Elec. Service Equipment Old/Rusting - Replace?

[designer82]

Working on 4 unit multi-family complex where the inspector has raised concerns about the exist. elec. service equipment. The meter centers and main disconnects are rusting to the point where he feels they might not properly function, perform their interrupt function etc.

I'm unsure at what point it makes sense to upgrade the electrical infrastructure of an existing building.

Appreciate any feedback, thanks

 

[tom baker]

Appreciate his concern, I am not sure if the code addresses that

 

[zbang]

How old and rusty are we talking about?
Unless the internal parts (breakers, fuses, etc) are rusting, they should be fine, but ya, it's not much of NEC issue. There are expected lifetimes of equipment but that falls to the design side of things although insurance coverage may dictate replacement (e.g. replace plug fuses with breakers or replace knob & tube wiring).

 

[charlie b]

What is your work scope and how is it related to the condition of the service equipment?

 

[designer82]

Thanks for the feedback.... @charlie b The town isn't sure if all this old rusty elec. equip. should be replaced with brand new.
The building was built in 1949.

 

[hbiss]

Yes.

-Hal

 

[zbang]

Forget the rusty part, if it's almost 75 years old (and unmaintained) the entire property is probably due for an electrical upgrade and not just the service equipment.

Unless the town can cite something in the electrical or building codes that requires replacement their words are only a suggestion for the property owner.

 

[ramsy]

Forget the rusty part, if it's almost 75 years old (and unmaintained) the entire property is probably due for an electrical upgrade and not just the service equipment.

Yes, upgrade bids are appropriate.

Unless the town can cite something in the electrical or building codes that requires replacement their words are only a suggestion for the property owner.

110.12(B) is the relevant citation.

 

[ramsy]

The town isn't sure if all this old rusty elec. equip. should be replaced with brand new.
The building was built in 1949.

AHJ's are subject to all options for compliance, including 110.21(A)(2) reconditioned, any NFPA-70B equipment maintenance, or NRTL field evaluations that can prove equipment suitability, so without a conflict of interest towns wont mandate brand new replacement as the only option.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yes, upgrade bids are appropriate.

110.12(B) is the relevant citation.

That, just like all of the NEC, only applies to installations. Unless the city has adopted something other than the NEC, they have no way to enforce something like this.

 

[ramsy]

That, just like all of the NEC, only applies to installations. Unless the city has adopted something other than the NEC, they have no way to enforce something like this.

Not sure I understand.

Why can't 110.12(B) be enforced against existing equipment that gets flooded, infested, corroded, or otherwise determined unsuitable by an AHJ?

 

[zbang]

IMNSHO and all that--
The structure of article 110 suggests that paragraphs 110.12(A) and (B) apply to section .12 (Mechanical execution of work); if they were to be more generally applied they would be their own section of 110.

110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work. Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

bB Not sure I understand.

Why can't 110.12(B) be enforced against existing equipment that gets flooded, infested, corroded, or otherwise determined unsuitable by an AHJ?

Because unless there is some type of permit there is not authority for the AHJ to inspect. With flooding, there would probably be a permit to make the repairs, but this case just appears to be an observation of existing equipment, there is no legal authority unless the jurisdiction has adopted 70B or other existing structure codes.
In general the NEC only applies to the installation, what happens after that, is outside the scope of the NEC.

 

[topgone]

Because unless there is some type of permit there is not authority for the AHJ to inspect. With flooding, there would probably be a permit to make the repairs, but this case just appears to be an observation of existing equipment, there is no legal authority unless the jurisdiction has adopted 70B or other existing structure codes.
In general the NEC only applies to the installation, what happens after that, is outside the scope of the NEC.

Substantial renovations or revamps should require permits, IMHO. Especially if you want to place your property on the market, nothing beats raising the value of your property. Documents showing the improvements you made help convince buyers. May not be part of the scope of NEC but should be helpful to people doing the same.

 

[ramsy]

Because unless there is some type of permit there is not authority for the AHJ to inspect.

Would you agree AHJ's can condemn a building, revoke occupancy, and that Code Enforcement can compel retro-active permits to restore occupancy.

 

[ramsy]

this case just appears to be an observation of existing equipment, there is no legal authority

Perhaps not always practicable, "In industrial occupancies, where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the equipment", but everywhere else Fire Marshals make surprise visits to Red Tag occupancy violations, for any number of defects with: extension cord wiring, exits / signs, EM lights, fire extinguishers, alarms, or posted occupancy limits, etc..

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Perhaps not always practicable, "In industrial occupancies, where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the equipment", but everywhere else Fire Marshals make surprise visits to Red Tag occupancy violations, for any number of defects with: extension cord wiring, exits / signs, EM lights, fire extinguishers, alarms, or posted occupancy limits, etc..

They may be invited in to do those inspections, but if they are refused entry they need a search warrant. Look at the case of See V Seattle...went all the way to the US Supreme Court over an $100 fine when a owner refused to let the fire inspector in.

 

[ramsy]

Look at the case of See V Seattle

Nice reference, and an interesting read.

In 1967 See V Seattle exterior surveillance was fair game, but occupancy interior requires a warrant, if demanded by owners.

"Therefore, appellant may not be prosecuted for exercising his constitutional right to insist that the fire inspector obtain a warrant authorizing entry upon appellant's locked warehouse."

The question of weather such warrants are issued is settled by [Footnote 2/4]

"Under the holding of the Court today, "probable cause" would therefore be present in each case, and a "paper warrant" would issue as a matter of course."

So demanding a warrant is not a real barrier to entry, since probable cause is presumed, and the warrant would be immediately issued.

In this case the warrant challenge is just a minor delay, and wont apply to any equipment on building exteriors determined unsuitable by an AHJ.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

However in this case, even if the equipment is in public view, there is no NEC violation, and unless they have some type of maintenance code there is nothing the AHJ can do.