died in the same home. Not many can say that these days, to which I am certain.

I tried to visit her every night as I got older and busier.
In the end, a recluse that only talked to a handful of individuals and opened the door a crack while saying hello...
If you enjoy Bob Ross's work, Clair's art would surely be enjoyed as well.

I still pass by the duplex remembering the times I spent with her and her companion as time's happy little clouds pass by us all...