NJ Rehab Subcode

[__dan]

Upgrading may not be necessary, but checking the existing for deficiencies, and reporting this to the owner certainly is. The best changes are changes necessary to meet code (Civitello). You can exclude the upgraded grounding in your quote, find the need, and request a change after the grounding deficiency is found. The inspector could be doing you a favor (writing a necessary change to meet code) that may be saleable additional work.

It is clear to me the inspector is intent on not making the owner's (and your) liability into his liability. It is everyone's valid the concern the grounding be checked and repaired as necessary.

 

[Strummed]

The inspector could be doing you a favor (writing a necessary change to meet code) that may be saleable additional work.

The inspector is most certainly not doing me a favor. The inspector is saying that grounding is required to be upgraded because I changed out the panel. The customer says it should have been included because all they agreed to pay was the original price and I should have known what was required. So not only is the inspector going into my pocket for $400, but he is making me look bad to the customer.

The inspector probably had the same attitude as you, "I don't care what the code says, it sounds like a good idea so let's enforce it".

It is clear to me the inspector is intent on not making the owner's (and your) liability into his liability. It is everyone's valid the concern the grounding be checked and repaired as necessary.

The inspector's job is to enforce the code, not his own opinion.

To those who confirmed that grounding isn't required to be upgraded, thank you. I'll be calling Suzanne Borek first thing on Monday morning.

 

[__dan]

My question is about whether or not the NJ Rehab Subcode allows us to change out a main panel without updating the grounding. It doesn't matter what was found on the job.

You may have some liability, but a very, very minuscule amount. As long as you followed code you are as safe as you are going to get. If you worry that much about liability, this isn't the trade for you. Everything we touch can lead to something happening down the road...

Again, I completely disagree with that. Documenting that you made the installation to code is the perfect defense and would most likely stop any action against you immediately.

And I will refer to the code that I followed. I will also use this very thread as proof that I followed the code :thumbsup::lol:

Remember, people can "say" anything. They can "say" that the receptacle that you installed ultimately lead to someone getting shocked for so and so reason. The best defense that we have is to be able to say that we followed the code.

Hey I have this extension cord that meets code. Just stand there a minute while I toss it into the puddle of water you are standing in. I will read the code I am following to you, while you sing and dance.

This is no joke, people have been killed jumping out of the pool and stepping on an extension cord. If this parable does not penetrate your consciousness, you are welcome to perform the experiment for yourself.

You are saying you were advised (reading this thread) you have some liability and willfully neglected to check the grounding for deficiencies ???

 

[Strummed]

Hey I have this extension cord that meets code. Just stand there a minute while I toss it into the puddle of water you are standing in. I will read the code I am following to you, while you sing and dance.

This is no joke, people have been killed jumping out of the pool and stepping on an extension cord. If this parable does not penetrate your consciousness, you are welcome to perform the experiment for yourself.

You are saying you were advised (reading this thread) you have some liability and willfully neglected to check the grounding for deficiencies ???

You are giving pretty silly analogies, but I guess it's hard to think straight when the sky is falling on top of you :lol::thumbsup:

By what you just said, we should ban extension cords because someone could run it from a non-GFCI protected receptacle out to the pool and someone could step on it and get killed. Ban the extension cords for the children! Or should we, as electrician, only install GFCI protected circuits??

I was having a bad day, thanks for making me smile

 

[infinity]

The inspector is most certainly not doing me a favor. The inspector is saying that grounding is required to be upgraded because I changed out the panel. The customer says it should have been included because all they agreed to pay was the original price and I should have known what was required. So not only is the inspector going into my pocket for $400, but he is making me look bad to the customer.

The inspector probably had the same attitude as you, "I don't care what the code says, it sounds like a good idea so let's enforce it".

The inspector's job is to enforce the code, not his own opinion.

To those who confirmed that grounding isn't required to be upgraded, thank you. I'll be calling Suzanne Borek first thing on Monday morning.

You're correct, the inspector is required to enforce the code as written not what in his opinion makes sense. The rehab code is great in some respects and cumbersome in situations like this. I agree with Greg, under the Rehab code you only change the panel and you're done. Personally I would never leave the old grounding in place. You can call the DCA or speak to the construction offical in the town that you're working in. Often they will give the proper interpretation even if it's not what the EI or the electrical sub-code official said.

 

[__dan]

I did say it may be a valid change if in fact you did not include the grounding repairs in the original quote. It is valid, a deficiency could be found after work has started. Do a lot of them and you may include a standard disclaimer in your original quote (repairs to the service grounding, found necessary after work has started, are extra). The inspector is correct in bringing this to your attention. It is the owner's liability after the deficiency has been found and this information conveyed. The inspector's requirement makes the work saleable.

If you make clear (in writing) this change is necessary and as required by the AHJ, if the owner at that point declines the change, imo, sufficient notice of deficiency has been passed to the owner and liability rests with the owner's decision to not go forward with the extra work.

 

[Strummed]

The inspector is correct in bringing this to your attention.

Again, I strongly disagree. The inspector is not correct in failing my job. It's also not his job to bring his opinion to my attention. If I wanted an electrical consultant, I would have hired one.

It is the owner's liability after the deficiency has been found

There is no deficiency...

 

[Strummed]

You're correct, the inspector is required to enforce the code as written not what in his opinion makes sense. The rehab code is great in some respects and cumbersome in situations like this. I agree with Greg, under the Rehab code you only change the panel and you're done. Personally I would never leave the old grounding in place. You can call the DCA or speak to the construction offical in the town that you're working in. Often they will give the proper interpretation even if it's not what the EI or the electrical sub-code official said.

Thanks.

