Electrical System Review 20110330_S49th

Following is copied from a formal presentation resulting from by-the-way observations during a service call for a single branch circuit outage…

CONTENTS

1. Summary

2. Scope of Review

3. Item Details & Recommendations w/ Estimates

4. Illustrations

 

I SUMMARY

The electrical system needs a 2-year program of gradual upgrade and repair that might cost between $1000 and $5000. The basement ceiling is a rat’s nest and the service equipment has been incompletely consolidated from four (4) 60A services to one (1) 60A service currently in use plus another that is energized but not in use. With multiple adults in the large building, the service should be 100A minimum; two 60A services would be more than enough, if loads were balanced across them, but this involves an ‘overhead’ of an additional $5/month to maintain unneeded separate billing for the two metered accounts. A single, 100- , 150- or 200A service would be ideal for the current use, but would involve higher up-front costs.

Service entrance cables from the abandoned meters have been disconnected inside the multi-gang meters enclosure, but remain a hazard because of their proximity inside the enclosure to live terminals that have no over-current protection (breaker or fuse). These should be removed or terminated in proper enclosures, as part of any work to complete the electrical service equipment.

Other specific electrical problems I observed in this building include: open wire enclosures in basement ceiling and 2nd floor switch box. Abandoned receptacle location at Dining Room north, NM-B (“Romex”) cable subject to damage where run loose in attic, frayed cables in basement ceiling, rusted conduit at Exterior north, near service meters, missing GFCI protection at Basement laundry area, missing bushing where service drop cable at Exterior north exits protective sleeve conduit, and some non-electrical wood rotted on Exterior north window trim and siding.

Also, the basement has a damp floor and smells strongly of mold.

II SCOPE OF REVIEW

My review was limited to observations by-the-way during a troubleshooting service call related to a shorted circuit on a cable that runs via the attic to undetermined (bedroom?) loads below the attic.

Among other omissions, I did NOT:

1. Verify the safety or workmanship of any particular circuit.

III ITEM DETAILS & RECOMMENDATIONS WITH ESTIMATES

A. Missing System Grounding & Bonding

1. Specific Problems & Locations Observed

a) Water-pipe electrode connection.

The Code-required connection to the water-pipe electrode had been undone.

b) Bonding of metal piping systems.

The Code-required bonding of all building metal piping systems to the grounding electrode(s) was missing.

c) Bonding jumper across the water meter.

The Code-required bonding jumper between the water pipe ground, across the water meter to the building internal water pipes, was missing.

 

3. Actions Taken

a) Connected primary (in-use) electric service panel to nearby water pipes.

b) Provided #6 solid copper bonding wire and advised Lap (Smoot) on methods for bonding water pipe systems above gas-fired water heater, and installing a bonding jumper at the water meter/ water pipe grounding electrode.

 

4. Additional Recommendations

a) Verify system bonding between all service panels.

COST: $25-100

 

B. Problems with Service Disconnect at main (in-use) distribution panel.

1. Specific Problems & Locations Observed

a) Main (in-use) distribution panel overloaded.

The building electrical system was originally designed as four (4) separate services: three for small apartments and one for a few ‘house’ (common areas and exterior lighting) loads. As such, the 60A services installed for each small apartment and for the ‘house’ loads were adequate. The single, 60A service currently serving the entire building, is almost certainly overloaded. The burning terminal I observed on one of the ‘hot’ incoming service wires has likely developed as a result of the wire and terminal operating beyond capacity at high temperatures induced by overload currents. When I found it, this condition had developed into a negative-feedback cycle where overload-induced heat damaged the termination, which then caused more heat.

 

b) Main (in-use) distribution panel under-sized

National Electric Code (Code) requires that a single-family dwelling be served by an electrical service rated at least 100A, and according to any higher calculated load. If anything, the current use of Lap exceeds the typical load connected by a traditional family.

 

c) Abandoned exposed service entrance cables at risk for being energized.

Two of the four meter/service entrance cables appear to be abandoned.

 

3. Actions Taken

a) Replaced heat-damaged 60A service disconnect/breaker.

b) Trimmed heat-damaged service entrance conductor back to serviceable wire end.

c) Re-terminated the renovated service entrance conductor using antioxidant paste, to new 60A service disconnect/breaker. THIS IS A TEMPORARY FIX.

 

4. Additional Recommendations

a) Commission a load calculation for the building as used currently. Evaluate long-term plans for the building, and provide either:

i. Distribute existing loads across both existing-energized, 60A service disconnect/distribution panels. This involves an ongoing ‘overhead’ expense of ~$5/month to maintain (2) separate PECO accounts, vs. having a single account with upgraded capacity (see below).

COST: $100-400.

OR:

ii. Upgrade the main (in-use) service disconnect/distribution panel to 100A. I THINK the existing distribution panel is rated to accommodate a disconnect/breaker up to 100A.

COST: $400-$650

OR:

iii. Upgrade the main (in-use) service disconnect/distribution panel to >100A. Any upgrade above 100A (125A, 150A, 200A) would require, and have the added advantage of a ‘bigger’ distribution panel. This should be bigger in terms of service entrance capacity (amps) and number of slots for branch circuit breakers (the existing panel is maxed out).

