Code question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Code question

To the one who think everything has to be upgraded when we change out fuses to breakers:

The next time you have your older 1950's ro 1960's car in the shop to replace a starter or water pump, Etc... Think about how much it would cost to now bring that car (which was fine before) up to all of todays standards, That would include seat belt, emmission's, anti-lock brakes, air bags, Etc...

If the NTSB or EPA can't make you do it how can a local unit of goverment get away with it???
 
Re: Code question

The one thing you might want to check the listing of the existing panel. There are two listings ?Suitable Only For Use As Service Equipment? in which the factory has incorporated neutral bond to the panelboard frame or enclosure, and ?Suitable For Use As Service Equipment? in which the neutral is isolated of the panelboard frame or enclosure. The conductors to the existing panel have now become feeders and if the existing panel is listed as ?Suitable Only For Use As Service Equipment?, this would be the violation, and needs to be corrected.
 
Re: Code question

Originally posted by LarryFine:
The basic premise around here is that any work done today must meet today's code. The caveat is that the original work must have been both legal and properly inspected at the time it was done.

In other words, if you stumble upon, let's say, an improper service upgrade (no GEC or water ground, no cable clamps, never insp., drop to meter still 100a, exposed NM's, etc.), your work won't pass.
Click to expand...
Baloney. Please explain to me how someone not getting permits or inspections and not doing work to code god knows how long ago would be my problem? :roll: This whole liability nonsense really has some of you guys thinking crazy thoughts. As far as I am concerned I do a code compliant installation, I get inspected I'm done!
 
Re: Code question

How about a couple of examples?

Two years ago, we got a call from a young couple who had lost all power, due to the POCO cutting the service drop at the weatherhead. A line-side meter lug had burned off the meter.

Upon my inspection, it was determined that a "service upgrade" had been performed as part of a central HVAC system installation. Naturally, there was no permit or inspection.

The service entrance cable (from the meter to the panel only) and panel had been replaced. The line-side terminals still had the old 100-amp cable, and there was no droiven ground.

The panel was a veritable rat's nest, which didn't suprise me. Only a few branch circuit cables had been cable-clamped, and none of the new HVAC cables were even stapled.

Of course, the POCO would not restore power until an inspection had been passed. We treated this as as if we were doing the upgrade now, and corrected the violations, new meter base, etc.

Around here, the POCO will do the service drop work, all the way to the meter line-side terminals at no charge, as long as they believe they'll be selling more electricity.


The second involved an electrical fire, where I finally determined that the cause was the EGC of the water heater. The ONLY ground was the water-pipe system, as "bonded" by the 10-gauge EGC of the fully-exposed NM cable run along the utility-room floor.

Again, there was no other grounding, NO cables were clamped, not even the service cable, and again, a 4/0 load-side cable, but only a #2 line-side cable. The POCO had again cut the drop at the weatherhead, and wanted an inspection prior to re-energizing.


Now, how could I have gotten inspections without bringing everything to current code?
 
Re: Code question

Oh, I forgot to mention that in both cases above, the homeowners had used the "services" of a "home inspector", both of which totally ignored the above discrepancies, but they definitely made mention of the infamous "double-tapped" breakers; probably the least risky of electrical issues they usually mention.

Those guys are useless when it comes to electrical work.
 
Re: Code question

Larry don`t get me started on home inspectors.They take a class no test pay the fee and whamo bamo instant home inspector :D
 
Re: Code question

Larry neither of your examples can be applied to the situation at hand in this topic. You repaired violations to correct something you were working on. Now if you said you did this work to code and then the inspector said you had to replace all receptacles with GFCI where required by current code, and install AFCI for bedroom circuits, and maybe rewire the kitchen circuits etc then you are on the same page.
 
Re: Code question

I haven't logged in a while and was curious about this topic and searched it out.

I have to put my foot on my mouth :D simply because I misread the situation about the subpanel. I understood that the inspector was requiring the panel that chris installed was being fed by the 3C and the inspector was asking for it to be wired with 4C....that is why I said that it didn't mean that the whole house had to be rewired.

If chris changed the main panel and the inspector is requiring the subpanel wiring to be changed....he is way out of line.... that is downstream from chris's job. all he has to make sure is that HIS job is up to Code....not the rest of the house.

