Challenging 230.85 existing building code per IBC

[faroutdesign]

Unfortunately the NEC does not cross reference IBC or in my state the FBC.

During the replacement of a panel change out I confirmed that as long as the load has not changed nor any other construction on the property commenced a 1 for 1 replacement could occur for the purpose of repair/replacement per the AHJ. Now after the work has been completed AHJ is requiring Emergency Disconnect.

I’m looking for IBC sections pertaining to existing building code and the requirements to cause forced upgrade to current code.

 

[infinity]

During the replacement of a panel change out I confirmed that as long as the load has not changed nor any other construction on the property commenced a 1 for 1 replacement could occur for the purpose of repair/replacement per the AHJ. Now after the work has been completed AHJ is requiring Emergency Disconnect.

Are you saying that only the panel was changed?

 

[faroutdesign]

Are you saying that only the panel was changed?

That is correct. Of course other code standards like grounding, surge, plenum, etc were performed.

 

[infinity]

That is correct. Of course other code standards like grounding, surge, plenum, etc were performed.

So the old panel was removed and a new panel installed but the other parts of the service were existing and reused?

 

[faroutdesign]

So the old panel was removed and a new panel installed but the other parts of the service were existing and reused?

That’s correct

 

[infinity]

That’s correct

The NEC would not require you to add an emergency disconnect if you were only swapping out a panel. I'm not familiar with the IBC requirements but I would assume that they are similar. Maybe someone from Florida can comment.

 

[kwired]

The NEC would not require you to add an emergency disconnect if you were only swapping out a panel. I'm not familiar with the IBC requirements but I would assume that they are similar. Maybe someone from Florida can comment.

I can see what you are saying and mostly agree with it.

I can also vision some jurisdictions not seeing it that way.

 

[jaggedben]

Unfortunately the NEC does not cross reference IBC or in my state the FBC.

During the replacement of a panel change out I confirmed that as long as the load has not changed nor any other construction on the property commenced a 1 for 1 replacement could occur for the purpose of repair/replacement per the AHJ. Now after the work has been completed AHJ is requiring Emergency Disconnect.

I’m looking for IBC sections pertaining to existing building code and the requirements to cause forced upgrade to current code.

If the state has adopted an NEC based electrical code then I don't know why you'd expect to find something in an IBC based code that contradicts the electrical code. The scope of the IBC is different. Also, while I'm less familiar with ICC codes, to the extent I've noticed they do not directly address 'grandfathering' issues any more often than the NEC, which does so rarely. Which is to say those kinds of decisions are generally left to the local AHJ in this country. To my knowledge, although most wouldn't do so, there is nothing in the codes preventing AHJs from requiring an emergency disconnect if you add an outlet.

I do think it's terrible if they jerked you around and aren't honoring the first thing they told you. Good luck.

The NEC would not require you to add an emergency disconnect if you were only swapping out a panel. I'm not familiar with the IBC requirements but I would assume that they are similar. Maybe someone from Florida can comment.

I don't know why you would say that. (Other than perhaps it being unclear if the replaced 'panel' was actually the service equipment in this case.)

The 2023 version of 230.85 explicity states "Where service equipment is replaced, all the requirements of this section shall apply." While the 2020 NEC doesn't say that, I would expect AHJs to enforce it that way, since it's closely related. Just like we expect to bring the GES up to current code when getting a service equipment replacement approved. See comments above, it's really up to the AHJ. But if a service equipment replacement doesn't trigger enforcement of 230.85, then what really was the point of that section?

 

[infinity]

The 2023 version of 230.85 explicity states "Where service equipment is replaced, all the requirements of this section shall apply." While the 2020 NEC doesn't say that, I would expect AHJs to enforce it that way, since it's closely related.

He didn't say that he was under the 2023 NEC but he could be. As noted my response was based on the 2020.

 

[Knightryder12]

Florida has adopted the 2020 NEC. I am not sure when the 2023 will take affect. Where in Florida is the OP?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The 2020 does not address this issue, so it would be a judgement call by the inspection authority.

 

[tortuga]

Unfortunately the NEC does not cross reference IBC or in my state the FBC.

