• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Would you require the feeder OCPD to be updated?

jar546

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
11,038
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
Scenario:

A homeowner has an existing obsolete panel (Zinsco) that has a 100A double pole OCPD which feeds a dock pedestal. The homeowner applied for a permit to add a meter to the circuit in order to measure electric usage at the dock since she rents it out and the permit was approved. You arrive as the electrician is closing finishing up placing the meter in the socket and notice that there is an old Zinsco 100A breaker on the ground and a "newer" looking one that has been installed. When you question the electrician he states that the old circuit breaker only shut down 1 leg and had to be replaced. The rest of the installation looks good with the added meter base and associated wiring, grounding.

Knowing that under the 2014 NEC 555.3 a maximum ground fault protection of 100mA is required for feeders to docks, would you require that this code be met?

Does the fact that the feeder OCPD was replaced affect your decision?

Does knowing that Zinsco does not make an OCPD that meets NEC 555.3 affect your decision?

Would this installation pass or fail?
 
I have never had to deal with a dock. Did the electrician assess the rest of the old breakers? It is always a tough call when replacing that which was approved. However, I would fail the inspection for the GFCI and maybe for the panel. The fact that the dock is for rent would take away any monetary argument. And why 100ma and not a Class A-3ma to 5ma?

As one would expect, there are swimming pools all over So. California. At nearly every el. service upgrade I have to write a correction to provide GFCI protection for the pump motor(s). The sad refrain, "But there was no GFCI breaker in the old panel" is what I hear.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, when you change the breaker or change the circuit by adding a meter, you then bought yourself compliance with the current codes for circuit protection.
Thoughts for anyone who does electrical inspections?
 
Did you increase a "hazard" with the work performed? Is it less safe now?...If not, no upgrade necessary....IMO...We would not write up GFCI on an existing pool (nor AFCI)on a service change...A service "upgrade" from 100 to 200 may drive some improvements as it relates to the service...
 
Steve,

As you know, current code requires GFCI for pool pump motors. The only method for accomplishing that involves the circuit breaker(s). Electrical work that is performed today shall comply with current code.

You are not alone in your thinking about existing pools. In fact, I am close to alone in mine....but then tigers are solitary creatures.
 
So let me take it to some kind of far end for clarification....Strip mall built in 1999, All NM above the suspended ceiling (allowed at the time). Service needs to be changed, do you rip out all of the NM as it is no longer allowed?

I do think you are a good and smart inspector protecting your citizens, don't get me wrong, and I might even like to do some of the things you do...I just won't for liability reasons.

Example: A local electrical inspector "required" an electrician to wire all 4 corners of his light troffers on an above ceiling inspection. The electrician argued that code didn't require it so the inspector was requiring it.... The electrician sent the bill for $20,000 to the Town because it was not required by code or con docs....
 
steveray said:
So let me take it to some kind of far end for clarification....Strip mall built in 1999, All NM above the suspended ceiling (allowed at the time). Service needs to be changed, do you rip out all of the NM as it is no longer allowed?
Click to expand...
No I would not ask for the NM to be replaced. I would not allow the NM to be replaced with more NM. When replacing electrical equipment or wiring etc. it shall be done compliant with the current code.
 
steveray said:
So let me take it to some kind of far end for clarification....Strip mall built in 1999, All NM above the suspended ceiling (allowed at the time). Service needs to be changed, do you rip out all of the NM as it is no longer allowed?

I do think you are a good and smart inspector protecting your citizens, don't get me wrong, and I might even like to do some of the things you do...I just won't for liability reasons.

Example: A local electrical inspector "required" an electrician to wire all 4 corners of his light troffers on an above ceiling inspection. The electrician argued that code didn't require it so the inspector was requiring it.... The electrician sent the bill for $20,000 to the Town because it was not required by code or con docs....
Click to expand...

I think you took this way, way out of context. Your comparison in nothing like the description in the OP. We are talking about removing a breaker, replacing it and then changing the wiring to the dock pedestal that it serves by adding a meter. That means that you have to take the load side of the CB and move it to another box to the load side of the meter and then run new wires from the line side of the meter to the breaker. This is more than just changing a breaker, you have essentially changed the setup and wiring for this feeder.

