No equipment ground pulled to sub-panel

[JoeNorm]

We are doing a solar install and landing the back-feed breaker in a garage sub panel. The homeowner did the sub install years ago.

He actually did a good job besides not having pulled an equipment ground with the feeders. Oh and the grounds and neutrals are all mixed together on shared busses. He has the grounding electrode system perfect, bare copper to two rods.

This is obviously a code violation. Do we tell him we MUST pull the ground?

It's always a challenge to come in for a specific job(Solar) and have to walk the fine line with homeowner work.

And out of curiosity, would the system likely work just fine this way? as long as the ground path was robust through the earth?

thanks!

 

[hbiss]

As long as the ground path was robust through the earth?

The ground path is never robust through the earth. Matter of fact it isn't and can't be considered a ground path at all.

This is obviously a code violation.

Many years ago it wasn't and it was permissible to use the neutral for the equipment ground. Not that way any more.

-Hal

 

[zbang]

Do we tell him we MUST pull the ground?

Assuming that the sub isn't connected to the main panel with pipe/tubing that can be an EGC, I'd say maybe. Since you're asking, I take it this won't be easy.... is the garage a separate structure?

 

[JoeNorm]

Thanks,

So with the neutrals and grounds bonded together, this was compliant years ago?

Why was the rule changed?

 

[JoeNorm]

Assuming that the sub isn't connected to the main panel with pipe/tubing that can be an EGC, I'd say maybe. Since you're asking, I take it this won't be easy.... is the garage a separate structure?

It might not be that bad, its a separate structure but there is a PVC pipe run.

I just wonder if it is a big enough deal to tell him it needs to be done? After all, we're only there for the solar and its worked this way for 20 years(not inspected).

So if we don't have to we won't. But if its a big safety hazard the responsible thing to do is to let him know and do the work.

 

[LarryFine]

Thanks,

So with the neutrals and grounds bonded together, this was compliant years ago?

Why was the rule changed?

Was compliant as long as there was no other metallic pathway between buildings, such as a water pipe.

The change is similar to the change away from 3-wire major appliance supply circuits.

 

[mbrooke]

Thanks,

So with the neutrals and grounds bonded together, this was compliant years ago?

Why was the rule changed?

It was allowed in the past provided conditions were met here:

 

[JoeNorm]

It was allowed in the past provided conditions were met here:

Thankyou,

So my question still remains. Do we need to pull an equipment ground or let sleeping dogs lie?

The install appears to have met the requirements of the diagram above, but never got inspected, so If the inspector notices that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[growler]

We are doing a solar install and landing the back-feed breaker in a garage sub panel. The homeowner did the sub install years ago.


This is obviously a code violation. Do we tell him we MUST pull the ground?

It might not be that bad, its a separate structure but there is a PVC pipe run.

Thankyou,

So my question still remains. Do we need to pull an equipment ground or let sleeping dogs lie?

The call on pulling the ground will be up to the AHJ.

Around here, since the feed is in PVC and it would be possible to add a ground and not tear half the house apart and not be cost prohibitive I would think they would want it brought up to code.

It is possible for the owner to ask for special permission to leave things the way they are and to show cause to do so.

I would talk it over with the owner and see if he is going to be very upset at the idea of paying for a little additional work to bring the system up to current code. Who knows, he may not choke on the idea.

 

[Coppersmith]

In these situations, I don't say anything unless I see immediate danger. Let the electrical inspector catch it. If he insists it be fixed, you are totally off the hook and probably will get the job to fix it.

If you are very concerned about it, you could point it out to the electrical inspector and see what he does, but do this in private, not within earshot of the HO.

 

[mbrooke]

Thankyou,

So my question still remains. Do we need to pull an equipment ground or let sleeping dogs lie?

The install appears to have met the requirements of the diagram above, but never got inspected, so If the inspector notices that's a whole other can of worms.

Look at it like this, its no different then how every home is fed in this country.


Let the inspector know its an existing install. He ought to know that it was legal at one time.

 

[LarryFine]

The options are, in no particular order:

Find out when the feeder was installed, and then come back here and ask us if it was compliant then.

Price and offer adding an EGC, separating the EGCs and the neutrals, adding missing electrodes, etc.

Leave it as it is, regardless of compliance, knowing there's no real hazard, unless the neutral breaks.

 

[jaggedben]

[MENTION=158644]JoeNorm[/MENTION],

Are we correctly assuming that the garage is detached?

If so, in this situation I always ask the customer if they have any permit records. It seems they don't in this case, so that puts you in a hard spot. If you want to establish beyond a doubt that it was 'compliant when installed' then you need documentation of that.

I try to lay it out to the customer like it is ... It's a low-probability-of-a-problem but high-penalty-if-it-goes-bad situation.

It's important to be familiar with the AHJ, too.

