Existing Installation Hazzards

[kevieco]

I have been looking in the NEC for a section that would reffer to a condition which exist from a previous installation being done incorrectly, then another electricians pulling a circuit out and back in with out correct a direct code violation (Such as physical protection of #14 THHN wire Feeding thru a brick wall from a "LB" to a Junction Box). Does anyone have a ideas for this?

 

[kevieco]

Re: Existing Installation Hazzards

Please cite the article or quote. Thanks

 

[petersonra]

Re: Existing Installation Hazzards

As best I can remember, there are no articles dealing with the possibility of some existing work not being to code.

It would not be within the scope of such a code anyway.

Your best bet for dealing with these type of problems is to point them out to the owner, explain why they are a problem (if they actually are) and let the owner decide what action to take.

It often ends up being the case that as you dig into one problem you find more and more. The owner may not wish to address them at present, or may wish to address them in a more comprehensive way. It is his call, not yours.

Doing things like this in an ad hoc fashion is generally not cost effective.

Now IF there is something that is an immediate hazard, you may want to be more insistent. This is why you go to school for many years to learn this trade. Occasionally a judgement call is necessary.

 

[kevieco]

Re: Existing Installation Hazzards

But is the last party to touch the violation responsible for the condition if left in an unsafe state?

Also, wouldn't reflect on the workmanship of the last party to work through the condition and leaving it in the state of an unsafe condition?

I was taught thru my apprenticeship; mo unsafe condition is to be left behind and if you were the last person to work on the system and leaving the condition unsafe, makes you now the responsible party.

The is code related and ethics related as much as it will affect cost. And this is still the customers call? I would walk away from this type of job, unless it was added to the scope to be repaired or the SOW stated the existing condition is not the responibility of the contractor tasked to do the work.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Existing Installation Hazzards

Originally posted by kevieco: But is the last party to touch the violation responsible for the condition if left in an unsafe state?

I would say "yes."

This is a tough one to deal with. The NEC applies to the work you are doing. If you need to pull a new wire through an existing conduit, and if there are other wires in that conduit, and if you need to pull everything out, in order to pull it all back in (with you new wire added to the bunch), and if you have to reconnect the old wires in order to complete the job, and if the old wires comprised an NEC violation, then I would say that this is part of your responsibility.

As soon as you see the situation, you need to advise the owner. If the owner will not add the correction to your scope of work and pay you extra for the extra work, then you need to walk away. I don't see getting a "get out of jail free" card from the owner as an option. You don't get to leave a code violation behind, if you disconnected and reconnected its wire, without becoming the person responsible for the violation.

 

[petersonra]

Re: Existing Installation Hazzards

You are responsible only for the work you do. You have a moral(and legal) responsibility to do your work so that you do not create a hazard.

I believe you also have an obligation (at least a moral one) to point out existing work that may present a hazard to the owner that you may come across. I do not believe that you have any obligation at all beyond that for any existing work.

I am not sure where you draw the line when hooking up to existing work that may have some defect in it. If the defect is serious, you probably should pass on doing the work unless the owner agrees to pay for correcting the defect. If the defect is not serious, I would be inclined to point it out (probably in writing) and continue on with the new work.

It is also possible that there are local rules that may apply.

 

[tshea]

Re: Existing Installation Hazzards

Won't find it in NEC. With that being said, your only other recourse is to contact the local inspector and find out what the local ordinances say. You may or may not be responsible for the repairs. Ultimately the owner is the responsible party. The AHJ may cite an unsafe condition, which the owner is required to repair within XX days. The owner may hire you to make the repairs.
charlie b said:

and if you have to reconnect the old wires in order to complete the job, and if the old wires comprised an NEC violation, then I would say that this is part of your responsibility.

I would have to agree with that statement.

 

[suemarkp]

Re: Existing Installation Hazzards

I had a similar situation. I bought a house with an existing outbuilding that contained a subpanel. I got a permit to add a pool heat pump branch circuit to this panel. This permit allows you to touch up to 4 branch circuits. I noticed no equipment grounds in the two pool pumps, so I added those. I noticed that I had no ground electrode system, and I wasn't planning on fixing that.

When the inspector came, he noticed the lack of ground electrode. Said it was never code to not have it, so I'm not grandfathered. It was a good idea, so I fixed it. The more annoying thing was he wanted a light above the panelboard. This is a recent code requirement, but I wasn't changing the panelboard. He said I touched enough stuff that I had to comply with the new rules. I don't know where he gets the authority for that, and whether its his call or he was out of line. But I had another more important disagreement with him, so I gave in on the panel light and the ground electrode system upgrades.