Can a "repair" lead to replacing the service?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sfav8r

Senior Member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Here is the layout. There is a 125A feed to an eight unit bldg. It is a 1905 building with only two circuits per unit.

There is a service disconnect (fused) that feeds a gutter. From the gutter there are 8 30amp disconnects and 8 meters. One of the meter sockets has failed. I would like to replace the 30A disconnect and the meter base with a meter/disco combo which will fit quite nicely. This only affects the meter for the one unit in this building. Because I have been burned on this before, I called the city to ask if they would require me to upgrade the grounding since I am replacing a meter.

They are now considering the possibility that the ENTIRE service will have to be upgraded to the building. the comment was made that "Whatever you touch has to be brought up to code." I somewhat agree, my point is that I am not touching the SERVICE. Everything after the 125A disconnect is a feeder. I am touching a 30A feeder with a meter base and I am bringing that up to current code.

The inspector definitely understand that I don't want to change the service just because a meter base had failed and he is looking into it, but I'd like some input on the NEC requirements before I talk to him again. Any thoughts?

(Actually I'd be happy to change out the service $, but the client would prefer not to)

Thanks
 
Yes, indeed. It is a regular occurance for me to have to replace entire multimetering services when only a small repair is otherwise required. You were wise to check ahead of time with the local authorities. It sorta stinks for the building owner, but it's nice to have the inspectors pretty much make the "sale" for you.
 
80.9(B). It's been moved to Annex G in the 2005 version, and is therefore not enforceable. That's the good news. The bad news is that it gives the AHJ the freedom to declare that the existing configuration represents an "immediate danger to occupants," and to use that reasoning to compel you to bring it up to current code.
 
charlie b said:
80.9(B). It's been moved to Annex G in the 2005 version, and is therefore not enforceable. That's the good news. The bad news is that it gives the AHJ the freedom to declare that the existing configuration represents an "immediate danger to occupants," and to use that reasoning to compel you to bring it up to current code.
Click to expand...

Even though there is no danger at all? or at worst, very minimal danger from the current configuration?
 
petersonra said:
Even though there is no danger at all? or at worst, very minimal danger from the current configuration?
Click to expand...
All I said is that the AHJ has the ability to declare it a danger, and use that as the basis for requiring the system to be brought up to current codes.

Is it really a danger for a unit to be fed by only 30 amps? That, I suppose, depends on what they try to plug in. If the unit has no more than a few lights and receptacles, with no heating or cooling or cooking or laundry equipment, then perhaps 30 amps is enough. But I will observe that the smallest allowable service of any description is 60 amps. From that fact alone, the AHJ could say that a 30 amp feeder to a unit is not sufficient for a safe installation.
 
'Immediate Danger' is a poor term to use in this case, both because it is poorly defined, and because electrical systems are expected to be very, very safe.

Electrical systems have a lifetime; material (especially insulation) degrades, moisture finds its way into splices, components cyclically heat and cool, and the system will eventually fail. This system has already had one failure; that is why you are there to fix something. You can expect that other parts will fail 'soon'.

But electrical systems are _very_ reliable and _very_ long lived, and 'soon' could easily be 10 years down the road. Eventually it will make economic sense to replace the entire system, even if the AHJ would permit it to stay.

But the question is: should the AHJ force the upgrade now; is this an 'immediate danger'?

When an electrical system fails, there is a small _possibility_ that this failure will cause damage outside of the electrical system itself. If the system is old, then the chance of failure is higher, and it is a good guess that the chance of an un-contained failure is higher. (But this is only a _guess_; with old installations in RMC versus 'modern' installations in NM or SE cable, I bet the ratio of failure to un-contained failure changes markedly.)

Let us make the following assumption, just for the sake of argument: In this old system, the chance of an un-contained failure has increased substantially relative to when it was new. Let us say that the chance of an un-contained failure in a given time period is in fact 100x greater than when the system was new. Sounds pretty darn bad.

But the system was probably so safe to start with that even a god-awful increase in the chance of un-contained failure is still a _very_ small chance of un-contained failure.

I bet that the system in question has much greater risk of failure than a new system, and that the risk of failure is so very small that it does not present an 'immediate danger'.

-Jon
 
Why not only replace the meter socket guts.That way this is simply a repair and not a new meter can or wiring.I do gotta ask just how big are the units to manage to get by on this service.
 
