TOPIC: Bonding and Grounding

Hi Joe,

This one resulted in a "demand letter" for me  from a home inspection earlier this year.

Had recommended a further review as a panel for a detached guest structure was powered by a OCPD from the SFD's panel, labeled as a sub. I recommended the review as there were two items.
1
The detached structure did not have it's own main disc and no GES of any kind was visible. Simple enough, right? I actually somewhat knew there wasn't a GES by a conversation I overheard about the lack of AHJ involvement among other things. There was also no visible bond to water system. This was all noted. me!

2
A secondary main panel was on the SFD that originally was the main panel vacated/turned into, in my opinion at the time a sub panel. The new main panel had a disconnect on the Square D (don't have the mod #right now) that had a place for a secondary main disconnect. This made it confusing for a moment... could this be a remote main panel? I examined the way the secondary main (as they indicated it was) was bonded among other things. They simply brought the #4 and bonded it to the remote main (that I later called a sub) and shared the neutral buss that was still bonded to this panel and shared the typical ground/neutral connections by the incoming SE cables.  Anyways as I did not see that this would be a listed or approved method by manu. for the way the bonding was done and although I know there are cases where a remote main can be installed, I was not comfortable with what I saw that this was not anything but a sub panel. Also, the vacant/converted main was 60-70 feet away. No hot gutter.

My conclusion, as I saw deficiencies on the detached quarters, I didn't think that I was beyond reasonable by recommending evaluation on the secondary panel that had converted to a sub and the detached building.

What happened.

The buyer agreed.

The electrician... didnt't. MY part of the bill was $75.

An electrician showed up and although I don't know what happened with the detached building, I know from an invoice to me that it was agreed that the remote main WAS a secondary service. It appears that despite my concerns of how the secondary panel was wired, my mention of whether or not this equipment was designed for this purpose (no label on old panel) and the questionable (a compliment, believe me) bond made no difference.

The simple fact was this "because this panel was labeled upstream as a main, it remains and is assumed to be so by special permission, and no further investigation is warranted, HI's comments were unwarranted"

From this I assumed the following,

no one actually looked at the secondary panel, only the main was looked at and my concerns were brushed off.

I figured the $75 was a cheap insurance policy if anything else happened. This was a huge home for A LOT of money and the inspection fee was a lot of money...

I retained credibility to my client and the buyers agent by going over my conerns in my CodeCheck book (has pictures)... buyer agreed to have it looked at again by her choice of electrician and her expense.

I wrote a check for $75 to re-imburse seller AFTER explaining and showing the information to my client and the buyers agent.

Buyers agent tore it up! Said she was embarrassed to have even communicated the information over such a small amount of money and after looking at the digital pictures and the code book was going to tell the selling agent to absorb the expense.

What do you think?

Was I wrong.... I'd hate to start a streak

Tim:

Sounds like you threw egg in the face of the electrician, or whom ever had those comments. Those digital pictures would be nice for us to see here; but if you looked at Redwood's book and found it to be with some clarification covering your situation that's good enough for me! The Dude is the Prince of Code and his side kick forgot his name is also a Code scholar and wonder.

I hired both of them to be Nationwide NEC Instructors for NTT, Inc., during the 90's and they did a fantastic job!

Tim,

The way I see it, we give our best analysis of the issue backed up by facts, and refer it to a professional to make further evaluation. If he says it is ok, you did your job and are not responsible to pay for that service.

Hi Joe,

Thanks. And yes, Redwoods CodeCheck books have saved me many times while on jobsites as a contractor as well. They are great tools

Anyways, any thoughts specifically where a secondary MAIN would have been allowed there fed by conduit. Or would it have to been by a Hot Gutter.

Thanks for the response.

Tim

Tim:

I will be happy to give my personal opinion, but will appreciate seeing some images or talking to you. Do you have any images of the job?

Yes... and sorry for the delay too! I will "dig" them up to share (I hope).

I've had more than one, two or ten "electricians" disagree with me... (loose term) on other things.

Most of the time... to give qualified electricians their due... they are handi-"folk" attempting to untangle an unsafe situation. At least the one's that I've recieved phone calls from "Hi, I'm the "electrician" working on the home that you said was a problem in the sub panel... looks OK to me"

When I call out sub panel faults (at least once or twice a week) I guess I should leave copies of wiring diagrams???? taped to the panel cover.

Okie Dokie....