Was I Wrong ?

[kwired]

Part of the problem is that the issue is not clearly defined in the NEC. Ask 10 inspectors and you'll get 5 who say it's required and 5 who so it's not required. IMO it's required. If you took a 3-wire MWBC cable from one panel and installed it in another panel it would require the handle-tie or multi-pole CB.

Outside the fact I don't necessarily agree with handle ties/multipole breaker being required on all MWBC's to begin with, based on reasoning for changing this way back when it was changed, I would think the intent would been that it also apply to when you replaced panel or similar situations. That said the wording may not be clear enough to say you must do it.

 

[hillbilly1]

A CEU instructor does not normally represent NFPA and is not an official interpretation of NFPA content. Often isn't representing any specific AHJ either. No different than Mike Holt's materials not being official interpretation of any NFPA or specific AHJ content.

That said if the local inspectors are taking same CEU courses why aren't they speaking up when something contradicts with what they are enforcing? Other than they get some sort of pleasure in rejecting things, which is just wrong to have that attitude.

I had a CEU instructor years ago say if you ran 3/0 to a stove, it would pay off in a couple of years! LOL!

 

[kwired]

I had a CEU instructor years ago say if you ran 3/0 to a stove, it would pay off in a couple of years! LOL!

If you ran the stove enough it might? Air conditioning bill might counter it though

 

[hillbilly1]

If you ran the stove enough it might? Air conditioning bill might counter it though

Be hell’va lot of cooking! LOL!

 

[goldstar]

A CEU instructor does not normally represent NFPA and is not an official interpretation of NFPA content. Often isn't representing any specific AHJ either. No different than Mike Holt's materials not being official interpretation of any NFPA or specific AHJ content.

That said if the local inspectors are taking same CEU courses why aren't they speaking up when something contradicts with what they are enforcing? Other than they get some sort of pleasure in rejecting things, which is just wrong to have that attitude.

I don't think it's an NEC issue. We all know what's written. However, us EC's here in NJ have been told by several CEU instructors that the NJ Rehab Code permitted you to upgrade an electrical system (where the original panel did not have 2-P CB's for MWBC's) and not have to use 2-P CB's for those circuits. You were replacing like with like. Again I say, it makes no difference to me whether it's (2) 1-P CB's or (1) 2-P CB as long as everyone is on the same page. You shouldn't have to install 2-P CB's in one township because "that's what the EI wants" and 1-P CB's in another township because that inspector interprets the Code differently.

It's not even a question of what's right or wrong. It's a question of the State needing to making it clear to EVERYONE as to what the rule is. We have a periodic publication that the Code Assistance Unit puts out entitled NJ Construction Code Communicator. Put an article in that and be done with it.

 

[infinity]

We have a periodic publication that the Code Assistance Unit puts out entitled NJ Construction Code Communicator. Put an article in that and be done with it.

That would be helpful to get everyone on the same page.

However, us EC's here in NJ have been told by several CEU instructors that the NJ Rehab Code permitted you to upgrade an electrical system (where the original panel did not have 2-P CB's for MWBC's) and not have to use 2-P CB's for those circuits.

What if the original panel did have handle-ties on the MWBC's in the old panel?

 

[goldstar]

What if the original panel did have handle-ties on the MWBC's in the old panel?

Obviously I would install 2-P CB's. But, you know as well as I do that the VAST MAJORITY of older panels (those that pre-date the Code change - I believe it was 2008 that Dennis mentioned) like Federal Pacific panels, did not use 2-P CB's for MWBC's. Again let me state for the record, I understand the reason for the Code change and I think the Code change was a good idea. Going forward, I will install 2-P CB's for MWBC's so I don't have to go through this crap again. But, the State needs to address this so that every EC doing service upgrades in every township in NJ is under ONE common rule and not under the Imperial Realm of any one EI. It makes for unnecessary confrontations and sometimes agruments. One of the EC's in my contractor's association burnt a bridge with a local EI (not because of the MWBC issue) and will not do work in that town anymore. There's no reason for that.

 

[kwired]

What if the original panel did have handle-ties on the MWBC's in the old panel?

Guess we need before and after inspections?

I don't do it too often but occasionally run into a project that is somewhat a mess, or someone else has done newer work that is questionable (that may or may not have required inspection when it was done) and I will ask the inspector to come in and look at things before I do any work so we can be clear on what is expected to be left as is and what will need changes.

Last one I recall doing this with was a a few years ago and was a house a guy was fixing up, but was like a ten year project by the time I was called in. He done quite a bit of wiring already, and covered and finished things up, I was mostly called in to upgrade the service/panel.

 

[goldstar]

I asked the NJ Code Assistance Unit for further clarification regarding the use of 2-P CB's for MWBC's on service upgrades . This is the response I received :

Let me first address the term "upgrade". That term does not exist in rehab.

To correctly address this issue, a service "replacement" is defined as a renovation. A service "upgrade" is defined as an alteration.

Attached is a link to how the rehab matrix is intended to be followed. b_98_1.pdf (nj.gov)

BULLETIN 98-1 - Government of New Jersey BULLETIN 98-1 . Issued: January 1998 . Subject: Rehab Subcode Matrix . Reference: N.J.A.C. 5:23-6 . Matrix Summarizing Categories of Work and Applicable Requirements www.nj.gov

You will note that both a renovation and an alteration both must comply with 6.8 Materials and Methods. When you propose to undertake either a renovation or alteration on an electrical service, ALL components are subject to these requirements.

