Mains and subs

[Esthy]

Neutrals and grounding are bonded together at the disconnect (see pic 1) and they are also bonded at the service panel (see pic 2 & 3) and at the sub-panel (see pic 4). Besides that, the neutrals are double lugged in the service panel and the pool sub-panel's feeders are double lugged in the disconnect, the electric inspector sees nothing wrong, he stated that the double lugging being on the load side is not a problem. I am not confortable with this installation and I don't like it, but the customer is an Electronic Engineer and he stated that this installation had been there for 40+ years without problems. This installation looks a Big Jumbo Mumbo to me. Any opinions? I am wrong? Thanks.









Moderator's note: Edit to reduce picture size. Click on the small pictures (thumbnails) to view the full-size images.

 

[brian john]

Tell the engineer the bridge that collasped in Minnesota was there 35 years without problems till the day it fell.

Tell the inspector to quit and get a job he knows something about (assuming these pics are of the same service)

 

[Esthy]

Same house and same service. This customer spent $4,300 in a paint job, $1,850 on plumbing faucets and hardware, a nice $2,100 front door, etc., but doesn't want to spend one cent on electric. I shoud switch careers...be a painter.

 

[Cavie]

I don't know how hungry for work you are but it it was me, I would very politly explain the code to him and tell him to have a nice day a walk away. Why are you there?.

 

[Esthy]

I am a worrier, his wife is a nice lady and I worry that something can happens. I don't have, at this moment, the code book with me (truck break in and a lot stolen) to mention all code violation, but I am wondering if I am too picky - many of my customers think so -

 

[Cavie]

You are not to picky. There are code violations there. 1-subpanel feeds (I'm guesing #6) fused at 200 amps.2- grounds and neutrals not seperated at sub panels. 3-double wires under on lug, 4-Neutral at disconect looks to be isolated from can. What are the two "patches" on eaither side of the disc? saftey door lock system removed? 5-Mutiple neutrals under one screw in the main panel.

 

[cadpoint]

Picky, U Bet. Two different companies I know of locally will note this on there bills. If their called for service and see something else, they explain the situation both verbally and as part of the bill, noting the infraction, and have the client sign there bill.

 

[Esthy]

Hi Cavie,
Whoa, I didn't notice the patches, also there is a fire code violation in the disconnect -1 1/2" or 2" open (empty) nipple at the bottom. Attach the last photo (meter), you has a good eye, maybe you will see something else, besides the plastic cup at the hub top.

 

[Cavie]

Can't tell if thay a patches or just flash protection. Is it a weatherproof disc? The emt in the top does not appear to be in a Meyers hub. The offset nipple in the side is in violation as it is above the line lugs. Offset must be at the bottom on the can. So, you can open the door in the on position. That's real safe. When I was 10 years old that would have gotten me killed.

 

[iwire]

The emt in the top does not appear to be in a Meyers hub.

Code cite?

The offset nipple in the side is in violation as it is above the line lugs. Offset must be at the bottom on the can.

Code cite?

So, you can open the door in the on position.

Common for old disconnects, not a violation today if it was not a violation when installed.

 

[Cavie]

Code cite?



Code cite?



Common for old disconnects, not a violation today if it was not a violation when installed.

You probibly wount like it. I think it is the Dreaded "Handbook". I'll look tomorrow. I know the door was not a violation then and is not now but it is just a good old seat of the pants safty issue.

 

[Cavie]

Code cite?



Code cite?



Common for old disconnects, not a violation today if it was not a violation when installed.

2005 nec art #312.2 (a) I understand that when installed it was not a violation and therefore in not now. However, it does back up some of Esthy's picky concerns. I do not think the emt connector in the top of the panel was ever code compliant. I know it was not when/where I learnd back in '02

 

[charlie b]

. . . the customer is an Electronic Engineer and he stated that this installation had been there for 40+ years without problems.

The study of electronics is very different than that of power systems engineering. Feel free to tell him, on behalf of an electrical engineer who specializes in power systems, that he has no idea what he is looking at, no idea of what he is talking about, and no idea of the danger that lurks in that installation.

You can also show him the following (this will be perhaps the fifth or sixth time I have posted this analogy, so I hope nobody minds the repetition):

• Suppose that just before you back your car out of the driveway each morning, you put on blinders and earmuffs.

• Suppose that you wait for a random amount of time, and then just back into the street.

• When you get into the street, you can take off the blinders and the earmuffs, and drive to work.

• Question: If you do this ten days in a row, and if you don?t hit anything during those ten days, would you conclude that this is a safe driving habit? Or would it take 20 consecutive days without incident, to convince you it was safe? 30? How many?

Everyone is welcome to steal this analogy shamelessly. But give me authorship credit, if you wish to use the following aphorism:

"An accident waiting for a place to happen will, given time, find that place.? Charlie Beck

 

[iwire]

I do not think the emt connector in the top of the panel was ever code compliant. I know it was not when/where I learnd back in '02

You can enter the top of RT enclosure with EMT assuming it is a RT connector and you seal it somehow. It tells us that in 312.2(A).

Sealing lock nuts, an 'O' ring or even silicone come to mind.

Nothing is a violation unless a code cite can be found.

I have a real problem when people try to apply todays code rules to a installation a couple of decades old.....it just does not make sense as the NEC is not retro active.