Grandfather Clause

[eeee]

I have been having a debate with my colleague at work related to using the "grandfather clause" for the following application:

My thinking is: if a panelboard is not being replaced, but only the source and load side wiring is being changed, the NEC code regarding safe working clearance does not have to be applied and the equipment can be grandfathered in.

What would be the forum's thoughts?

Thank You,

 

[tony_psuee]

eeee,

I went to a code training seminar conducted by someone considered to be an industry expert and a similar question was asked. His response was that the literal application of the code would be that if any new work was done, everything associated with that work would have to be compliant with the current code in force. The example was adding a load to a panel. If the current code was only one neutral per screw then with the new load, any existing neutrals with two wires under a screw would have to be changed. Is it something that most likely each AHJ will interpret differently, probably. Does it answer your question, no. If it were me, I would contact an inspector I had previous worked with and ask them what they would be looking for.

tony

 

[ryan_618]

If it was illegal when it was installed originally, there is no statute of limiatations on a code violations. Teh inspector could require it to be fixed. Again, that would only be if it were a violation when it was originally installed.

 

[growler]

There is one other possibility. Even though this may be grand fathered it could be seen as a hazardous condition ( dangerous to those working on the panel ). I would think that the inspection department could require the panel to be moved if they see it as a serious risk to life. You would probably have to look at this on a case by case basis. Always better safe than sorry.

 

[JohnE]

We have a rule in MA which states "additions or modifications to an existing installation shall be made in accordance with this Code without bringing the remaining part of the installation into compliance with the requirements of this Code. This installation shall not create a violation of this code, nor shall it increase the magnitude of an existing violation."

With that said, what you describe would be legal in MA, IMO.

John

 

[eeee]

NEC Violation

NEC Violation

In the case of a typical panelboard where the circuit breakers are mounted in the front, per NEC 110.26 (a) Dead Front Assemblies, 3 feet in front of the panelboard is all that is required for working space and of course the height requiremements apply also. There is no 3 feet working space requirement to the sides of the panelboard since there are no live or grounded parts on the sides of a typical panelboard. Typical panelboards could therefore be mounted 6 inches to the side of each other if desired.

This was my main concern related to the working space requirement.

 

[eeee]

NEC Violation

NEC Violation

I believe NEC 110.26 (A) (1) (a) applies to dead-front motor control centers and dead-front switchboards, but not panelboards. I see that NEC 110.26 (A) (1) (c) indicates that in existing buildings were electrical equipment is being replaced (i.e. panelboards or possibly wiring to and from panelboards one may interpret), condition 2 working clearance shall be permitted and this indicates 3 feet minimum clear distance (to the sides of the panelboard in this case I would interpret).

In Massachusettes there is a rule that a grandfather clause could apply per the previous responder so that the clearance issue to the side of the panelboard may not be required in this case.

Another previous responder indicated the strict interpretation is that anything that touches the new work effort must be brought up to code I interpret, unless the AHJ or inspector waives it.

Sounds somewhat like a grey issue to me? I have not seen any definition of "grandfather clause" in the NEC code book or NEC handbook.

I fear the inspector may not be concusive on this subject and we may need a group meeting to form a consensus.

 

[charlie b]

Re: NEC Violation

Re: NEC Violation

Typical panelboards could therefore be mounted 6 inches to the side of each other if desired.

That is true under the current code. You don't need to look for a grandfather clause to justify it. The side to side clearance is 30 inches. Two panels side by side with each other would not interfere with each other's required clearance, because the 30 inches side to side begins at the front face of the panel. The two front faces of the two panels are in the same vertical plane, so neither is in the other's way.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

As Ryan has stated, if the original installation was a violation the date of the installation and it was not picked up for whatever reason, the new installer will be responsible once work is being performed to make corrections. Sometimes the violation can be written to the property owner, and they would be responsible to have someone make the corrections.