What to Do 15

[buzzp]

So I have been with this company for nearly a year and have some real concerns with how things are done and not done. This company has been around for many years and rarely had an EE on staff. Is one needed here? For sure.
Since starting, I have had to gently argue the need to have a service entrance rated transfer switch (3000A service). I managed to win that argument. However, I am learning they are withholding information from me and the field is being redirected, contradictory to what the code allows and my design (ignore the need to have a good design - that don't factor in here at all). For example, they were told to use THHN instead of THHW in our underground raceways. They were told they don't need to test the GF circuit on the 3000A service entrance (with a 3000A main breaker). The MCC building had water running down the inside, almost a mini river, when it rained real hard. They withheld this information from me. I know there is a lot more going on there than I know. Unfortunately, these sites are rural and almost never have an electrical inspection. To make matters worse, we have two master electricians on site, who should know the code, who are simply doing what they are told even if it means a violation of code.
I have since learned one of our PE's (structural), who stamps the structural drawings and is employed here has a written agreement with the boss that if something happens due to the boss changing the design, that she will not be liable.
I am at a loss as to what to do. I can't just leave this alone. I know there are many other violations of code. Obviously, I am looking for another job. Should I report these violations to the customer? To the AHJ (if I can find one)? What about the PE with a secondary agreement not to be liable in the event of a problem due to the boss changing the design (like leaving out rebar the engineer wanted)?
Thank you.

 

[Sparweb]

Um guys, I don't think you need to ask the OP for an education. Especially when they have bigger problems. Allow me to quote the OP, from the very first post, first paragraph:

...For example, they were told to use THHN instead of THHW in our underground raceways. They were told they don't need to test the GF circuit on the 3000A service entrance (with a 3000A main breaker). The MCC building had water running down the inside, almost a mini river, when it rained real hard. They withheld this information from me....

To help clarify this statement, "MCC" is "Motor Control Center" so I assume this is where the motor starting switchgear is housed. Contactors, soft-starts etc. If you're installing motors controlled from a MCC, then we're not talking about single digit horsepower...
My understanding of "buried raceways" is what I more often see named "buried conduit". Hence, THWN or other sort of cable rated for direct burial. There is ALWAYS standing water and/or condensation in underground conduits. Add into the mix a potentially faulty Ground Fault interrupt on the service entrance, and you have a complete circuit:
Power supply -> through saturated wire insulation -> through standing water -> human operator -> ground.
The human operator is optional in this circuit. Who knows what kind of havoc it could cause even if someone doesn't get zapped. I'm taking this example to the extreme to:
a) make the implications clear, and
b) save the OP from having to bother explaining this.

STF

 

[dik]

The human operator is optional in this circuit.

I thought he was the one that completed the open circuit...

Dik

 

[rotw]

Sparweb,

Understand where you are coming from...but I would insist on getting more details.

Asked OP to pick one issue and substantiate... Nobody wants a full report. There is margin.

When you say: ...since there seems to be no uncertainty (to the OP) that a danger does exist. Don't know about you but I want to have a closer look.

I think there is definitely an ethical dimension here. No doubt about this is significant.

But by asking such technical question, I am also trying to probe both sides of the story.

Regards

 

[Sparweb]

dik,
oops, that didn't come out the way I intended...

rotw,
I do agree with you: there is another ethical dimension, here, and it is significant. However, probing this dimension is the jurisdiction of, literally, the AHJ.
Verifying that there actually is a hazard following any complaint is a necessary part of any investigation, but we are hardly fit to do that, here.
I'm trying to be sensible about who gets to evaluate (or at least help with the evaluation) of what constitutes a hazard in any given situation.
Stepping back, I have to admit my limitations, even if I was an EE, peering through my computer screen at a situation I cannot personally see.


STF

 

[dik]

SparWeb... knew what you meant... I was just thinking that you were missing an essential conductor.

Dik

 

[buzzp]

The biggest concern is the lack of GF testing. This GF circuit is on 480VAC, 3 phase, 3000 amp service entrance rated transfer switch, mounted outside in a 3R enclosure (not immune to hose directed water - heavy rain). Our crew modified the transfer switch enclosure by mounting a box on the side to house cam lock connectors for the generator plug-in. They say it was gasketed etc. but we know what its like to mount thin gauge steel to another thin gage steel, it always buckles unless it is secured with a bunch of fasteners. The seam between these two enclosures is found on the top and is a perfect place for water to sit and migrate between the enclosures. Ignoring the enclosure modification, there is still cause for concern.