COST: $600-$1200*

 

* (assumes load terminals of 4-gang meter enclosure are rated for desired connected load)

 

b) XXXX should verify they are maintaining no more than two (2) PECO accounts. If Lap maintains only one (1) account, tread lightly around the remaining energized second service disconnect/distribution panel, since there could be back dues (or calculated back dues) on it and/or PECO may not want it to be energized if there is no active account associated. Identify and contract with a new cheaper/greener generator/supplier when making account changes.

SAVINGS: ~$5/month per cancelled account  // ~10% on kWh  generating charges.

 

c) XXXX should terminate or remove exposed disused service entrance cables. Recommend terminate (enclose wire ends in a box).

COST: $250; have this done together with work under item III(B)(2)(a), above.

 

C. Missing cover on wiring enclosure.

1. Overview: What is it?

Wire in a building must be protected from damage or accidental contact, and junctions enclosed in Listed (underwriter-insured) enclosures with accessible covers. Outlets such as accessible junctions, fixture boxes, and switch- and receptacle-boxes must be covered to prevent escape of fire in case of short-circuits, and to prevent shock resulting from blind or infant(ile) groping.

 

2. Specific Problems & Locations Observed

a) 2nd Floor Stair Landing, 2gang switch box.

There are two (2) switches and a 2gang cover installed on a 3gang wiring enclosure.

 

b) Basement Ceiling – various locations

Several junctions in the basement ceiling need covers.

 

3. Actions Taken

a) Advised Lap (Smoot) to install 3gang cover at 2nd floor.

b) Submitted this report, including Additional Recommendations, below.

 

4. Additional Recommendations

a) Recommend hiring a trusted electrician at an hourly rate to repair up to $1000 of highest-priority items.

 

D. Non-grounding type receptacles more than 20 years old.

1. Specific Problems & Locations Observed

a) In by-the-way looking, I observed ONLY non-grounding type receptacles, outside of newer grounding-types installed in the kitchen area.

3. Actions Taken

a) Submitted this report, including Additional Recommendations, below.

4. Additional Recommendations

a) Recommend hiring a trusted electrician at an hourly rate to repair/upgrade up to $1000 of highest-priority branch circuit items, and provide recommendations and estimated cost to address any hazards that may remain.

 

E. Cable runs exposed to damage

1. Overview: What is it?

Every wiring method has specific applications allowed and prohibited in the National Electric Code (NEC, ‘Code’). These approved uses typically hinge on the risk of physical damage to the conducting wires in the circuit due to mechanical or chemical action (heat, rubbing or cutting, or corrosion or chemical burning), or to hazards during fire, such as how quickly the circuit(s) become electrically compromised due to fire/heat, and what are the effects when the cable or conduit or wire insulation burns (such as production of poisonous smoke).

 

2. Specific Problems & Locations Observed

a) Type NM-B (“Romex”) cables through attic

Two circuits run via the building north exterior, from the basement to the attic, where they branch from junctions to various locations (undetermined to-date) below the attic. These runs of NM-B should not be exposed to mechanical action, such as from rotating stored items in the attic.

 

b) Type NM (older, lower-temperature-rated version of “Romex” with or without equipment grounding conductor) cables through basement ceiling.

Cables run below the joists of the basement ceiling have fallen loose and outer cable jacket has come loose exposing insulated conductors to damage.

 

3. Actions Taken

a) Submitted this report, including Additional Recommendations, below.

 

4. Additional Recommendations

a) Recommend hiring a trusted electrician at an hourly rate to repair/upgrade up to $1000 of highest-priority branch circuit items, and provide recommendations and estimated cost to address any hazards that may remain.

NM-B cables in attic should be protected by attaching them to runners where they are not exposed to damage from rotating storage, or the knee-wall area of the attic where the cables run should be framed off sufficiently to prevent storage movement from affecting them.

NM cables in basement ceiling should be replaced, taped to restore protection where outer jacket has broken, and/or re-routed for compliance with Code requirements for adequate mechanical protection.

 

F. GFCI Protection

1. Specific Problems & Locations Observed

a) Kitchen.

No GFCI device observed by-the-way in Kitchen area. Any receptacle within 6’ of the edge of a sink must be GFCI-protected. ALL receptacles in a kitchen must be GFCI-protected.

b) Basement (especially Laundry).

All receptacles in an unfinished basement must be GFCI-protected because of exposed pipes and/or metal drain pipes, and because people will be standing on earth. Receptacles in a laundry must be GFCI protected because metal appliances are connected to grounded water pipes, whether or not in a basement.

c) Throughout

For circuits serving multiple non-grounding type receptacles, installation of a GFCI circuit breaker at the distribution panel provides superior personnel protection against electric shock, over the ‘missing’ equipment grounding conductor. This is recommended but not critical.

 

3. Actions Taken

a) Submitted this report, including Additional Recommendations, below.

 

4. Additional Recommendations

a) Recommend hiring a trusted electrician at an hourly rate to repair/upgrade up to $1000 of highest-priority branch circuit items, and provide recommendations and estimated cost to address any hazards that may remain.

For basement receptacles not in the Laundry area, consider blanking the outlet location rather than incur expense of unneeded GFCI devices.

Consider installation of a dedicated receptacle for dehumidifier and/or installation of a few mold-killing black-lights: the basement smells of mold.