• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Replacing Service Disconnect in Location Non-Compliant with NEC 110.26

Our CA Existing Building Code is based off of the IEBC, so I'll assume that it's basically the same.

406.1 Material. Existing electrical wiring and equipment undergoing repair shall be allowed to be repaired or replaced with like material.

I think this statement should include "that were approved for use at the time." But if you combine that with:

SECTION 113
VIOLATIONS
[A] 113.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to repair, alter, extend, add, move, remove, demolish or change the occupancy of any building or equipment regulated by this code or cause same to be done in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code.

You could argue that it was never allowed/approved to begin with so, no. You can't replace or repair something that was wrong in the first place.

Then you also have this:

[A] 101.7 Correction of violations of other codes. Repairs or alterations mandated by any property, housing or fire safety maintenance code, or mandated by any licensing rule or ordinance adopted pursuant to law, shall conform only to the requirements of that code, rule or ordinance, and shall not be required to conform to this code unless the code requiring such repair or alteration so provides.

Finally, you have this from the NEC:

110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment. Access and working space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance of such equipment.
(A) Working Space. Working space for equipment operating at 1000 volts, nominal, or less to ground and likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized shall comply with the dimensions of 110.26(A)(1), (A)(2), (A)(3), and (A)(4) or as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code.

As far as I know some version of this has always been there. The oldest version I have access to is from 1940 and it says this:

107. (1111) Working Spaces about Equipment. Suitable working spaces shall be provided and maintained about all electrical equipment.

It goes on from there, but that should put a bow on it. Funny thing is I just went through almost this exact argument with an electrician yesterday...
 
Joe.B said:
You could argue that it was never allowed/approved to begin with so, no. You can't replace or repair something that was wrong in the first place.
Click to expand...
Like you, this was a recent issue, and at the most basic level, your statement was the reasoning behind making them move it. In this case, the home was built in 1994, and I did not have to look any further than the 1993 NEC to see that the same requirements were in place. You can't "grandfather" something that was not compliant to begin with. Whether the AC contractors caused the problem or it was done like that from the beginning is not relevant. This is a safety issue at its core, and compliance is required. The drawing from the contractor left out the location of the AC units, so it flew through the plan review process. So yes, the electrician had to move the service disconnect to a compliant location.
 
jar546 said:
Like you, this was a recent issue, and at the most basic level, your statement was the reasoning behind making them move it. In this case, the home was built in 1994, and I did not have to look any further than the 1993 NEC to see that the same requirements were in place. You can't "grandfather" something that was not compliant to begin with. Whether the AC contractors caused the problem or it was done like that from the beginning is not relevant. This is a safety issue at its core, and compliance is required. The drawing from the contractor left out the location of the AC units, so it flew through the plan review process. So yes, the electrician had to move the service disconnect to a compliant location.
Click to expand...
I find this is the often misunderstood aspect of "grandfathering". It must be compliant when it was constructed.
 
Joe.B said:
I think this statement should include "that were approved for use at the time."
Click to expand...
It's already there.....Existing is already approved or installed before approvals were required:

A] EXISTING BUILDING. A building or structure, or portion thereof, erected in whole or in part, for which a legal building permit and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Buildings or structures or portions thereof erected prior to October 1, 1970 shall be deemed existing buildings regardless of the existence of a legal permit or a certificate of occupancy.
[A] EXISTING STRUCTURE. A structure erected prior to the date of adoption of the appropriate code, or one for which a legal building permit has been issued.

jar546 said:
Whether the AC contractors caused the problem or it was done like that from the beginning is not relevant.
Click to expand...
It is relevant....One is maybe WWOP and that is the owners violation, the other is the electrician's violation....Or not....

I don't like this wording, but I could push it either way:
503.1 General
Alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the International Building Code for new construction. Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is not less complying with the provisions of the International Building Code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration.

I like this better:
701.2 Conformance
An existing building or portion thereof shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe than its existing condition.

If the NEC desired us to upgrade stuff on replacement, they would have put in in specifically like they did for AFCI/GFCI.........3....2.....1....Go
 
There is no such thing as a "free pass" in the IEBC unless the AHJ is cool with it.

