Existing Panelboard

[DMG_1]

I have a question regarding working clearances and existing panelboards. I have a panelboard in the boiler room of an existing installation where the dedicated working space is violated. I would like to add a 3-pole circuit breaker into the panelboard. Does anyone know if I will be opening a can of worms by doing this?

 

[petersonra]

I have a question regarding working clearances and existing panelboards. I have a panelboard in the boiler room of an existing installation where the dedicated working space is violated. I would like to add a 3-pole circuit breaker into the panelboard. Does anyone know if I will be opening a can of worms by doing this?

There is no general requirement to fix existing code violations when doing modifications like this.

 

[iwire]

I have a question regarding working clearances and existing panelboards. I have a panelboard in the boiler room of an existing installation where the dedicated working space is violated. I would like to add a 3-pole circuit breaker into the panelboard. Does anyone know if I will be opening a can of worms by doing this?

It should not open a can of works in any area but seeing as you are a MA electrician take a look at rules 3 and 4 from our MA amendments.

Rule 3 tells us directly that we do not have to correct existing violations.

Rule 4 says if the violation is a true hazard it is the inspector of wires responsibility to notify the property owner. They are not supposed to put this on the EC.

 

[qcroanoke]

It should not open a can of works in any area but seeing as you are a MA electrician take a look at rules 3 and 4 from our MA amendments.

Rule 3 tells us directly that we do not have to correct existing violations.

Rule 4 says if the violation is a true hazard it is the inspector of wires responsibility to notify the property owner. They are not supposed to put this on the EC.

WOW! two rules that make sense.........

 

[iwire]

WOW! two rules that make sense.........

Sadly, in practice many of the local inspectors do not seem to believe those rules apply to them. :roll:

 

[Jraef]

It should not open a can of works in any area but seeing as you are a MA electrician take a look at rules 3 and 4 from our MA amendments.

Rule 3 tells us directly that we do not have to correct existing violations.

Rule 4 says if the violation is a true hazard it is the inspector of wires responsibility to notify the property owner. They are not supposed to put this on the EC.

That makes a lot of sense.

Here in CA you cannot be forced to bring existing installations up to new codes as in #3, but adding to or modifying anything, when an inspector is involved, can trigger a red tag, not just a shift in the responsibility to the inspector. So it CAN come back on the EC if the process of making the addition triggers a red tag until the AHJ is satisfied, because you don't get paid until the job is done, yet the job can't get done until that issue is resolved. Bottom line, if it is going to be inspected, I'd call the AHJ in advance and ask if it is going to be an issue.

 

[iwire]

Here are the rules directly from our amendments.

 

[Tony S]

I don?t believe this, a consensus of common sense.
There?s something wrong somewhere.

OK this is BS7671:
An existing installation to a previous edition of the regulations can be modified so long as the modification complies with the latest edition and has no detrimental effect on the existing installation.
Which ties in nicely with #3

Unfortunately we also have #5 to contend with. Common sense goes out of the window at that point.

I?ve modified many switchboards in the past, adding bits in, taking bits out. Any additions/alterations had to meet current legislation but the rest of the board so long as it complied with the regulations in force at the time of installation remained as is.

 

[mwm1752]

Many existing installations do not meet current NEC codes. The first rule would be if the installation was compliant with the code cycle it was inspected under, then is it a lfe safety isuue. Just because it is existing does not make it compliant. If you install non compliant, have no inspections, then expect an inspector to ignore the obvious and bless the current work as if all ( including existing) ok is a bit far fetched. Most existing installs are compliant to begin with. Clearances at one time used to be the face footprint of the box-----

 

[iwire]

Just because it is existing does not make it compliant.

But if it is existing it is not the electricians duty to fix it unless that was what they were hired to do It is the property owners issue to deal with and pay for.

 

[edlee]

Here are the rules directly from our amendments.

Yes, but what you aren't mentioning about Rule 3 is the clause: "the installation (shall not) increase the magnitude of the existing violation".

This is where we can get into problems with an inspector. Adding a new circuit to a panel that is in violation could possibly be considered an increase in magnitude of the violation. So, unfortunately , it is not so straight-forward.

My actual experience though with inspectors has been mostly pretty reasonable about this. So far I haven't gotten into an expensive disagreement!

L.

 

[iwire]

Yes, but what you aren't mentioning about Rule 3 is the clause: "the installation (shall not) increase the magnitude of the existing violation".

This is where we can get into problems with an inspector. Adding a new circuit to a panel that is in violation could possibly be considered an increase in magnitude of the violation. So, unfortunately , it is not so straight-forward.
.

I strongly disagree.

The violation is a workspace violation of the panel. Adding a breaker to that panel does not increase the magnitude of the violation.

To read rule 3 like you suggest would make rule 3 worthless.

