"It was existing"

[acrwc10]

Just wondering how many guys think that "it was existing" is an acceptible arguement?
I looked at a job this week where the "electrician" had rewired a house, added a new distribution panel and run his feeder from an existing main service (100 amp main breaker only). The first thing I noticed was he ran his feeder as a 3 wire in conduit, OK. So I asked him to open the main panel and there was no GEC, no ground rods and the neutral was isolated. So there was no bonded metal anywhere in the house, and the guy kept parroting "it was existing" over and over, even after I explained to him that there would be no way for a fault to ground to clear the way it was set up. Needless to say, it's getting a GEC and ground rods.

 

[iwire]

Here in MA these two rules apply.

I understand your concerns but I feel in the real world a short would clear as the neutral is bonded at other locations outside this home.

 

[mistermudd]

In Washington State, if electrician can prove the existing installation was code complaint at the time of installation, fine. If not and the new work is taking place downstream, it needs to be fixed.

 

[kwired]

Just wondering how many guys think that "it was existing" is an acceptible arguement?
I looked at a job this week where the "electrician" had rewired a house, added a new distribution panel and run his feeder from an existing main service (100 amp main breaker only). The first thing I noticed was he ran his feeder as a 3 wire in conduit, OK. So I asked him to open the main panel and there was no GEC, no ground rods and the neutral was isolated. So there was no bonded metal anywhere in the house, and the guy kept parroting "it was existing" over and over, even after I explained to him that there would be no way for a fault to ground to clear the way it was set up. Needless to say, it's getting a GEC and ground rods.

Was equipment grounding conductors isolated from service grounded conductor?

Did his 3 wire feeder include a metal raceway that could be used as an equipment ground?

His new feeder was not existing, the grounding electrode system (or lack of one) was existing. His feeder needs proper equipment grounding regardless of what existing problems may be with grounding electrodes, and other system bonding.

 

[acrwc10]

Here in MA these two rules apply.

I understand your concerns but I feel in the real world a short would clear as the neutral is bonded at other locations outside this home.

Was equipment grounding conductors isolated from service grounded conductor?

Did his 3 wire feeder include a metal raceway that could be used as an equipment ground?

His new feeder was not existing, the grounding electrode system (or lack of one) was existing. His feeder needs proper equipment grounding regardless of what existing problems may be with grounding electrodes, and other system bonding.

There was NO connection of the neutral to the grounds in the house. The water system and all metal piping were not connected in any way to the service (or subpanel). The neutral was isolated from the metal service inclosure. There was no bond or egc connectiron to the neutral at all, no return path for a ground fault, phase to neutral fault yes, phase to ground no.

 

[kwired]

There was NO connection of the neutral to the grounds in the house. The water system and all metal piping were not connected in any way to the service (or subpanel). The neutral was isolated from the metal service inclosure. There was no bond or egc connectiron to the neutral at all, no return path for a ground fault, phase to neutral fault yes, phase to ground no.

If an inspector here would run into that, I think they would first ask the contractor to at least install a main bonding jumper at the service panel at the very least (assuming it would at least take care of lack of equipment grounding being bonded to the service grounded conductor).

If for some reason that is not going to happen - I guess that it was existing and outside the scope of what work the contractor was doing, so it is a little hard to issue a correction notice when nothing was done wrong. But at same time the inspector does have authority to order the POCO disconnect service if in his opinion there is a potential immediate threat to life or property. Then it becomes the owners problem to get something done if they want service restored.

This is something that would not happen very often, I am not sure just what they would want brought up to code, but like I said, I think they at least would want a main bonding jumper installed so we don't have a floating equipment grounding system. Grounding electrodes - are necessary, but people bring too much attention to the importance of them IMO. The system is grounded, even if only at the POCO transformer. You do not have an ungrounded system just because there is no grounding electrodes installed at the house, and even if you do - they are not for fault clearing like some seem to think they are.

 

[jazer]

The system is grounded, even if only at the POCO transformer. You do not have an ungrounded system just because there is no grounding electrodes installed at the house, and even if you do - they are not for fault clearing like some seem to think they are.

Well stated.

 

[Stevareno]

I wish.
I'm currently on a remodel job where the existing service and branch circuits are existing.
There is nothing wrong with it other than it doesn't meet current code requirements.
The service is okay, but the branch circuits are another story.
Picture 26 #12 wires in a 1" conduit and all breakers are 20A. That meets conduit fill but doesn't take deration into account.
Not only that, the MWBC's are scattered. They were properly separated as to phase conditions, but there is no way to meet current code without moving the circuits so that they can be put under a multi-pole breaker.
So now we have to re-pull the home runs to meet the current code.

I so wish that existing builds could be "grandfathered" from meeting the current requirements, but that is not the case.:weeping:

 

[kwired]

I wish.
I'm currently on a remodel job where the existing service and branch circuits are existing.
There is nothing wrong with it other than it doesn't meet current code requirements.
The service is okay, but the branch circuits are another story.
Picture 26 #12 wires in a 1" conduit and all breakers are 20A. That meets conduit fill but doesn't take deration into account.
Not only that, the MWBC's are scattered. They were properly separated as to phase conditions, but there is no way to meet current code without moving the circuits so that they can be put under a multi-pole breaker.
So now we have to re-pull the home runs to meet the current code.

I so wish that existing builds could be "grandfathered" from meeting the current requirements, but that is not the case.:weeping:

But most of what you mentioned was never code compliant. "Grandfathered" means they were compliant at one time and the codes have changed, doesn't it?

The next thing is if the inspector sees this is whether or not you are required to change it, even though it is not your creation?

If your install doesn't have anything to do with the questionable items, then the scope of your work doesn't include making any change to those questionable items. If AHJ does not want to allow leaving that existing problem then it should become a job of it's own, and should be initiated as an issue between AHJ and owner, and not as an issue between AHJ and contractor -JMO.

A good contractor will see this is a problem and bring it up to the owner before the inspector even sees it, telling them it is wrong, and that inspector will want to see it changed, and making an additional offer to fix it. If owner doesn't want to fix it, then let the inspector tell the owner it needs fixed and then you can sit back and say to yourself "I told you so".

 

[cowboyjwc]

Existing that's not code complient now is one thing, existing that was never code complient is a whole other thing.:happyyes: