code issue

[Deetz]

Some one at work has a house that has an older meter box and wires going to the house with no piping. They are having the house sided but the wires need and should be installed in piping. The old meter box has to be replaced. The Electrical contractor said that in order to change out the old meter box and install a new one the panel in the house needs to be upgraded. I know it needs to be upgraded from the old screw in fuse type, but that can be done at another time. I was just wondering if they were just trying to make bigger job out of a smaller one to make it worthwhile. I'm just not sure that there is anything in the code book that says you would have to do that? I know it would be the right thing to do though, they just can't afford it at this point.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I was just wondering if they were just trying to make bigger job out of a smaller one to make it worthwhile. I'm just not sure that there is anything in the code book that says you would have to do that? I know it would be the right thing to do though, they just can't afford it at this point.

There is an additional body of regulation that influences how this situation is handled. Specifically, the power company's rules. They may be published in a document and / or be word-of-mouth.

The loads of the existing house and outbuildings must comply with the capacity of the service assembly, whether it is supplied through service entrance cable or conductors in conduit. So, NEC Article 220 comes into play.

 

[petersonra]

Some one at work has a house that has an older meter box and wires going to the house with no piping. They are having the house sided but the wires need and should be installed in piping. The old meter box has to be replaced. The Electrical contractor said that in order to change out the old meter box and install a new one the panel in the house needs to be upgraded. I know it needs to be upgraded from the old screw in fuse type, but that can be done at another time. I was just wondering if they were just trying to make bigger job out of a smaller one to make it worthwhile. I'm just not sure that there is anything in the code book that says you would have to do that? I know it would be the right thing to do though, they just can't afford it at this point.

I'd be looking at gutting the whole electrical system if it is old enough to have a fuse box.

 

[Ponchik]

Most of the time upgrading/replacing one panel has nothing to do with the other. It could be different reason he recommended the 2nd done.

1. Local code requirement. Nothing to do with NEC.
2. The contractor does not like to keep old panel when updating the main outside. (their company policy)
3. The inside one is a safety hazard.
4. Sales

But certainly not NEC requirement.

 

[growler]

The Electrical contractor said that in order to change out the old meter box and install a new one the panel in the house needs to be upgraded. I was just wondering if they were just trying to make bigger job out of a smaller one to make it worthwhile.

If you don't trust your doctor you get a second opinion. If you are not sure the electrician is telling you what you want to hear then get a second opinion.

 

[wireday]

Where I live the Insurance Company makes the customer change it out.

 

[Jraef]

I feel that with none of us being there to assess the entire situation, it's not right for us to judge the opinion or professional assessment of an electrician who was there. But I'll just add that if you are referring to the service entrance to the building, he could very easily be correct. In many cases older service drops are "grandfathered" in that the owner is not forced to bring it up to current code as long as nothing is disturbed or changed, but usually ANY work on the system triggers the release of that grandfathering and once you change it, the chance must meet current code all the way through. The ultimatum may also stipulate that they will not reconnect a service drop to a non-compliant system. That electrician would be in the best place to know and understand your friend's local code issues.

Your friend might also be lucky in that the electrician knows he can get away with ONLY the service changeout, by not doing anything on the interior that requires an inspection as well, because that might trigger even more upgrades.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

It could be a simple as the electrician does not feel comfortable or terminating into the older fuse box for whatever reason.
I agree with the others get a second opinion from a reputable electrician.

 

[petersonra]

Where I live the Insurance Company makes the customer change it out.

a lot of insurance companies do not like fuse panels.

 

[elf friend]

I think a lot of times this is up to the AHJ. For instance, where I live if I where to upgrade any part of the service then the inspector would want me to do a complete service upgrade. I can not just run a new mast and meter box and not bring the service up to current code such as 100 amp minimum amps, two ground rods, required bonding, and so on.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Some one at work has a house that has an older meter box and wires going to the house with no piping. They are having the house sided but the wires need and should be installed in piping. The old meter box has to be replaced. The Electrical contractor said that in order to change out the old meter box and install a new one the panel in the house needs to be upgraded. I know it needs to be upgraded from the old screw in fuse type, but that can be done at another time. I was just wondering if they were just trying to make bigger job out of a smaller one to make it worthwhile. I'm just not sure that there is anything in the code book that says you would have to do that? I know it would be the right thing to do though, they just can't afford it at this point.