 

[mwm1752]

But if it is existing it is not the electricians duty to fix it unless that was what they were hired to do It is the property owners issue to deal with and pay for.

Is there no intergrity of the electrical trade when the duty of the electrician is to ignore "life safety violations"? The debate in this OP may not be considered a violation due to the era installation was done - no issues - to add to a problem that should be rectified and not make effort to repair the issue IMO is an intergrity issue that should be addressed. Some just work in the electrical trade while others realize the responsibility that comes with special knowledge of being an electrician. Duty comes down to the individuals sense of pride & workmanship they possess. There is a difference between a janitor & electrician.

 

[kwired]

You also have places that did not have permits or inspections until more recently, that leaves you with a lot of old installations that really had no standard that was required to be met when they were first installed.

Here you still don't need a permit to do work in dwellings, you do need a new permit for new services though - so you can completely gut a home and install most all new wiring with no permit or inspection - as long as the service was not changed. Change the service and all other work done at that same time is also subject to being inspected though.

Want to put on a major addition to a home that will need service upgraded as a result? You can change the service and get it inspected before building the addition and there is no requirement to get (electrical) permit for the addition. This is the state rules, cities with their own inspection departments may be different. This new service = permit does mean a new home will get inspected because you generally do not have an existing service in combination with a new home, though there may be some creativity out there that somehow makes that happen.

 

[iwire]

Is there no intergrity of the electrical trade when the duty of the electrician is to ignore "life safety violations"?

Well first off we are not doctors, we did not take any oath.

But no one said 'ignore' if I see a true 'life safety violation' I would inform someone. But under no circumstances should that existing violation hold up the inspection(s) of work I have done, nor should the existing violation cost the company one penny to correct.

The debate in this OP may not be considered a violation due to the era installation was done - no issues - to add to a problem that should be rectified and not make effort to repair the issue IMO is an intergrity issue that should be addressed.

Do you really believe adding breaker to an existing panel in a location that violates current work space rules is an integrity issue?

Wow.

Some just work in the electrical trade while others realize the responsibility that comes with special knowledge of being an electrician. Duty comes down to the individuals sense of pride & workmanship they possess.

:roll:

Wow again.

 

[kwired]

Gas company that operates the system in several area towns also does appliance installations and services. Unlike the individual HVAC guys if they are on a site and find a hazardous condition they will shut of the gas to the facility and will refuse to turn it back on until the problem is solved (whether they fix it or someone else does doesn't matter, it is up to the owner to pay whoever they want to do it)

I've seen them shut off gas because of bad heat exchangers (CO2 issues), no makeup air/backdrafting of an appliance, improper venting of appliances, improper clearances to combustibles where such clearances apply, wrong type of piping or other installation issues, garage built over existing underground gas piping, and possibly other reasons. Not saying this is a bad thing, but it is what it is. You never see an electrician come into a place and find a hazard and order the service disconnected or an HVAC contractor do something similar. You may find some that will turn off a circuit, maybe even disconnect some items and give warning of the hazards but you know the customer in some cases may reconnect it afterwards. Gas company has the control over the supply though and can do that. If I called an electric utility and asked them to disconnect a customer because of unsafe conditions - they likely will want to have the electrical inspector look at it and give that order.

 

[mwm1752]

Well first off we are not doctors, we did not take any oath.
I would say most Electrical Contractors/electricians are given a license based on an exam pertaining to the NEC. Therfore the licensed personell would practice NEC code in which the license was issued;90.1 Purpose
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.

But no one said 'ignore' if I see a true 'life safety violation' I would inform someone. But under no circumstances should that existing violation hold up the inspection(s) of work I have done, nor should the existing violation cost the company one penny to correct. So? a true life safety violation is not a circumstance?

"But if it is existing it is not the electricians duty to fix it unless that was what they were hired to do It is the property owners issue to deal with and pay for." has a hint of "ignore" in this comment.

Do you really believe adding breaker to an existing panel in a location that violates current work space rules is an integrity issue? I did say "no Issues" the "that should be problem" is a reference to a life safety issue

Wow.



:roll:

Wow again.

Sue me for taking pride in my work -- certainly seen sloppy & non concerning work in my day where I've said the same WOW.

 

[ADub]

Sue me for taking pride in my work -- certainly seen sloppy & non concerning work in my day where I've said the same WOW.

You're like the mike Holmes of the electrical world. Do you drive by buildings and look for violations so you can confront the owners for bad electrics? Ease up sea biscuit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mwm1752]

You're like the mike Holmes of the electrical world. Do you drive by buildings and look for violations so you can confront the owners for bad electrics? Ease up sea biscuit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That comment was out of line - I am not a democrat

 

[iwire]

Sue me for taking pride in my work

This has nothing at all to do with pride and craftsmanship of ones own work.

It has to do with other people's work.