Is this a new way to ground a GFCI?

with a bootleg…

At a re-inspection where new GFCI’s were installed/updated at all applicable areas by an “electrician”, in a 1970’s home with a 2-wire circuit, I noticed the GFCI’s were grounded according to my tester. I though OK they ran some new wiring, because they also replaced a fuse panel with new circuit breaker panel. When I get to the panel only two circuits had a grounding conductor (AC and one for kitchen). Out of curiosity I pulled a GFCI receptacle and found this:

Nice way to fool a simple tester.

Why would they do that when I can see grounding conductor in the box?

I got no idea. That was only one I pulled out of 10 new ones. Not sure where that grounding conductor originates, there’s only one 120 that terminates in panel, labeled for kitchen. I was surprised an electrician would do that. The new panel install looked professional.

What did your report cite as the defect and what did you recommend?

I see a bare copper wire in that box from your picture. Why are you saying 2 wire?

The ground wire is apparently there, just not used for some reason. Or maybe half right (newer wire) half wrong (older wire)?


Wiring from the 70s should contain a grounding conductor.

I see a bare copper wire too, it does not terminate at panel. The entire house, except a few rec. at basement, had open 3-prong receptacles at initial inspection. Majority of house, minus AC, furnace, receptacle at left of panel, which also serves kitchen, do not have an EGC, as you can see from this photo.

My concern is since a GFCI does not require an EGC why did the electrician go to all of this trouble?

10 GFCI’s? couldn’t they feed regular receptacle outlets downstream, off of a single GFCI one?
Although looking at that bootleg ground, I am not surprised…

Clearly, this is not an electrician’s job.
Maybe Uncle Joe lending a hand there…
The fact that the service panel is brand new, may not mean much.
Having spent a lot of money on a new service, HO’s sometimes try to save a buck by “hiring” unqualified help for additional projects.

Just a guess, but the “electrician” probably plugged in his own dummy-light and got an open-ground indication, even though he had connected the egc.

The left-side grounding terminal in that panel is floating.

The way those NM’s enter the panel is a hackery too…
Surprised how (or if) it passed an inspection.
If you are going to feed Romex into a panel through a single piece of conduit, the section has to be at least 18" long (NEC 312.5 ©)
If a panel looks semi-neat, still doesn’t mean an electrician did it… Just saying
Especially based on Jeff Pope’s observation: the ground bar on the left is not connected to the one on the right, so those grounds are connected to nothing but each other…

That’s a possibility, then decided to “fix” all of them.

I caught the floating ground also, thanks for pointing that out.

When you pulled that cover you opened for yourself…Pandoras box!
Cold day in Hell when I do it.
When does visual inspection come it play here ? Huh ?

I agree with that. Now you need to check the light fixtures. :shock:

Was that a sub panel?

No I didn’t. No one was there, wasn’t in any report.

Thank you for your concern. :roll:

What were you doing?
Trolling for a bootleg ground?

Just worry about your “bathroom sink stopper, with pic”.

Good guess. I caught the floating “ground” bar, thanks.

Me Too!
My own stoppers are messed up…LOL !
Have you ever wrote something up and have the same issue at home?
Hypocrite aren’t we?
Don’t be huffy with me you whippersnapper!

Let me go against the grain here: Yes, pulling receptacles out of the wall may be outside an HI’s SOP, even though it’s every person’s own business.
That said, if I hear that something has just been done/replaced/installed (e.g. a new circuit, bunch of GFCI’s, what have you), I too would want to check out the workmanship.
Christopher did, and voila: he found a very unsafe condition.
How else would have that been discovered?
No, I would not go scoping inside the walls, and checking every light fixture as was suggested.
But inspecting any “new work” closely, in my very humble opinion, can be justified.