Hell, I'll completely erase the brainfarts that I had :D

[ May 27, 2005, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: molotov27 ]
 
Re: Code question

I have performed several service changes/upgrades without replacing the 3 cond wiring to sub panel. The wiring was properly installed in the first place and was not in need of repair. I have not had an inspector to date require it to be replaced. Some of the jobs were old 60amp services. The job was to replace the old/damaged equipement, not to bring any other part of the system up to current codes. I do not understand why there are some that have a problem with this. I changed an interior sub panel one time on an older home that a gov. program was paying for and their people had written up the work order. I replaced the fuse panel with a breakered panel and taped the cracked insulation of the se conductor. The inspector called me and raised cain because I did not change the se conductor, so I told him I was not hired to do that and if he found any fault with the panel or connections or any work I did do, I would be happy to fix it, but I could not afford to repair peoples homes out of my own pocket. Never heard any more.
 
Re: Code question

So, just to get everyone's opinion, if one has a main sub-panel (meaning separate ground and neutral), and is feeding an existing sub-panel, where does one land the sub-panel's ground wire?

Likewise, if one is converting an existing panel into a sub-panel, where does one land the ground of the exsiting SE-fed (meaning combined ground and neutral) appliance cables?

In other words, if one has a panel with separated grounds and neutrals, and is feeding a load or panel with combined grounds and neutrals, where does one land the combined conductor?

This came up when a meter had to be relocated for a home addition, and the existing service cable has to be extended. The AHJ required a main disconnect at the new meter location, and SER cable.
 
Re: Code question

In other words, if one has a panel with separated grounds and neutrals, and is feeding a load or panel with combined grounds and neutrals, where does one land the combined conductor?
Click to expand...
Larry, I don't exactly understand your scenario, but I think what you're saying is a MDP that was the service disconnecting means suddenly became a sub-panel of the new main disconnect outside. Due to the new disconnect being farther away, then a new SER run would be (physically, unless you own a wire-stretcher) required.

In that situation, I would feel that it is the responsibility of the EC to pull the proper SER. You pull a four-wire SER from disconnect to panel, and separate the grounding and neutral conductors in the panel, IMO. One could tell at a glance when bidding this project that the meter enclosure and the existing MDP are going to be farther apart, and presumably the disconnect on the house is either requested by the customer or desired by you (Edit: or required by the AHJ, like you said!), in which case you are agreeing to change the existing feeds to accomplish those ends. :)

This scenario is one reason why I attempt to keep neutrals and grounds separate if I am doing a MDP or similar situation, and then use the bonding screw to connect the two. That makes it a whole lot easier on the next guy, if a service disconnect is installed outside later on. Remove one screw and he's done. ;)

[ May 29, 2005, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
 
Re: Code question

George, my question was to the next step: If you remove the screw as in your scenario, what do you do with the bare SE-cable-fed-appliance conductors (or neutrals of 3-wire dryer circuits)? Do you tie them to the neutral bus or the EGC bus?

Also, if the panel being converted already feeds a sub-panel with a cable that does not have a separate neutral and EGC, as in the post that started this thread, same question: where would the sub-panel's neutral/EGC go, neutral bus or EGC bus?

My instinct tells me that, if this conductor carries any neutral current, which they all would in these examples, the combined conductor should go to the neutral bus. However, this would require insulating the bare wire wherever it's exposed. Right?

[ May 29, 2005, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: LarryFine ]
 
Re: Code question

Larry

In other words, if one has a panel with separated grounds and neutrals, and is feeding a load or panel with combined grounds and neutrals, where does one land the combined conductor?
Click to expand...
Larry I would say because of the reduced size grounding done between the main disconnect and the first sub panel, I would have to say that the neutral bar would be the safest place to land the grounded conductor feeding the second panel. ;)
 
Re: Code question

Given that it's carrying current, then yes, it's a neutral.

See 250.140, Exception 3 for the conductor's insulation requirements. :(

[ May 29, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
 
Re: Code question

Originally posted by georgestolz:
In fact, it looks as though you would be required to repull the affected circuits up to current code--the MDP is no longer the service.
Click to expand...
Which brings us round-robin back to the topic of discussion (which is why I asked it this way):

Is one required to replace all existing 3-conductor feeders and branch circuits with 4-conductor, which would be required if it were new work?

Or are existing and non-disturbed installations allowed to remain, as longas they were up to code at the time of original installation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top