[A] 115.1 Unsafe conditions.
Structures or existing equipment that are or hereafter become unsafe, insanitary or deficient because of inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or that constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or that involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance, shall be deemed an unsafe condition. Unsafe structures shall be taken down and removed or made safe as the code official deems necessary and as provided for in this code. A vacant structure that is not secured against unauthorized entry shall be deemed unsafe.

406.1 Material. Existing electrical wiring and equipment undergoing repair shall be allowed to be repaired or replaced with like material.

"Unsafe" is decided by the AHJ. As long as the decision can be defended as reasonable, the AHJ can do whatever they want on a case-by-case basis. Working space requirements are not really designed to promote the comfort and ease of workability for the electrical trade; they are designed to keep energized parts and the people who may be touching them away from nearby grounded parts. I wouldn't be too strict on that in an existing installation if it seems reasonably safe, but there are definitely scenarios where I would not accept the install because it is "unsafe".
 
Beniah Naylor said:
become unsafe, i
Click to expand...
But there is the rub on unsafe.......It didn't become unsafe or even less safe when you replaced it. It was safe enough to approve the first time......Arguably it became more safe as now you have barriers in panelboards and things like that....The litmus test for me on unsafe is if you walked into the house would you post that house/item unsafe if there was no work? No? Then guess what....
 
steveray said:
But there is the rub on unsafe.......It didn't become unsafe or even less safe when you replaced it. It was safe enough to approve the first time......Arguably it became more safe as now you have barriers in panelboards and things like that....The litmus test for me on unsafe is if you walked into the house would you post that house/item unsafe if there was no work? No? Then guess what....
Click to expand...
I think we actually pretty much agree on this. If it's not an actual imminent risk at a high level like you describe here, I would pretty much leave it alone, especially if there was prior approval.

In our area, old stuff pretty much didn't meet code because there was no enforcement, so it's rare to run into something bad that was previously approved or met the code available at the time. Unsafe conditions usually have never have been seen by our office until they are replaced, so this could very likely be the first time we laid eyes on it and determined if it was unsafe or not.
 
steveray said:
Really? You enforce POCO standards in PA?
Click to expand...
I can answer for him. Yes, absolutely. It is one of the requirements that PP&L has which allows electrical inspectors to sign off on a power release. We are all familiar with their REMSI standard. I've had a few situations where I or one of my guys signed off on something then got a phone call telling us they were not going to apply power because of REMSI standard violations that we did not enforce.

No matter how you look at it, the customer will not have power unless they comply so why go through the exercise of the blame game? In order to move it they have to get it inspected again anyway. Not worth the trouble.
 
jar546 said:
I can answer for him. Yes, absolutely. It is one of the requirements that PP&L has which allows electrical inspectors to sign off on a power release. We are all familiar with their REMSI standard. I've had a few situations where I or one of my guys signed off on something then got a phone call telling us they were not going to apply power because of REMSI standard violations that we did not enforce.

No matter how you look at it, the customer will not have power unless they comply so why go through the exercise of the blame game? In order to move it they have to get it inspected again anyway. Not worth the trouble.
Click to expand...
We have this:

[A] 105.2.3 Public Service Agencies​


Pursuant to section 29-282 of the Connecticut General Statutes, a permit shall not be required for the installation, alteration or repair of generation, transmission, distribution, metering or other related equipment that is under the ownership and control of public service agencies by established right.
 
steveray said:
We have this:

[A] 105.2.3 Public Service Agencies​


Pursuant to section 29-282 of the Connecticut General Statutes, a permit shall not be required for the installation, alteration or repair of generation, transmission, distribution, metering or other related equipment that is under the ownership and control of public service agencies by established right.
Click to expand...
We have the same language. That really puts the electrician and homeowner in a pickle if you look at it this way. So they want to replace the weatherhead, service drop and meter base but since we "can't" issue a permit, no one can sign off on the job and the POCO never turns the power back on? Got it. That makes sense - not. I've been issuing permits for meter bases for decades in dozens of jurisdictions with multiple POCOs in two different states because we have to. Otherwise, no one gets power turned back on and the POCO is not going to come out and change your meter base. I've even helped an uncle out in DC whose meter base lugs melted and we had to replace it. The POCO came back after the job was done and inspected.