Rehab code permits a "relaxation" of working clearances for existing work, but that is far as it goes. We cannot simply apply this same leniency to all facets of the permitted work. The argument can be made, as you are attempting, that pre-existing work shall be permitted to remain "as is". That is a gross distortion of how the rehab code works. The intent of the rehab code is to encourage building upgrades to current codes within a degree of reason (thus the allowances afforded to working clearances). To allow a non-compliant issue to remain, just because "it was there when I started" does not follow the intent of the rehab code.

The closest the code comes to that is 5:23-6.2 (f) Pre-Existing Buildings: Buildings or structures legally in existence at the time of the adoption or subsequent amendment of this subchapter may continue in use and nothing herein shall be interpreted as requiring the repair, renovation, alteration or reconstruction of such building, except as provided at N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.32, Unsafe Structures.

Please note that the bold highlighted text is saying that nothing requires that you take out a permit to fix work that, at the time of installation was compliant, but that is no longer compliant with currently adopted codes. Now I understand that at one time there was no such requirement for MWBC's to have handle ties for single pole breakers, but as I mentioned before, when work is done on the service (renovation or alteration) the circuit breakers are part of that permitted work. At this point ALL permitted work must comply with 6.8, which does not delete the requirements of article 210.4.

As a footnote, as of 02/22 upgrading the grounding electrode system to current code will now be enforceable.

In a nutshell, when doing a service "renovation" or a service "alteration", the service will have to comply with current NEC, as adopted in 3.16, with the exceptions of the requirements of 110.26.

Scott Borsos
Construction Official
NJDCA Division of Codes and Standards
101 South Broad
Trenton NJ

 

[infinity]

I asked the NJ Code Assistance Unit for further clarification regarding the use of 2-P CB's for MWBC's on service upgrades . This is the response I received :

So they're saying that according to the NEC it is required when changing a service and the rehab code gives no relief from this requirement.

 

[goldstar]

So they're saying that according to the NEC it is required when changing a service and the rehab code gives no relief from this requirement.

That is correct.

 

[infinity]

That is correct.

They need to get the word out.

 

[kwired]

In a nutshell, when doing a service "renovation" or a service "alteration", the service will have to comply with current NEC, as adopted in 3.16, with the exceptions of the requirements of 110.26.

Hopefully they still have limitations on what the exceptions of 110.26 are. Seen many minor violations of that that aren't all that bad to have to deal with as someone working on items. Also seen some that should never be exempted from the rules.

 

[171FIREFIGHTER]

I asked the NJ Code Assistance Unit for further clarification regarding the use of 2-P CB's for MWBC's on service upgrades . This is the response I received :

I myself really dont understand why you are pushing the MWBC issue so much, Honestly I switch it to a double pole breaker simply becuase it is the right thing to do for the client and I dont need NEC or some rehab code to tell me to do it

 

[goldstar]

I myself really dont understand why you are pushing the MWBC issue so much, Honestly I switch it to a double pole breaker simply becuase it is the right thing to do for the client and I dont need NEC or some rehab code to tell me to do it

If you’ve read my posts I really don’t care one way or another. However, we are being told by some CEU instructors (the same ones teaching the inspectors) that we are not required to use 2-P CB’s for MWBC’s when upgrading an electric service. I’m familiar with the Code section, I think it’s a good idea. However, I’m trying to get everyone in the State of NJ on the same page with this issue. We’re either ALL doing this or we’re not. I should be able to work anywhere in the State and be subject to the same rules and regulations.

 

[171FIREFIGHTER]

If you’ve read my posts I really don’t care one way or another. However, we are being told by some CEU instructors (the same ones teaching the inspectors) that we are not required to use 2-P CB’s for MWBC’s when upgrading an electric service. I’m familiar with the Code section, I think it’s a good idea. However, I’m trying to get everyone in the State of NJ on the same page with this issue. We’re either ALL doing this or we’re not. I should be able to work anywhere in the State and be subject to the same rules and regulations.

I Understand! So we're you going to change it in this case but was just waiting to see if inspector called it out or not?

 

[goldstar]

Just thought you'd all like to know, these are the answers (or Code citings) I received from the EI :

1. 230.54(c). Also the exception where impracticable so stating less than 24" and included in the Utilities requirements.
2. UCC 5:23-6.8(D)3 does not exclude 210.4b of the 2017 NEC
3. 250.53(d)1, 250.68(c) Water meter in between is not a continuous pipe.

I'm now in agreement with # 2 but not sure I agree with #'s 1 & 3.

 

[goldstar]

I Understand! So we're you going to change it in this case but was just waiting to see if inspector called it out or not?

I changed it while he was there inspecting. There's no sense in hanging up your final payment on a ridiculous matter like this.

 

[infinity]

3. 250.53(d)1, 250.68(c) Water meter in between is not a continuous pipe.

Are the words continuous pipe in those sections?

 

[Mongothedog]

If you’ve read my posts I really don’t care one way or another. However, we are being told by some CEU instructors (the same ones teaching the inspectors) that we are not required to use 2-P CB’s for MWBC’s when upgrading an electric service. I’m familiar with the Code section, I think it’s a good idea. However, I’m trying to get everyone in the State of NJ on the same page with this issue. We’re either ALL doing this or we’re not. I should be able to work anywhere in the State and be subject to the same rules and regulations.

I find it interesting you keep mentioning the CEU instructors. Do the AHJ's in the state of New Jersey not do in house continuing ed each year getting the needed hours for three year renewals through ICC? I go to far more CEU instruction than is required in my state and can affirm that any dick who can submit a few documents to the state could fill that role and it would be very hard to remove them from that capability as long as they submitted paperwork and payments on time.