As for leaving the grounding, I will happily upgrade it on every panel changeout, but it just isn't that easy all the time. With this particular customer, they were very clear right from the start that all they wanted was "the Federal Pacific panel out and a safe panel in as cheap as possible". They sure as hell weren't going to an extra $400 for grounding when it's not necessary.

 

[kwired]

Lol :lol::lol:

I can only assume that is your response to my reply to:

Originally Posted by Strummed
a service change was never part of this topic.

I don't see what is so funny. How does your AHJ define what is a "service change"? Maybe service change is the wrong terminology to be using. Is there a "new service" when all is done? How much equipment that is part of the "new service" must be changed before it is called a "new service"? I think your AHJ will have an answer to that, it may be a different answer with an AHJ in my area, so that is why I asked what does your AHJ call a "service change".

If you come back a few months later and change the meter socket and service conductors you still haven't changed the service, yet you have all new service equipment. How much does it cost to drive a ground rod or two or run to a water pipe that is so horrible you feel it is necessary not to do so, if what is presently there doesn't comply with current codes?

AFCI is really a different topic as it is a branch circuit related requirement and not a service equipment related topic, but since they are going to be in the service panel.... again what does the AHJ say, which is basically what your main question is in the OP. Maybe you should ask the AHJ what their policy is and not try to convince the rest of the world what you think the AHJ policy is or should be.

 

[Strummed]

Lol :lol::lol:

It's funny to see someone pick apart and refuse something that we all know.

A few other people have already cited the code saying both that a panel change is different than a service change and a panel change is allowed to be performed without upgrading grounding.

 

[Strummed]

How much does it cost to drive a ground rod or two or run to a water pipe that is so horrible you feel it is necessary not to do so,

As I mentioned earlier, $400 for this house.

I don't know what you mean about it being horrible to do. I would love to do it, but the customers don't want to pay for it.

I'd love to run rigid through the wals for branch circuits because romex is evil and dangerous and someone might sue me for installing it even though it is code complaint... :lol:

if what is presently there doesn't comply with current codes?

As I originally thought, and this thread confirmed, not upgrading the grounding still complies with the code.

again what does the AHJ say, which is basically what your main question is in the OP. Maybe you should ask the AHJ what their policy is and not try to convince the rest of the world what you think the AHJ policy is or should be.

I disagree. You're clearly not understanding the simple point. I am not worried about what the AHJ wants. They are only there to enforce a set of laws already on the books. In this situation, the inspector in question is making up laws of his own. Do you not see a problem with that?

 

[Gregg Harris]

As I mentioned earlier, $400 for this house.

I don't know what you mean about it being horrible to do. I would love to do it, but the customers don't want to pay for it.

I'd love to run rigid through the wals for branch circuits because romex is evil and dangerous and someone might sue me for installing it even though it is code complaint... :lol:

As I originally thought, and this thread confirmed, not upgrading the grounding still complies with the code.

I disagree. You're clearly not understanding the simple point. I am not worried about what the AHJ wants. They are only there to enforce a set of laws already on the books. In this situation, the inspector in question is making up laws of his own. Do you not see a problem with that?

I agree with both sides, there is a big deficiency in the way that the rehab code was written and you are compliant with there minimum, but it is not right to leave it at that. What is involved in this home that requires 400 dollars to complete?

 

[kwired]

As I mentioned earlier, $400 for this house.

I don't know what you mean about it being horrible to do. I would love to do it, but the customers don't want to pay for it.

I'd love to run rigid through the wals for branch circuits because romex is evil and dangerous and someone might sue me for installing it even though it is code complaint... :lol:

As I originally thought, and this thread confirmed, not upgrading the grounding still complies with the code.

I disagree. You're clearly not understanding the simple point. I am not worried about what the AHJ wants. They are only there to enforce a set of laws already on the books. In this situation, the inspector in question is making up laws of his own. Do you not see a problem with that?

I understand, and the inspector could be making up his own rules. Remember the inspector is not the AHJ, he represents and is an employee of the AHJ. He can make mistakes, or make actions on his own that are not supported by the AHJ. The AHJ is the governing body that makes the laws, and has a building codes or other similar department that is the face of the AHJ when it comes to the application of specific issues.

I am not in NJ, never been there, and can not tell you what the AHJ rules may be. I was giving your inspector some benefit of doubt and assuming he maybe was right. Again I suggest you contact the AHJ office if you feel the inspector is wrong as there is not much any of us here can do about your problem. Since you have had others familiar with laws in the area confirm what you feel is right maybe the inspector is wrong. All I really asked is what the AHJ calls a "service change" and told you what you did would likely be called a service change or upgrade and also would mean update grounding electrode system if it is not up to current code in many other locations.

 

[Strummed]

I agree with both sides, there is a big deficiency in the way that the rehab code was written and you are compliant with there minimum, but it is not right to leave it at that.

Do you think it's a fluke that grounding isn't required for panel changes? I always figured things like that were purposely put in to allow people to make changes (such as replacing a panel that could be dangerous) without high costs. As we know, many people wouldn't make these changes unless the costs were low enough.

What is involved in this home that requires 400 dollars to complete?

That's my price to do the work.

 

[infinity]

Do you think it's a fluke that grounding isn't required for panel changes? I always figured things like that were purposely put in to allow people to make changes (such as replacing a panel that could be dangerous) without high costs. As we know, many people wouldn't make these changes unless the costs were low enough.

That's my price to do the work.

You can look at it this way, if you change a defective circuit breaker do you have to upgrade the entire panel? If you change a defective panel do you have to change the entire service? The rehab code was specifically written to make it economically feasible to fix things without having to bring the entire installation up to the current code. Certainly ripping out an old FPE panel and replacing it with something less likely to go up in flames falls within the realm of the rehab code.