GF testing is a requirement for any 1000A or larger circuit breaker according to the NEC. Given the location of this equipment, heavy rains are a common occurrence. The chances the GF circuit will work is probably good but I don't like gambling with lives. I would rather know that the circuit was tested, after installation, to assure everyones safety. The lack of testing coupled with modifications to the enclosure lead me to believe this is a real safety concern. Even if they didn't modify the enclosure, I would be concerned. If things are not wired properly, especially concerning grounds and neutrals, there could be a real hazard here that we have yet to become aware of. There could be current going to ground now and if it occurs before our 6 main breakers (or if it less than 800A - breaker rating), it will never be detected unless it is 3000Amps or better. 3000A has the capability to raise potentials to very hazardous levels. I also suspect the crew didn't lash the cables in the transfer switch, as required by the manufacturer, to reduce movement in the event of a fault.

The water running down the inside of the MCC building was a huge concern but a separate issue from the lack of GF testing. The fix: paint the block building - I am not even sure they used a sealer, could just be paint. This building is right next to the service entrance rated transfer switch located outside. This issue appears to be resolved but then again, we haven't had a huge rain there again, yet.

 

[rotw]

Hi buzzp,

First off, thanks for elaborating on the subject. I am mechanical, yet it is really good to read through this description.
I think you are doing a great job at flagging these issues and your focus on safety is noticeable.

I still think you should try to move the lines internally because there might be some sort of hidden logic to what is happening: e.g. Probably what they were lacking is: an engineer. They now hired an engineer but what they miss is the "culture" (or work ethics) that goes with it and this is more difficult to get/build. I might be wrong but this is my bet.
Basically it boils down to the "human" problem...this is hard to fix.

Could you speak to a person in your company who has a certain political leverage (e.g. project leader, chief operator, whatsoever) and who appears a bit "reasonable". Expose the case to that person in a one to one meeting. Then get that person involved in a last chance meeting with your manager. Obtain 5 minutes to expose the case (communication skills should be at their best). Take it from there. Does that make any sense?

 

[buzzp]

ROTW,
All persons report to one guy, the owner. All of these people were aware of the issue with the GF test. I used some of their advice and expressed my concerns from a safety perspective to all. This prompted them to say they would do the test. I had a test set shipped there at least a week before it was to be tested. The electricians called me and said this test set wouldn't work. I explained to them it would and how to use. Then then said the terminal that was supposed to be on the breaker wasn't there. I told them it is in the back of the unit. A while later they said the instructions didn't say how to test the GF. They sent me the 9 pages that came with the tester and GF was covered on pages 1-5. The utility got involved and they told them we did the test (along with the customer) but they never did the test. The sparky don't like me even though I am not an arrogant engineer and am big into being a team player. They came up with every excuse in the book not to do the test. The owner himself told me he told them not to worry about it...
I am going to look out for myself a little and wait until after Christmas in hopes I might get a little Christmas bonus. After this, I will discuss with the owner. If he don't see the light, I will report it (and the many other code violations) to the AHJ and I will attach my name to the complaint.

 

[rotw]

Buzzp,

Seems to me that the owner does not (or does not want to) understand the extend to which he is bound to comply with codes and regulations and in particular, the irrelevance of him being the owner. He may think that liability holds true only when things go wrong. A misconception with far reaching consequences and which is unfortunately hard to fix when "ego" comes around.
Sorry that you had to go through all this to have - what I suspect to be at the end a "routine test" - executed; wish you all the strengths.

 

[Sparweb]

Take care and merry Christmas Buzz.

STF

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Since the bonus situation was raised... I'd file any report BEFORE you're informed of a bonus. If someone wanted to, the claim could be you were punishing them for not giving you a bonus. Stupid idea to us logical folks, but it doesn't sound like they're being very logical.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[buzzp]

Merry Christmas SparWeb.
Yes ROTW the test is very routine and is why it is so hard to understand the resistance to doing it.
Good point MacGyver. I have never got a bonus here so this won't affect much. I don't anticipate getting one either since we just had our Christmas meal.

There is not much logic here that is for sure - they bought a $1200 portable heater for a permanent installation. They figured out they won't have a thermostat, disconnect, etc. So I spend 6 hours creating a BOM for more parts to buy to make this heater work. Not to mention, the electricians will spend a good 4 hours wiring it up. Then we lose the UL listing on the heater because we have modified the internal wiring. It would of been much cheaper, cleaner and safer to buy the correct one to begin with. Yes, not much logic floating around.

Thanks to all. My next post, I will let you know the outcome of all of this so we can bury the dead horse - LOL.

 

If you do this, you are protected by Federal Whistleblower Laws.

