Was this Neutral Splice ever allowed?

[al hildenbrand]

A dwelling built in 1952, had an addition and relocation of the service entrance and service disconnect around 1975. The original panel had its overcurrent devices and bus assembly removed, except for the neutral bar.

The original branch circuits were extended from the old panel to the new service center.

My question: Was there a way, by Code, from around 1975, to use that old neutral bar to splice all the neutrals, downstream of the old panel, together into one massively parallel set of neutrals between the old panel and the new service center?

 

[petersonra]

Is there a requirement that every hot have it's own neutral in the code?

As long as the neutral and hot are in the same raceway I am not sure there is a problem.

 

[bobserrano]

The reidentification of the red conductor to the white grounded conductor is not allowed per NEC 200.6 since the conductor 6 AWG or smaller. It would have to identified it's entire length.

 

[lauraj]

I see an issue with the equipment grounding conductor that is terminated on the neutral bar.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

IMO, this is a violation as you cannot connect neutrals from other circuits together on the load side of OCPD. How long this has been code I am not sure. I didn't mention the enormous emf problems from this. I also didn't mention art.310.4 for parallel conductors.

 

[al hildenbrand]

The reidentification of the red conductor to the white grounded conductor is not allowed per NEC 200.6 since the conductor 6 AWG or smaller. It would have to identified it's entire length.

There are a number of other violations, and you are right to note that one.

I see an issue with the equipment grounding conductor that is terminated on the neutral bar.

Absolutely. That one glared at me too.

IMO, this is a violation as you cannot connect neutrals from other circuits together on the load side of OCPD. How long this has been code I am not sure. I didn't mention the enormous emf problems from this. I also didn't mention art.310.4 for parallel conductors.

All of the conductors between the service center and this panel are run together in a single run of EMT. There is undoubtedly a derating issue. But EMF? Yes, EMF if that neutral to box bond remains in place, but, once removed, I think all associated conductors are together in close physical proximity.

I've got to look at Old NEC and look for the "load side of OCPD" passage.

Any one have a thought about where that might be in, say, the '71 NEC?

 

[jeremysterling]

Whoever came behind and installed the yellow wire nut on the white wires wasn't buying the parallel-neutral-all-on-one-bar concept. Neither would I.

Sorry, I cannot research the code for you.

Nice pic.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

But EMF? Yes, EMF if that neutral to box bond remains in place, but, once removed, I think all associated conductors are together in close physical proximity.

You will definitely get unwanted emf's if you splice two different circuit neutrals together after the OCPD. You also have parallel neutrals from what I understand of this install.

 

[ronaldrc]

Whoever came behind and installed the yellow wire nut on the white wires wasn't buying the parallel-neutral-all-on-one-bar concept. Neither would I.

Sorry, I cannot research the code for you.

Nice pic.

Maybe I'm looking at this picture wrong let me know if I am?

If I am how come knowbody is not yelling paralleled neutrals?
Aren"t they parralleled all tied together at the main panel and
at this Junction box which used to be the,
panel by the neutral bars?

jeremysterling caught it.

sorry Dennis we must have been posting at the same time.

Ronald

 

[480sparky]

Parallel conductor rule goes back to 1933. The 1/0 minimum was introduced in 1949.

 

[LarryFine]

Not cool with me, either. I would have formed as many MWBC's as possible.

 

[hurk27]

While I have never seen one like this, I have found a few and even made a thread on here back a few years, of relocating the service and leaving the neutral bar, adding a grounding bar, and running one neutral sized per the old service size, and one EGC sized per 250.122, running in the same conduit as the extended hots to the new panel location, I had asked if that was legal, and got mixed reviews, but I think the new requirement of not using an over sized neutral for circuits on the same phase took care of that one.

 

[al hildenbrand]

IMO, this is a violation as you cannot connect neutrals from other circuits together on the load side of OCPD. How long this has been code I am not sure.

I spent some time with three different Codes last night, and didn't find this.

Does someone recall a current reference, in the 2008 maybe? Not the 2011.

If you can get me started I'll work it backwards.

 

[bobserrano]

What a mess !!!

 

[480sparky]

I spent some time with three different Codes last night, and didn't find this.

Does someone recall a current reference, in the 2008 maybe? Not the 2011.

If you can get me started I'll work it backwards.

Paralleling conductors? 310.4.

 

[480sparky]

I spent some time with three different Codes last night, and didn't find this.

Does someone recall a current reference, in the 2008 maybe? Not the 2011.

If you can get me started I'll work it backwards.

Try this..... (and any anyone else who wants a little help researching old Codes).

 

[al hildenbrand]

Paralleling conductors? 310.4.

Perhaps that is the most salient rule. The '71 had a major rewrite of the rule, then in 310-10.

I went to the 1968, where "paralleling" is called "conductors in multiple" and found:

1968 NEC
310-10. Conductors in Multiple. Conductors in sizes 1/0 and larger may be run in multiple provided the arrangement is such as to assure equal division of total current among all conductors involved. All of the multiple conductors shall be of the same length, of the same conductor material, circular-mil area, same insulation type and terminated in the same manner. Where run in separate raceways or cables, the raceways or cables shall have the same physical characteristics.

The NFPA NEC Handbook of 1968 goes on with the following explanatory text:

This Section recognizes the use of conductors in sizes 1/0 and larger for use in multiple under the conditions which are stated. This provision is intended to allow a practical means of installing large-capacity feeders and services. Paralleling of conductors relies on a number of factors to ensure equal division of current, and thus all these factors must be satisfied in order to ensure that none of the individual conductors will become overloaded. There does not appear to be any practical need to parallel conductors in sizes smaller than 1/0, and such a practice would not be recognized under the requirements of the National Electrical Code.

Now, admittedly, my highlight in red is not enforceable language. It does imply there is another rule, or rules, that would prevent the practice shown in my OP photo.

It has been argued at this Forum that the Parallel Conductor Rule, while saying 1/0 and larger may be paralleled, is silent about conductors smaller than 1/0.

If there is another rule that prohibits this, that is what I'm searching for.

 

[petersonra]

I am not sure where you think there are paralleled conductors here. Maybe I am missing something obvious in the photo.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I am not sure where you think there are paralleled conductors here. Maybe I am missing something obvious in the photo.

The box in the photo in my OP used to house the Service Disconnect. The Service Entrance and Disconnect / Service Center were relocated about 25 feet away during an addition to the dwelling. A single 1-1/4" EMT run was installed between the box in the photo and the new Service Center (see the 1-1/4" chase nipple in the top center of the box in my OP photo).

The old branch circuit OCPDs were removed from the box in the photo, and all branch circuit OCPDs are now at the Service end of the 1-1/4" EMT.

Apparently all of the MWBC neutrals (which are all paralleled) coming out of the 1-1/4" EMT in my photo, match the MWBCs in use and correlate to the original branch circuits that still emanate from the box in my photo.

I am really hoping to avoid having to correct this, which is why I am looking for the loophole from the late Sixties or Seventies Code that might have actually allowed this.

 

[LarryFine]

I am not sure where you think there are paralleled conductors here. Maybe I am missing something obvious in the photo.

Where do you suppose the other ends of each of the new white wires entering what looks like a Chase nipple terminate?

It's bad enough to use the single-large-conductor-neutral idea; it's even worse to make it from individual wires.

Added: Ah, a smoke break caused me delay. I see I was correct.