Existing J-boxes not supported

woodduder · May 28, 2009

I have a remodel job where the demo contractor is removing about 40% of the ceiling grid in the building. We informed the General Contractor that I am not responsible for existing code violations that are discovered above the ceiling. The ceiling is mostly removed now and WHOA!!!, it is bad, really bad. There is not even one J-box that is fasted to anything, they are all 4" squares and just hanging on the end of the EMT which is ran at every angle in the world like spaghetti. When the EMT just so happed to get close to a bar joist, they used scrap wire to hang it.
My question is....was their ever a time(near the 1970 to 1980 region) that it was OK per code to install a 4" square box right on the end of EMT without any other support?

480sparky · May 28, 2009

314.23(E) and (F).

The language there dates back to at least 1937.

dcspector · May 28, 2009

480sparky said:
314.23(E) and (F). The language there dates back to at least 1937.

As an Inspector I would cite the existing issues and then it is between you and the GC to sort it out. Sorry "open up a can of worms" Could be more money in your pocket. Sorry Ken I did not mean to quote you.

Twoskinsoneman · May 28, 2009

Pics pics pics. Please pics!

iwire · May 28, 2009

dcspector said:
As an Inspector I would cite the existing issues and then it is between you and the GC to sort it out.

I think that is a terrible way to handle it, the existing conditions have nothing to do with the EC. It should be between the AHJ and the property owner.

In MA we have 'Rule 3 & 4' which IMO is the way it should always be handled.

480sparky · May 28, 2009

iwire said:
I think that is a terrible way to handle it, the existing conditions have nothing to do with the EC. It should be between the AHJ and the property owner.

In MA we have 'Rule 3 & 4' which IMO is the way it should always be handled.

So, according to Rule 3s and 4, there is no such thing as 'grandfathering'? As soon as a new rule is introduced, all structures must be updated? I would think you'd be busier than a pack of drunk dogs in a fire hydrant factory.

iwire · May 28, 2009

480sparky said:
So, according to Rule 3s and 4, there is no such thing as 'grandfathering'? As soon as a new rule is introduced, all structures must be updated?

No, exactly the opposite.

dcspector · May 28, 2009

iwire said:
I think that is a terrible way to handle it, the existing conditions have nothing to do with the EC. It should be between the AHJ and the property

Your opinion and your jurisdiction only.

480sparky · May 28, 2009

iwire said:
No, exactly the opposite.

I don't understand. If a new rule creates an existing hazard, then wouldn't the rules you posted require the hazard be fixed?

iwire · May 28, 2009

dcspector said:
Your opinion and your jurisdiction only.

Your just passing the buck to someone that had nothing to do with the installation and has no legal authority over the property at all. It is entirely unfair and done only to make your own job easier.

iwire · May 28, 2009

480sparky said:
I don't understand. If a new rule creates an existing hazard, then wouldn't the rules you posted require the hazard be fixed?

Rule 3

I can go to a job that has blatant violations all around me, I can install my work get inspected and be done.

Rule 4

If the inspector deems there is an actual hazard they are supposed to go to the property owner.

dcspector · May 28, 2009

480sparky said:
I don't understand. If a new rule creates an existing hazard, then wouldn't the rules you posted require the hazard be fixed?

Thanks ken for clarification. And Agreed. Oh BTW, Iam a representative of AHJ. So I do enforce existing conditions. "Fix it or ticket" Terrible way or not but, where does it end? It will become someones problem sometime or another. Why snowball the issues? Fix it now.

480sparky · May 28, 2009

iwire said:
.............Rule 4

If the inspector deems there is an actual hazard they are supposed to go to the property owner.

But aren't new rules created in order deal with known hazards? Otherwise, there would be no need to update the Code.

If GFI protection didn't 'solve' any hazards, then why require them?

Now, if a house wired in 1989 under the 1987 NEC only has GFIs in the kitchen under the old 6-foot-from-the-kitchen-sink rule, would not the acceptance of the 1996 NEC create a code violation (now constituting a hazard) outside that 6', thereby requiring the HO to update the wiring?

Twoskinsoneman · May 28, 2009

dcspector said:
Thanks ken for clarification. And Agreed. Oh BTW, Iam a representative of AHJ. So I do enforce existing conditions. "Fix it or ticket" Terrible way or not but, where does it end? It will become someones problem sometime or another. Why snowball the issues? Fix it now.

Jesus what a terrible attitude. I like the MA rules. They are just putting into law what should make sense already. I go in to add a receptacle and you tell me you're not going to pass it unless I bring the entire house to code?? That would probably be the last permit I pull. It isn't right but with unreasonable judgements like that you will force people to work around the permit...

Also a new rule does not automatically make a pre-existing condition a hazard because it is now a violation. There are obviously violations that would not be considered hazards.

iwire · May 28, 2009

The rule is about 'actual hazards' not code violations. What is an 'actual hazard'? Looks like that is up to the authority enforcing the code.

If it was about code compliance it would say it just like Rule 3 does.

billsnuff · May 28, 2009

Bob,

If a hazard is discovered and not part of the work scope, the EC should be home free.

But what constitutes a hazard?

existing install not compliant with code when it was installed? y or n

existing install has deteriorated thus creating a hazard? y or n

existing install does not meet current code? y or n

by the way, I think I agree with you.

480sparky · May 28, 2009

iwire said:
The rule is about 'actual hazards' not code violations. What is an 'actual hazard'? Looks like that is up to the authority enforcing the code.

If it was about code compliance it would say it just like Rule 3 does.

Isn't the potential of receiving a shock an 'actual hazard'? Why should someone living in a house built in 1989 be denied the safety our Codes and Enforcement provides someone living in a house that received a CO yesterday?

dcspector · May 28, 2009

iwire said:
Your just passing the buck to someone that had nothing to do with the installation and has no legal authority over the property at all. It is entirely unfair and done only to make your own job easier.

That is a rediculous and uneducated comment at best.

billsnuff · May 28, 2009

Isn't the potential of receiving a shock an 'actual hazard'? Why should someone living in a house built in 1989 be denied the safety our Codes and Enforcement provides someone living in a house that received a CO yesterday?

Then I guess we should outlaw used cars.......no ABS, no side impact air bags, too big of carbon footprint.........:grin:

480sparky · May 28, 2009

billsnuff said:
Then I guess we should outlaw used cars.......no ABS, no side impact air bags, too big of carbon footprint.........:grin:

IF there was a rule to require it. I don't know of one.

But apparently, MA has just such a rule for electrical.

Existing J-boxes not supported

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member