I guess CT power companies are just a different animal and don't need an inspection from the local jurisdiction to get power back on??? Does the CT POCO inspect the drop on the house?

With that being said, I am pretty sure that 105.2.3 is designed for the actual equipment on the premise of POCO land and right of ways, not private homes and businesses. To use this as an excuse to not issue a permit for a service drop and meter base is a stretch and a half. Well, except CT of course.

As a matter of fact, I actually did a service inspection on PP&L property in Salem Township, PA which is a nuclear facility because they were adding a bunch of construction trailers and wanted them metered (for whatever reason). They applied for a permit and I did the inspection. PP&L's linesmen did all the work and I inspected their OH drop, meter base and service disconnect. Even they followed the rules as a POCO.

In another instance PP&L built a small sub-station and put in a small office building in Conyngham Township, PA and I did all of the inspections for the office building including the UG lateral and service. Go figure.
 
jar546 said:
We have the same language. That really puts the electrician and homeowner in a pickle if you look at it this way. So they want to replace the weatherhead, service drop and meter base but since we "can't" issue a permit, no one can sign off on the job and the POCO never turns the power back on? Got it. That makes sense - not. I've been issuing permits for meter bases for decades in dozens of jurisdictions with multiple POCOs in two different states because we have to. Otherwise, no one gets power turned back on and the POCO is not going to come out and change your meter base. I've even helped an uncle out in DC whose meter base lugs melted and we had to replace it. The POCO came back after the job was done and inspected.

I guess CT power companies are just a different animal and don't need an inspection from the local jurisdiction to get power back on??? Does the CT POCO inspect the drop on the house?

With that being said, I am pretty sure that 105.2.3 is designed for the actual equipment on the premise of POCO land and right of ways, not private homes and businesses. To use this as an excuse to not issue a permit for a service drop and meter base is a stretch and a half. Well, except CT of course.

As a matter of fact, I actually did a service inspection on PP&L property in Salem Township, PA which is a nuclear facility because they were adding a bunch of construction trailers and wanted them metered (for whatever reason). They applied for a permit and I did the inspection. PP&L's linesmen did all the work and I inspected their OH drop, meter base and service disconnect. Even they followed the rules as a POCO.

In another instance PP&L built a small sub-station and put in a small office building in Conyngham Township, PA and I did all of the inspections for the office building including the UG lateral and service. Go figure.
Click to expand...
The homeowner owns the meter can weather head and riser...The POCO owns the lateral or service drop....up to the service point....We just had one the other day where the electrician grounded in the meter can which the NEC allows, but the POCO doesn't.....
 
steveray said:
The homeowner owns the meter can weather head and riser...The POCO owns the lateral or service drop....up to the service point....We just had one the other day where the electrician grounded in the meter can which the NEC allows, but the POCO doesn't.....
Click to expand...
In PA PP&L does not allow the GEC to be connected to the meter base. Here in Florida, FPL mandates it so they can verify the GEC system is in place. It was a learning curve for me when I first saw the GEC connected to all meters.
 
Last edited:
jar546 said:
In PA PP&L does not allow the EGC for the GEC to be connected to the meter base. Here in Florida, FPL mandates it so they can verify the GEC system is in place. It was a learning curve for me when I first saw the EGC connected to all meters.
Click to expand...
We can't cite it as it is not an NEC violation...We can inform the electrician and the POCO and they can figure it out....
 
During my employment with LA County B/S I was precluded from citeing a code violation if there was an inspector’s prior approval.

The service was approved. Assume that the AC condenser was approved blocking the working space for the service disconnect. Given that a prior inspector’s approval outweighs ANY code violation that I might find, the County would not require that the replacement service have a compliant working space.

It’s not like a service disconnect was blocked often but the writing corrections on top of other inspectors was a daily occurrence. Managers overruled me one job at a time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top