Zinsco replacement location

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Laidlera

Member
Location
San Diego
Hi all, Here in San Diego trying to get a replacement service panel installed. POCO is saying that as of January 1st,2017 that CEC hanged and won't allow an electric panel within 36" of a gas riser. POCO cannot provide what article this is covered by. The option provided was to move the service which will require extensive demo of a retaining wall and concrete slab. Anyone familiar with this new change?
 
Cant' comment on validity of the rule but if that is correct seems one other option is to move the gas riser to outside of the required dimensions.
 
It's not electrical code. The mechanical code says something about it but I think it's two feet? PG&E always just cites their own green book.

Oh, and it's not a recent change as far as I know.
 
kwired said:
Cant' comment on validity of the rule but if that is correct seems one other option is to move the gas riser to outside of the required dimensions.
Click to expand...

is the dimension where the riser comes up out of the ground,
or is that from the closest point of approach?

i'd be thinking about two 90's in the gas line underground,
moving it a foot or whatever it takes so it's outside the dimension.
 
The dimension they are saying is from where the riser comes out of the ground. Just still questioning what article or standard this is coming from. Moving the gas riser is not an option due to excessive costs. It would make sense that a service location would be required if I was increasing size but all that is needed is a safer panel with more spaces but same amperage.
 
It is a POCO requirement not an NEC requirement. As mentioned earlier (PG&E N CA poco) has a green book that has their requirements. We need to go off of that.

I tried to attach a screen shot of the book but it does not work.
 
Last edited:
And in that case you cannot even tell if it an electrical rule or a gas rule since Pacific Gas and Electric (original name) wears both hats. :angel:

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Laidlera said:
Hi all, Here in San Diego trying to get a replacement service panel installed. POCO is saying that as of January 1st,2017 that CEC hanged and won't allow an electric panel within 36" of a gas riser. POCO cannot provide what article this is covered by. The option provided was to move the service which will require extensive demo of a retaining wall and concrete slab. Anyone familiar with this new change?
Click to expand...

Is there by chance any kind of pressure relief vent on this "gas riser"?

There isn't much hazard involved with having the two in close proximity if the gas never exits the pipe. If the pipe should burst, 3 feet isn't far enough, even 30 feet might not be far enough.
 
No there is no pressure relief valve. The service planner first told me it's stated in 110.26, which she then said she quoted the wrong section. She then told me that it's a new requirement as of January 1, 2017 and that it's not yet a published standard. I don't understand how the POCO or AHJ can enforce a standard or code article that is not yet adopted by the state building commission or published. It's crazy that with all the horror stories about Zinsco or FPE that I can't just replace in the previous location but with a modern panel.
 
Laidlera said:
I don't understand how the POCO or AHJ can enforce a standard or code article that is not yet adopted by the state building commission or published.
Click to expand...

They can't, if it isn't on record somewhere it can't be a law. If it is the POCO that wants this - good luck, they can set any rules they want for the most part.
 
Laidlera said:
No there is no pressure relief valve. The service planner first told me it's stated in 110.26, which she then said she quoted the wrong section. She then told me that it's a new requirement as of January 1, 2017 and that it's not yet a published standard. I don't understand how the POCO or AHJ can enforce a standard or code article that is not yet adopted by the state building commission or published. It's crazy that with all the horror stories about Zinsco or FPE that I can't just replace in the previous location but with a modern panel.
Click to expand...

Who is the POCO? Have you looked in their "requirements" book?
 
SDGE, The service planner told me the standards are in the process of being updated to include this but they are not Published yet. The current standards published on their website allow for my situation, however they are enforcing this new requirement along with AHJ.

Anyone else in San Diego dealing with this?
 
According to this document
http://regarchive.sdge.com/documents/builderservices/sg/GAS-1000&1200Model.pdf
The current required horizontal separation is 24" unless you are in the Orange County District of SoCal which requires 36".

I get utility rules change but they need to understand existing situations. If you currently have at least 24" of separation (the old requirement) they should work with you. Maybe you can try someone higher up the food chain?
 
Anyone have any idea what their justification is for having any separation rule at all for this?

As long as the gas remains inside the pipe there needs to be pretty rare circumstances to become a hazard here.
 
kwired said:
Anyone have any idea what their justification is for having any separation rule at all for this?

As long as the gas remains inside the pipe there needs to be pretty rare circumstances to become a hazard here.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Nobody knows "why" :happysad:

I have asked many "WHY" questions from our POCO (PG&E) and I always get the same response. "It has been in the book for many years"
 
This would make sense for new construction or a service size upgrade but just to replace an aged panel with modern technology is difficult to understand their justification.
 
Laidlera said:
This would make sense for new construction or a service size upgrade but just to replace an aged panel with modern technology is difficult to understand their justification.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't really follow that reasoning. If there's a genuine safety concern then it applies equally to old and new construction. And it's not like when one expects to have old equipment or wiring grandfathered; you are actually installing new equipment. I've run into this sort of problem before.

With that said, I agree they should be able to quote you chapter and verse.
 
jaggedben said:
Well, I don't really follow that reasoning. If there's a genuine safety concern then it applies equally to old and new construction. And it's not like when one expects to have old equipment or wiring grandfathered; you are actually installing new equipment. I've run into this sort of problem before.

With that said, I agree they should be able to quote you chapter and verse.
Click to expand...
I agree that if there is a safety concern it should apply old and new construction. I also don't see there is a genuine safety concern in this situation though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top