I think it wise to replace the service equipment however if this is an

"immediate danger to occupants,"

I'm sure there is a protocol that must be followed. This is a serious matter and should not be taken lightly. If these occupants are truley in danger that is one thing ,and the propper steps should be taken to keep them safe ie: disconnect the service and remove them from this immediate danger.

If the AHJ just thinks, like I do , that it would be wise to upgrage ,... well that is quite another thing.

Tell me sfav8r, when this meter socket failed , what was the damage? was there a fire , did it damage any other equipment? was it due to overload?
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
Why not only replace the meter socket guts.That way this is simply a repair and not a new meter can or wiring.I do gotta ask just how big are the units to manage to get by on this service.
Click to expand...
I'm betting this was an older A-base meter socket, which are basically non-repairable unless you have saved some cherry tear-outs. I find 30 amp services to little apartments and garden-type units pretty much every day. In fact, they're still legal for multi-unit buildings when each unit has no more than 2 circuits.
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
Just where do we cross that line of its a repair and not a new install ?Not just in this case but any.
Click to expand...

In the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.
 
So whats better in this case ,allow the new meter/disc or do we try to find used parts to save it.If this was an old breaker we would replace it with a new one.If it was an old light fixture we buy a new one,perhaps not the exact same one.In this case the meter socket is old but a new meter can would fix it.As long as he doesnt change the load i see it as a repair.When we push people to replace everything they might just let a hazard remain.
 
Our requirement is "Everything attached to the service must be made safe". This week I was asked to look at a power pole with 3 meters on it in a rundown trailer park. The EC wanted to change from overhead to underground service. I told him on the phone, that he would only be responsible for the grounding but I would have a look. When I got there, what I saw was an unsafe nightmare of old DIY wireing and rusted emt. Emt should not be allowed outside in the State of Florida, but that's a different problem. I called him up an told him before he did any work here he needed to call the customer and give him a price for a complete new service of all three. In this case, if you change the laterial to the service, Everything on that lateral must be made safe.
 
$an Fran$i$co

$an Fran$i$co

You gotta remember this is san fransisco. They have there own adendum to the code. It is tough because you are not insured to get the same inspector twice and what one will allow the second won't. Being that the building is 1905 it is pre-earthquake and most likely in need of upgrades. This is called "defferred maintenance''. You are sure to have many more trips to the job then you plan for. cover yourself by letting the owner know that the inspector may require more then what you expect. I hate working in San Fransisco, unless it is well compen$ated. Don't for get to ask if they require a ''fault current rating'' letter from PG&E. If the fault current is high then 10k you can get in a real bad spot by doing the job with 10k rated panels and breakers. It happened to me once there , we had to change all the breakers to 22k rated on two four story houses.
 
To clarify a few things, the original failure was loss of power in one unit. The reason for the failure was that the old A-base meter lug failed and the load side wire literally fell out. I'm guessing that over the years of expanding and contracting the wire came loose. The terminal was frozen and unable to be tightened.

The "hazard" portion I personally don't feel is warranted here. The fact that the units are fed with only 30amps is not, in my opinion, a hazard. In fact, there is an exception in the NEC that still allows this configuration as there are only two circuits per unit.

Having said that, I do think the service should be upgraded. It's very old and there are signs (like the load wire falling out) that the service needs attention. However convincing an owner that a $10,000 upgrade is "required" when from his perspective things are working fine just as they have for the last 40 years, is a tough sell.

I was able to get the meter base repaired with some old parts from a previous upgrade. We'll see what the owner says about the estimate.
 
sfav8r said:
However convincing an owner that a $10,000 upgrade is "required" when from his perspective things are working fine just as they have for the last 40 years, is a tough sell.
Click to expand...
Really! I had enough trouble with a customer that complained that his double-male-ended generator cord worked fine, and didn't want to pay for an inlet and cord-end replacement.

I won the fight, and smiled to myself as I apologized to him. I can sleep better knowing that he'll wake up.
 
LarryFine said:
Really! I had enough trouble with a customer that complained that his double-male-ended generator cord worked fine, and didn't want to pay for an inlet and cord-end replacement.

I won the fight, and smiled to myself as I apologized to him. I can sleep better knowing that he'll wake up.
Click to expand...

He will but will his tenants ? Slum lords never care about more than the $$$$$$$$$$$
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top