In these situations, I don't say anything unless I see immediate danger. Let the electrical inspector catch it. If he insists it be fixed, you are totally off the hook and probably will get the job to fix it.

If you are very concerned about it, you could point it out to the electrical inspector and see what he does, but do this in private, not within earshot of the HO.

Or you put many thousands of dollars of solar equipment on someone's roof and then get into a dispute with a customer who says 'you should have known about this and included it in your original quote and I'm not paying for that.'

If you ask the customer up front to agree to responsibility and they freak out about the possible extra cost and decide not to go forward with the project at all then you just lost a hard-won sale.

I understand the OP's difficulty in making a judgement call.

 

[LarryFine]

We are doing a solar install and landing the back-feed breaker in a garage sub panel.

I completely forgot about this part. It makes me want to say:

"If you're going to use the feeder as part of your installation, and that installation normally requires separate neutral and EGC, you should make the feeder comply with the new installation's requirements."

Having said that, I still stand by my previous post. If done, make sure the cost is recovered as an add-on.

 

[LarryFine]

Or you put many thousands of dollars of solar equipment on someone's roof and then get into a dispute with a customer who says 'you should have known about this and included it in your original quote and I'm not paying for that.'

I don't agree with the "should have known . . . " part unless the deficiency was noted in the original pricing and the choice to allow it to remain was documented. Even then, if the decision was made by the customer, that's who should eat the cost.

I rarely remove panel covers when pricing service-upgrade proposals, but that doesn't mean I have to pay for deficiencies discovered after the work has commenced.

 

[lordofthisworld]

We are doing a solar install and landing the back-feed breaker in a garage sub panel. The homeowner did the sub install years ago.

He actually did a good job besides not having pulled an equipment ground with the feeders. Oh and the grounds and neutrals are all mixed together on shared busses. He has the grounding electrode system perfect, bare copper to two rods.

This is obviously a code violation. Do we tell him we MUST pull the ground?

It's always a challenge to come in for a specific job(Solar) and have to walk the fine line with homeowner work.

And out of curiosity, would the system likely work just fine this way? as long as the ground path was robust through the earth?

thanks!

I would have to say if u are working on/in this panel, you would have to bring it up to standard codes.

 

[romex jockey]

The options are, in no particular order:

Find out when the feeder was installed, and then come back here and ask us if it was compliant then.

Price and offer adding an EGC, separating the EGCs and the neutrals, adding missing electrodes, etc.

Leave it as it is, regardless of compliance, knowing there's no real hazard, unless the neutral breaks.

Possibly add asking the poco for a dedicated drop for this detached garage . I say this due to net metering in my area being a seperate exclusive entity (different rates) . If anything else it would negate a world of concerns.....art 705.10 placards ..... 690.56 rapid shutdown placement, meters/mains required to be grouped ....dedicated disco's at the main dwelling.....especially 705.12's 125% rule looking better for a garage panel than dwelling

~RJ~

 

[JoeNorm]

Thanks everyone for the replies, very helpful.

I still want to know if this is a "safe" set-up. What are the potential hazards here and why did they change the code?

If the neutrals and grounds are bonded, essentially the neutral is used as the EGC? Correct?

If the neutrals and grounds were separated in sub and still had no equip ground, this poses danger? Correct?

I am pretty sure pulling the EGC won't be that bad, we will do this at no charge. But I want to understand electrically what is going on, and why some situations are safe and some not, and why the code would change.

thanks

 

[jaggedben]

I don't agree with the "should have known . . . " part unless the deficiency was noted in the original pricing and the choice to allow it to remain was documented. Even then, if the decision was made by the customer, that's who should eat the cost.

I rarely remove panel covers when pricing service-upgrade proposals, but that doesn't mean I have to pay for deficiencies discovered after the work has commenced.

Maybe the laws is your state are less unfavorable to contractors. Or maybe you've gotten lucky and just haven't yet run into that super unreasonable customer. Also people paying you for a service upgrade are expecting to spend some money for something they want. Solar customers may be all about saving money and a cost increase can't wipe out too large a portion of that.

 

[jaggedben]

Thanks everyone for the replies, very helpful.

I still want to know if this is a "safe" set-up. What are the potential hazards here and why did they change the code?

If the neutrals and grounds are bonded, essentially the neutral is used as the EGC? Correct?

If the neutrals and grounds were separated in sub and still had no equip ground, this poses danger? Correct?

I am pretty sure pulling the EGC won't be that bad, we will do this at no charge. But I want to understand electrically what is going on, and why some situations are safe and some not, and why the code would change.

thanks

Yes it's safe as long as you have neutral bonded to ground at the sub like you would as a service. What is important to understand is that the neutral back to the house is what trips breakers in a fault (not the ground rods!), so all EGCs and exposed metal must ultimately be bonded to it.

The code making panel didn't want neutral current finding some other path, such as water piping bonded in both buildings. Hence the rules.