# Existing elec panel in 1964 Apt. HVAC closet



## Yikes (Dec 6, 2016)

I'm working on an apartment building that was originally built in 1964.  The apartment complex is master-metered, and inside every apartment is a 60A subpanel, which was originally mounted inside of the HVAC closet, just inside the closet door.  (Of course we will fix that exposed wiring, but pay no attention to it for the moment, because that's no my question.)

The depth of the closet is about 30".  I believe that under new code, we would need 36" depth, but did this requirement exist in 1964?

What we want to do is replace old breakers and install arc-fault breakers into the existing subpanels.  We don't have enough money to relocate the panels, re-wire, and deal with disturbing walls that may have incapsulated lead paint or other issues.  Is there a code rationale under which I can leave these panels in place?  If this were the UBC, Chapter 34 would allow replacement in kind; is there something similar in the current NEC?


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 6, 2016)

Don't need a permit to replace breakers.


----------



## Yikes (Dec 6, 2016)

Thanks rick, but a related question would be: is this condition considered nonconforming-but-legal?  In other words, if the city inspector is coming through and looking at other work we're doing in the apartments (accessibility upgrades) and he happens to see this, does he have grounds to cite a code violation?


----------



## chris kennedy (Dec 6, 2016)

Rick18071 said:


> Don't need a permit to replace breakers.



That's a questionable statement. Some jurisdictions may. 

The big question is are the AFCI breakers intended to be installed listed on the cover? 1964? Good luck.


----------



## Msradell (Dec 6, 2016)

I think Chris hit the nail on the head with his question. It's doubtful that you'll be able to find suitable AFCI breakers designated to be installed in those boxes. If you have to change out the boxes you'll most likable have to bring everything else up to code relating to them.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 7, 2016)

Legal, non-conforming,  if breaker replacement
Relocate if panel is replaced. 
IMPO


----------



## steveray (Dec 7, 2016)

Working clearances probably haven't changed much, but I honestly can't say what they were in '64. Here, the State would give them a mod to keep them "as is" in a like for like swap with the theory that you are not increasing a hazard...If you were upping the amps or something like that, it might be full compliance. And I agree with Chris as I have heard about the AFCI vs. old panels from one of my good electricians that does work at an assisted living facility...Panels will get swapped if AFCI required.


----------



## ICE (Dec 7, 2016)

That panel looks newer than 1964.  In as much as it was legal in 1964, I wouldn't get too excited about the lack of strict compliance with working space requirements.  While not ideal it does not appear to be a gross violation and the benefit of the ARC fault protection outweighs clearance concerns. But hey now that's just me.

Regarding the ARC fault breakers that are not shown on the panel label: I would contact the panel manufacturer and ask if there is a fix for that.  By the way, I have never heard of a circuit breaker failure because it was not on the label. That's not to say that it hasn't happened and if anyone here has first hand experience with that please tell us about it.


----------



## tmurray (Dec 7, 2016)

I like ICE's answer. When it comes to existing construction, I'm very careful when picking out which hills I'm willing to die on. I'd recommend replacement, but not require it. As ICE said, i'd rather have a safer building with the same workplace clearance that has been there for fifty years than a more dangerous option of not installing ARC fault breakers.


----------



## Yikes (Dec 7, 2016)

I may have to pursue AFI outlets instead of AFI circuit breakers.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 1, 2017)

[QUOTE="

The depth of the closet is about 30".  I believe that under new code, we would need 36" depth, but did this requirement exist in 1964?






[/QUOTE]

I don't believe so.  Without doing the research, my answer was that at that time the depth requirement was 2-feet.  It wasn't until later on that they thought that wasn't enough, and increased it to 3-feet.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 4, 2017)




----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 4, 2017)

Yes.  And the only thing that some people have trouble grasping is that the 30-inches doesn't have to be "centered" on the equipment.  I use the narrative of a "big box" that is 30-inches wide and 3-foot deep (and 6.5 feet high)!  That box must be able to fit in the space that is anywhere in front of that equipment.


----------

