Grounding conductors in 1980's panels

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jbinspect

Member
Location
Kansas City
I inspected a group of duplexes, tri-plexes and four-plexes built in 1983 that had significant issues I know would not fly today. My problem is not knowing what would be grandfathered and how to report the issues. Here's a description of the existing installation: Meters outside
100amp Square D panels in kitchens, fed with three #2 copper conductors and one #8 insulated stranded copper grounding conductor.

NO remote disconnects outside, 100 amp breakers in each panel.
Entrance cables are very long ? sometimes 30? or more (again, no remote disconnects).

The system ground driven rod conductor comes into the meter can, then each unit's #8 grounding conductor is connected to the rod.

Branch circuit grounds in each panel are twisted together and clamped onto one lug attached to the back of each panel and the #8 conductor is also attached to that clamp. See photo. These units were built as low-income dwellings for the municipal housing authority so it seems inconceivable to me that all these things were violations back then, but.... Thanks in advance for the help.DSCN0626.JPG
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0628.JPG
    DSCN0628.JPG
    118 KB · Views: 3
The danger will be less if the #8s connect in some manner to the grounded meter socket. Doesn't remove a gaggle of violations but does provide a return path for a fault back to the grounded conductor (neutral).
Doubtful the long unprotected service conductors would be acceptable in any jurisdiction if installed today but a specific length has never been stated in the NEC and in my experience long runs were the norm in some areas years ago.
Multiple conductors on the lugs and split bolts add to the number of violations but, as noted, my main concern would be establishing a ground return path to neutral and not just a ground rod.
 
Your profile says you are a property inspector.

I take that to mean your primary function here is advising the owner to safety issues more so then enforcing code like a state or municipal inspector would be doing.


I would check into what Gus mentioned and make sure there is a solid EGC path and not just a path to a ground rod, and if it is just the ground rod make that the number one safety item on the report. Overcurrent protection on conductors entering the building possibly would be my number 2 item - but may depend on what distances may have been set for that area as permissible for entrance - that is assuming you have a situation where you can have multiple service disconnecting means not grouped together in the first place, but since it is multiple occupant building the chance is there that it is acceptable. Building/fire codes may have some play in how this is interpreted as well.

Then I would mention the multiple grounding conductors under the single lug, and how it is not and at time of construction was not NEC compliant. Even if it passed an inspection at that time it is still not considered a good installation practice and that the installation of an equipment ground bar in that panel is not that expensive of a remedy to help prevent some problem down the road related to this poor installation practice.

If you are basically a consultant, you can't really force any changes, but your job is to point out what would make a safer environment, and leaving something out leaves you on the hook so to speak if something does happen later and they claim you never reported there was anything wrong there. If you suggest they change something and they don't change it - at least you have documentation stating your suggestion.
 
jbinspect said:
I inspected a group of duplexes, tri-plexes and four-plexes built in 1983 that had significant issues I know would not fly today. My problem is not knowing what would be grandfathered and how to report the issues. Here's a description of the existing installation: Meters outside
100amp Square D panels in kitchens, fed with three #2 copper conductors and one #8 insulated stranded copper grounding conductor.

NO remote disconnects outside, 100 amp breakers in each panel.
Entrance cables are very long ? sometimes 30? or more (again, no remote disconnects).

The system ground driven rod conductor comes into the meter can, then each unit's #8 grounding conductor is connected to the rod.

Branch circuit grounds in each panel are twisted together and clamped onto one lug attached to the back of each panel and the #8 conductor is also attached to that clamp. See photo. These units were built as low-income dwellings for the municipal housing authority so it seems inconceivable to me that all these things were violations back then, but.... Thanks in advance for the help.
Click to expand...

There is no specific requirement for outside disconnects in the code.

There is no specific length that the service conductors can run into the building before landing at a panel board in the code.

The wire sizes for the power conductors seems adequate.

The #8 EGC is probably adequate as well.

The grounding and bonding seems acceptable.

I am not seeing a code violation.
 
?Responses within quote:

petersonra said:
There is no specific requirement for outside disconnects in the code.

There is no specific length that the service conductors can run into the building before landing at a panel board in the code.
True, but many jurisdictions do set a maximum distance, and is often only in the 3 to 5 foot range - some even up to 10 feet some even don't allow entry into the building at all.

The wire sizes for the power conductors seems adequate.

The #8 EGC is probably adequate as well.

The grounding and bonding seems acceptable.
One thing that has not yet been clarified is whether or not the "ground wire" that was run is bonded to the neutral at the meter socket or if it runs straight to ground rod, sounded like that may have been a possibility.

I am not seeing a code violation.
Not even the multiple grounding conductors in one lug?
Click to expand...
 
I am not seeing a code violation.
Not even the multiple grounding conductors in one lug?
Click to expand...
It could be. when I first read it I thought he meant multiple lugs on a single screw. If what he really has is a bunch of wires jammed into a single lug, it probably is a violation of the listing of the lug.

ETA: I went back and looked at the attached picture that seems to show a bunch of wires jammed into a single lug. while fairly trivial, this is a violation.
 
Last edited:
petersonra said:
It could be. when I first read it I thought he meant multiple lugs on a single screw. If what he really has is a bunch of wires jammed into a single lug, it probably is a violation of the listing of the lug.
Click to expand...
Did you click on the first image in the OP to enlargen it? It shows the EGC's all in one lug as well as the #8 that is (based on text in OP) possibly connected to a ground rod only.
 
kwired said:
Did you click on the first image in the OP to enlargen it? It shows the EGC's all in one lug as well as the #8 that is (based on text in OP) possibly connected to a ground rod only.
Click to expand...
I went back and did so and adjusted my previous post accordingly.

As for only being connected to the ground rod, I got the impression from his OP that the #8 wires went back to the meter and connected to the rod there. That seems likely OK.

if they went directly to the rod, not so ok.
 
"The system ground driven rod conductor comes into the meter can, then each unit's #8 grounding conductor is connected to the rod. "

What does this sentence mean? The first part of it is kinda garbled. Is there a #8 from a rod to each meter, and then another #8 from each panel to the rod? But if each unit in a multi-unit building has its own meter, does each unit have its own rod, or each building?

I'm of the school of thought that if the entire system was installed and approved as is 30 years, it hasn't been tampered with and has been working OK, then it is grandfathered and legal. If the installers used #2 copper for 100a units, the equipment is SQ-D and the workmanship is consistent and neat then it suggests that there was no attempt to evade codes or take dangerous short-cuts in the installation.
 
petersonra said:
I went back and did so and adjusted my previous post accordingly.

As for only being connected to the ground rod, I got the impression from his OP that the #8 wires went back to the meter and connected to the rod there. That seems likely OK.

if they went directly to the rod, not so ok.
Click to expand...
if they hit another lug in the meter probably sort of ok, if they just pass through the meter on the way to a ground rod - not a good idea at all even if you don't care about codes - we have asked for clarification on this and haven't gotten any yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top