If that is how your department handles things then that is your choice, I don't agree with it or like it but that is how things work in your area.

Do you know what would be a similar situation? Asking whether or not adding new wiring devices to an existing circuit (such as more receptacles or outlets) would trigger adding AFCI protection. That would be a more appropriate example.
 
OK I gotta admit this one gets my panties in a bit of a bunch (no pun intended)

I want to know what would you inspect under the scenario in the OP? You are essentially looking at new wiring and a new OCPD, and an added meter. When you inspect this, it falls under many chapters but 555 is certainly one of them. This essentially "new" installation is not compliant with a code that has been changed for safety due to multiple deaths around docks due to electrocution. You are trying to justify NOT enforcing a code? For what reason? Who are you looking out for?
 
jar546 said:
I think you took this way, way out of context. Your comparison in nothing like the description in the OP. We are talking about removing a breaker, replacing it and then changing the wiring to the dock pedestal that it serves by adding a meter. That means that you have to take the load side of the CB and move it to another box to the load side of the meter and then run new wires from the line side of the meter to the breaker. This is more than just changing a breaker, you have essentially changed the setup and wiring for this feeder.

If that is how your department handles things then that is your choice, I don't agree with it or like it but that is how things work in your area.

Do you know what would be a similar situation? Asking whether or not adding new wiring devices to an existing circuit (such as more receptacles or outlets) would trigger adding AFCI protection. That would be a more appropriate example.
Click to expand...

I apologize Jeff, I went a little OT with the pool wiring upgrade with the service change comment....
 
steveray said:
Why can't you GFCI protect the motor downstream of the breaker? Like at the receptacle?
Click to expand...

First, the 100A breaker feeds the dock pedestal which normally has 2-3 receptacles ranging from 20-50A or more, plus lighting, boat lift, etc. and the code requires that the "main overcurrent protective device that feeds the marina shall have GFCI protection....."
 
SECTION 607
ELECTRICAL
607.1 Material. Existing electrical wiring and equipment undergoing repair shall be allowed to be repaired or replaced with like material.

SECTION 808
ELECTRICAL
808.1 New installations. All newly installed electrical equipment and wiring relating to work done in any work area shall comply with all applicable requirements of NFPA 70 except as provided for in Section 808.3.

I would have to see your installation Jeff.... to me a meter can (in a feeder) is no more than a splice. You are not talking about a separately derived system, no change in voltage or amperage, or load, no increase in hazard. Replacing a breaker drives no other upgrades in my opinion. Never done a dock and probably never will...And maybe that is a good thing....
 
jar546 said:
First, the 100A breaker feeds the dock pedestal which normally has 2-3 receptacles ranging from 20-50A or more, plus lighting, boat lift, etc. and the code requires that the "main overcurrent protective device that feeds the marina shall have GFCI protection....."
Click to expand...

That was still directed at the ICE pool comment...(My comment...)
 
steveray said:
I apologize Jeff, I went a little OT with the pool wiring upgrade with the service change comment....
Click to expand...
Oh Hell no reason to apologize....he's just been sensitive lately (he's even talking about his underwear again).....besides that, I'm the one that led the thread astray with the comparison to a swimming pool. The only docks I have inspected are truck docks.....so here again I am weighing in where I don't belong. I'll catch on to how this works soon enough.
 
steveray said:
I would argue that 607.1 would allow you to replace the marina breaker with a non-GFCI one though....o_O
Click to expand...

Well no need to argue if you would not require it for that reason even though this is a new installation of a meter that found the bad breaker. The breaker is being replaced due to it being faulty but the feeder from the breaker is being altered and extended to a meter. If you would not require it then you won't find an electrician that is going to argue that they want to put one it. Any electrician worth their license will know one needs to be installed and just do it.

FYI there are significantly more deaths at fresh water docks than salt water docks due to electrocution
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top