Which are not worth the paper they are written on. My only advice is to make your exit plan ASAP.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

Oh, and document every detail, as events and discussions occur.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[casseopeia]

Just out of curiosity... were there any of your actions that you would have done differently?

I suppose I could have not reported anything, but I'm actually required to as a licensed architect. I was filling in for someone on observing destructive testing because they needed an architect to design a fix for numerous leaks on a relatively new apartment building. The contractor opened up the ceiling in one top floor unit and there was a rush of air that smelled very strongly of mold. I said out loud at the time, "this smells moldy." I had them make a bigger opening while I went to the roof. On the roof I found that the single ply roofing had not been replaced over a parapet after a previous investigation, leaving the building vulnerable to water intrusion on a massive scale.

When the contractor punched through the third layer of gyp in the ceiling, water just poured into the unit. Water had filled the ceiling cavity and you could see several panels of roof decking were sagging. There was black, slimy looking mold being contained in the clear vapor barrier.

My concern was twofold, the obvious black mold and what appeared to be a very real danger of a localized roof collapse. So I reported to the building management company that we could not put the gyp back because of the conditions and called my office. No one connected with the job was in. They had all gone to a sporting event, I think a Warriors game, courtesy of the contractor that had forgotten to replace the single ply roof. I didn't know that at the time. It was uncovered in discovery.

The construction manager for the management company came to the site and instead of discussing the best way to deal with the problem of having to move the tenant out to a hotel, and getting a remediation contractor in, he berated me for saying it smelled moldy and that he was going to have to offer rent concessions, the tenant might sue, blah, blah, blah. I said it could not be closed in it's current condition because there was also the possibility of collapse. I didn't even know at the time that our own Project Manager for the project (the person I was filling in for) had fallen through a section of rotted decking a month before.

The Property Manager's construction guy said he would deal with it and I went on my way to the other leaking units. I was called into the bosses office a few days later and fired for saying 'it smells moldy.' Seriously, it's in my termination letter, something like saying "it smells moldy" loud enough for the tenant to hear.

There is a lot more that happened after that but to answer the question of what would I have done differently, I would have saved the samples and photos that were confiscated from my desk during my firing and gone straight to the building department and reported it. I ended up reporting after 30 days which kind of weakened my case on the whistleblower side and part of the reason I elected to settle.

The good news about the project is that I just happen to know the roof inspector the Plaintiff hired because of the leaks. I spilled everything to them and became a percipient witness in their case, but I still regretted not keeping the samples of the ceiling gyp, decking, and roofing in my car. that would have been sweet to have produced that.



If you are offended by the things I say, imagine the stuff I hold back.

 

[Sparweb]

Casseopeia,
Thank you for sharing that story. I hadn't learned the details before, but had noticed you mentioning this disaster before. I'm pretty sure I would have said those same 3 words if I'd been there.
As you tell it, I can see your boss's own seeds of failure in his dishonesty. If "the boys" were off at the football game, and more exposure of the building was going on where they couldn't cover it up, then it's pretty ironic if it's the contractor that didn't re-roof properly. Too bad there wasn't any justice in that irony...

STF

 

[rotw]

English is not my first language. So just to learn, am asking some clarifications.
What is the problem saying it 'smells moldy'?
It does not seem to be impolite, rather it is an olfactive first impression which anyway was followed by a more formal/factual check. Where is the faux_pas?
I got it that the boss was looking for an excuse for unfair dismissal. But th justification for this outcome (firing) is so ridiculous or am I missing something?

 

[jayrod12]

You are not missing anything as far as I can tell. Based on Cass' description of the events this is textbook unfair dismissal and quite alarming that any company would operate this way.

 

[Sparweb]

"Mold" is a fungus that grows in damp environments.
"Black mold" releases toxic spores that implant in people's lungs.

On the face of it, the statement is equivalent to saying "I hear noise" when standing beside a running bulldozer. However, by saying "I smell mold" in a building where damp areas ceilings being exposed, with the tenant in hearing range, she was ALSO making a finding in public as an expert. Since she is a licensed architect, this is something that she is permitted and expected to do on behalf of the safety of the public. However, as an employee of a company that must make money, it was not in the company's financial interest for the tenant to know that. Somehow they expected her to have no reaction to the discovery of potential toxins in the dwelling.

STF

 

[beej67]

I have since learned one of our PE's (structural), who stamps the structural drawings and is employed here has a written agreement with the boss that if something happens due to the boss changing the design, that she will not be liable.

I am at a loss as to what to do.

Sounds like the PE gave you a road map. I'd say follow it, but if you notice something that you judge to be an actual harm to the public, you have an ethical duty to point it out, document it, etc, with everyone who will listen.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com