Well it must be a one or two family dwelling so it would be the FBC residential code.
Did you replace the service entrance conductors ?
Did the legal occupancy change? Did it go form one family dwelling to duplex or somthing?
If no to both my approach would be R101.2 Exception 3 of the Florida Residential code, which states

R101.2 Scope Exception 3
Existing buildings undergoing repair, alteration, additions or change of occupancy shall comply with the Florida Building Code, Existing Building.

then 101.4.2 of the Existing Building Code:

101.4.2 Buildings Previously Occupied
The legal occupancy of any building existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the Florida Fire Prevention Code, or as is deemed necessary by the code official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.

 

[jim dungar]

Could this be a requirement from the Florida Fire Prevention Code. We, as electrical people, often forget there are more rules and regulations than just the NEC and IBC, especially from local fire departments.

 

[jaggedben]

...
then 101.4.2 of the Existing Building Code:

What is the relevance of that? The OP is not saying the occupants were kicked out of the building.

 

[Little Bill]

If the state has adopted an NEC based electrical code then I don't know why you'd expect to find something in an IBC based code that contradicts the electrical code. The scope of the IBC is different. Also, while I'm less familiar with ICC codes, to the extent I've noticed they do not directly address 'grandfathering' issues any more often than the NEC, which does so rarely. Which is to say those kinds of decisions are generally left to the local AHJ in this country. To my knowledge, although most wouldn't do so, there is nothing in the codes preventing AHJs from requiring an emergency disconnect if you add an outlet.

I do think it's terrible if they jerked you around and aren't honoring the first thing they told you. Good luck.



I don't know why you would say that. (Other than perhaps it being unclear if the replaced 'panel' was actually the service equipment in this case.)

The 2023 version of 230.85 explicity states "Where service equipment is replaced, all the requirements of this section shall apply." While the 2020 NEC doesn't say that, I would expect AHJs to enforce it that way, since it's closely related. Just like we expect to bring the GES up to current code when getting a service equipment replacement approved. See comments above, it's really up to the AHJ. But if a service equipment replacement doesn't trigger enforcement of 230.85, then what really was the point of that section?

If nothing was done on the outside, you shouldn't have to add a disconnect. If we just change a panel, we don't have to do anything outside.

 

[infinity]

The wording for service equipment replacement was added to the 2023 NEC. If it was already required (adding the EM disconnect) by the 2020 NEC then adding additional language would not have been necessary. So under the 2020 a simple panel replacement would not trigger the need to install an EM disconnect. Under the 2023 if the panel being replaced is the service equipment then it would be required.

 

[tronic]

Looks like the AHJ would be correct here. BUT to throw it at you at Final is a dick move.
The IBC is usually for commercial projects and the IRC is residential. The IRC takes its language directly from the NEC too. In my jurisdiction, the electrical chapter(s) of the IRC, IBC, and IEBC (Existing Building Code) were not adopted, only NEC. Supposedly this was done to avoid any conflicting information between the codes.
All that said, there was a very similar thing here in Colorado. There were a bunch of FPE panels getting replaced at an apartment complex. On the first two the inspector looked at she missed the exterior disco and the language of 230.85. However, whether right or wrong, she allowed my first two to remain as they were and the remaining panels/ services I had (12) yet to start, the exterior disco was required per 230.85.
Like I said right or wrong, I thought it was a decent enough compromise. I was able to explain to my customers there wasn't much choice on the matter and several went with another company. You bet that I will be watching and making sure every last one has the exterior disco. Good luck OP.

 

[tortuga]

What is the relevance of that? The OP is not saying the occupants were kicked out of the building.

Thats where what we call the "grandfather" clauses come from, occupancy does not refer to the building occupants its the occupancy classification in the building code. Single family dwelling is a occupancy classification so if its up to the code that was in effect when it was built then it need not comply with current code, NEC or others.

 

[jaggedben]

Thats where what we call the "grandfather" clauses come from, occupancy does not refer to the building occupants its the occupancy classification in the building code. Single family dwelling is a occupancy classification so if its up to the code that was in effect when it was built then it need not comply with current code, NEC or others.

None of that occupancy language has anything to do with which portions of premises wiring are grandfathered when one does electrical work. I still don't see how any of that is at all useful in arguing with an AHJ over the OPs subject.

 

[jaggedben]

If nothing was done on the outside, you shouldn't have to add a disconnect. If we just change a panel, we don't have to do anything outside.

Lucky for you if that's how your AHJ sees it, but it's just an opinion.

I mean, I think 230.85 is a stupid rule. But if I'm trying to give advice on actual law or code rule that helps the OP, it has to be something solid.