An insurance company will not renew a homeowner's policy without the over 30 year old breaker panel being changed. This interior panel is located in a closet and has no main breaker protection. The contractor asked if he installs a new panel and is able to turn the panel into the hallway is he still required the install a main breaker and replace the 3 wire feed with 4 wire. There is no attic space and will require drywall cutting and patching to accomplish this wire replacement. We seem to have different opinions in the City of Tampa on the answer to the contractor's question. I say he must install a main breaker and replace the 3 wire cable with 4 wire. The others that since the homeowner is being forced to change the panel (not an upgrade) we should not require this existing condition to be brought to today's code. I have asked some other area inspectors this question and all 4 of them agree with me. So I am posting the question on this forum so I can get some other opinions.

Neal Burdick
City of Tampa
Construction Inspector II

Neal, of course it is a service upgrade. The homeowner is upgrading the equipment. Altering that service in any way is an upgrade. You are correct, it must be done according to the 2008 NEC. It is not a repair, or whatever else those bleeding heart, liberal code enforcement people in your office are stating.

The NEC is non-biased. It treats everyone the same. It does not take into account the reason why he had to make the change. You touch it, move it, flip it, you buy the farm. One must install it to today's codes, not codes from 30 years ago.

I know this example has been allowed in the past to continue to be a three wire per AHJ.
And it is a hardship to the owner.
But code is code.
Besides as a AHJ you have the right to interpret the nec.
But I also see it as a problem in the future.
Dealing with this contractor and others on the next job.



Even if it really is not the same situation.

So it may not be a popular decision to strictly adhere to the code but it is the correct and consistent one.

HINT: I don't remember the person prior in your seat allowing it either.

The irony here is that the point of the insurance company wanting the upgrade, is to bring it up to code.

Thinking about this some more.
It is a shame that the insurance industry is taking control of our lives.
I am surprised that they did not require all of the devices to be replaced also.
That could very probably add up to a much higher cost than the panel. After you start adding gfci and arc fault protection to a home that was not wired for the same consideration.

I agree also, bring it up to code. It is a shame that the insurance company requires this to renue a policy when although old, it is still in good condition. Just because it is old, that doesn't make it bad.

Stick to your guns Neal!

I agree with Nick that we cannot base our enforcement on why work is being performed, but rather on what is being performed.

I see this issue occuring with insuarnce all the time. An insurance company is an AHJ in one respect. It's definetely something the public has little knowledge of. When they buy an older home, they need to expect upgrades and renovations may be required in order to satisfy a host of authorities.

Neal; I also agree, bring it up to code, just too bad that the Insurance Co dosen't offer him a sizable discount for the upgrade

Do any of you think the Existing Building Code would come into play on this subject?

no

I agree, no. The existing building code would only cover the areas of the home not being worked in. Even then, the existing code does not allow an electrical repair, alterations, or whatever to remain in service or contine to be in service if hazardous or could result in a hazard.

Keep in mind that the existing building code works well for the other standard codes also modeled on the ICC codes. Once you start trying to apply the NFPA 70 (NEC), it fails to accurately and properly identify requirements.

My fellow City of Tampa Inspectors are calling the panel change a "repair", their reasoning is that the homeowner is being forced to do the change by the insurance company. I cannot call this a repair by FBC Existing definition because the existing panel is not in need of repair. Bryan is correct FBC Existing "302.6 Electrical. Additions, alterations, renovations or repairs to electrical installations shall conform to Chapter 27 of the Florida Building Code, Building without requiring the existing installation to comply with all of the requirements of this code.
Minor additions, alterations, renovations and repairs to existing installations shall meet the provisions for new construction, unless such work is done in the same manner and arrangement as was in the existing system, is not hazardous and is approved."
I would consider 30 year old unfused SE cable through an attic to be hazardous.
I found out today (from the EC) the reason the panel must be turned around is due to the unpermitted AC system being added to the existing 100 amp service several years ago.
So all I need to do is ask for a load calculation and then I can require an upgrade with no questions asked.

Thank you all for your replies, I'll let you know if the Supervisors make any policy decisions.

Neal Burdick
City of Tampa
Construction Inspector II

I agree with Bryan, and Neal.

....and Ruben, Mike, and PSNorthrup!

Is this all just to avoid fishing a piece of SER through the attic?
If so I agree, do it.

I agree with everyone agreeing but I don't understand:

Why would a panel need to be turned around for a illegal branch circuit?

Because the added load of the new central air and heat would require a service upgrade (based on load calc) and theoretically the service upgrade (that never happened) would have to be done to today's codes. So the panel would not be allowed to remain in the closet.

Otay! I will buy the closet issue. Missed that item.
Old farts are like that.

If it could be done as a "repair" then the panel could be left in the closet and maybe even replace guts with one of those "new" retrofit kits.

What is the age of the "service"? I suspect that in this case the insurance company will not be satisfied unless the outside service is replaced also. Citizens Insurance when it wants a panel changed simply because of age wants the entire service replaced not just the inside panel.

Yes, you are correct. I have seen many an upgrade where the existing panel in the closet was gutted, and permanently closed, making it into a splice box. I think that is what you are saying.

Welcome to the forum!

Reminds me of the FHA homes where they required the SEU service riser was required to be in RMC conduit.
They did not care if the service size was ample or if wiring practice was correct.
Just put the service in rmc and verify all outlets worked.
I am talking the 70's but it was still crazy then.

All that was required was to install the RMC riser and verify all outlets in the home worked.

My understanding is that Citizens wants any panel that is over 30 years old to be replaced. Welcome to the forum Chris, do you have anything in writing from Citizens that states they want the service upgraded and not just the panel changed? It would help in future cases like this.Ruben, Nick is correct, besides the added load, the unpermitted air handler is in the required panel working space. I asked this question to several people that were at the State meeting and most said it was a repair. I guess when we have a couple of dwellings lost to fires (hopefully no one will loose their life) and Citizens not cover the loss, maybe then my fellow inspectors will change their opinion.

Neal Burdick
City of Tampa
Construction Inspection II