The NEC does not require the use of raceways for service conductors. Cable wiring methods are permitted for this application.

 

[drcampbell]

I think a lot of times this is up to the AHJ. ...

That's the local "Authority Holding Jurisdiction" -- typically a building inspector or electrical inspector.
It sounds like the original poster is not an experienced electrician, so let's not inundate him with TMA Syndrome.

 

[petersonra]

That's the local "Authority Holding Jurisdiction" -- typically a building inspector or electrical inspector.
It sounds like the original poster is not an experienced electrician, so let's not inundate him with TMA Syndrome.

The inspector is never The Authority having jurisdiction. Never. The Authority having jurisdiction is whatever Authority was created by law to enforce the building codes. The inspector does not get to make up his own rules. I'm not suggesting that in practice this is not common but it's not the way it actually works. It may seem like a distinction without a difference but it's very critical to understand how these things work.

 

[GoldDigger]

The inspector is never The Authority having jurisdiction. Never. The Authority having jurisdiction is whatever Authority was created by law to enforce the building codes. The inspector does not get to make up his own rules. I'm not suggesting that in practice this is not common but it's not the way it actually works. It may seem like a distinction without a difference but it's very critical to understand how these things work.

But it is still possible (though unlikely) that the inspector may be the only employee of the AHJ, which makes the distinction less significant.

 

[102 Inspector]

Since I am the only inspector hire by the city to perform inspections, I agree that the AHJ might be one and the same. That said, I try to open the code books and cite the code and not my personal opinions. I figure the code is a state adopted reference and my opinion is just that. A judge will side with the code book first on all matters. In my jurisdiction, cable is acceptable just like goosenecks are still allowable. No mast head required. Does not mean I like it or would do that on my own property, but I approve it as code compliant.

 

[petersonra]

Since I am the only inspector hire by the city to perform inspections, I agree that the AHJ might be one and the same. That said, I try to open the code books and cite the code and not my personal opinions. I figure the code is a state adopted reference and my opinion is just that. A judge will side with the code book first on all matters. In my jurisdiction, cable is acceptable just like goosenecks are still allowable. No mast head required. Does not mean I like it or would do that on my own property, but I approve it as code compliant.

It doesn't matter how many employees there are. The inspector is never the ahj. The law just doesn't work that way. The Authority having jurisdiction is established by law and is not a person.

 

[kwired]

It doesn't matter how many employees there are. The inspector is never the ahj. The law just doesn't work that way. The Authority having jurisdiction is established by law and is not a person.

But when there is only one employee in the department, any judgement calls are up to that one individual and not a board of individuals. City council may be the employer, but they likely have no qualifications to be making such calls, if anything a state AHJ possibly can preside in such cases.

 

[growler]

It doesn't matter how many employees there are. The inspector is never the ahj. The law just doesn't work that way. The Authority having jurisdiction is established by law and is not a person.

I agree 100% but for some reason concepts of law are hard for many people to understand.

If an inspector was the AHJ then he/she would have the authority to decide which code to adopt and how it was to be enforced they would also have the authority to grant special permission (a variance).

Things like this can only be done by elected officials and they receive this authority from the people by being elected for a term in office.

 

[kwired]

I agree 100% but for some reason concepts of law are hard for many people to understand.

If an inspector was the AHJ then he/she would have the authority to decide which code to adopt and how it was to be enforced they would also have the authority to grant special permission (a variance).

Things like this can only be done by elected officials and they receive this authority from the people by being elected for a term in office.

The elected officials don't necessarily have the qualifications to micromanage a building codes department or similar, they do have a board or panel of people that govern those operations and collectively those people set daily policies and procedures. If there is a desire to change something that is in the law books, that board or panel may submit proposal through proper channels and let the lawmaking body do what they do in public hearings to make the laws. Public opinion will be allowed to be heard both for and against proposed laws.

Does it always work like it should? Maybe not, but until the right whistle blower comes along those people do get away with doing it wrong.

 

[elf friend]

Sorry about the confusion and the turmoil I created on this thread regarding the definition of AHJ. All I was trying to point out was that in this jurisdiction if we ECs change any part of an existing electrical service then the entire service must be bought up to current codes. yes we can use SE but seldom do we. This does not include the need to add arc flash breakers since we are not modifying the circuits.