Responsible for bringing wiring to code?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MRI

Member
Doing a commercial job at a strip mall yesterday and I ran into some really bad code violations for the panels that control the exterior / parking lot lighting. In a large metal enclosure on the back wall is a 277/480v panel and a 120/208v panel. Numerous wiring violations throughout, exposed bus, etc.

My question is, once I put my hands in there am I responsible to bring this to code? I have brought it to the attention of the property management company telling them someone is going to killed in there one day. This installation is about 40 years old. If I feed a circuit from here or do any work at all with this and something happens will the powers that be come back to me and say I should have known and I should have fixed all of the problems before connecting anything to it?

Thanks.....
 

robert pitre

Member
Location
Houma,la
Responsible for bringing wiring to code.

Responsible for bringing wiring to code.

Yes i think i would let the owner know what he got in he building and if it is unsafe, i would tell him the only way i will work on this if he lets you correct it all, because if something were to happen the finger will be pointed at you. Also you may want to let him know the the codes has change from 40 years ago.I hear a lot of people say ,well it granfather in, that may have been 40 years ago, but not today.
I would present he with a bill to correct it all.There are to many law suite today.
 

Fitzdrew516

Senior Member
Location
Cincinnati, OH
I think due to the safety aspect of it I would be worried of not bringing it up to code, but like others have said, I think it's an AHJ issue (as it always is). I will assume that any AHJ with good sense will require something like that be brought up to code. I can't remember where I heard this, but I heard an inspector say one time (in regards to working on existing installations and code violations) - He will make you bring something up to code on an existing installation if what is currently installed has never been accepted in previous versions of the code. In other words.... if there is no way for something to be grandfathered in then regardless of it being existing or not, he's going to make you fix it. I agree with that logic along with the thinking that if it could be a major safety issue then that must be fixed as well.

- Drew
 

growler

Senior Member
Location
Atlanta,GA
He will make you bring something up to code on an existing installation if what is currently installed has never been accepted in previous versions of the code. In other words.... if there is no way for something to be grandfathered in then regardless of it being existing or not, he's going to make you fix it. I agree with that logic along with the thinking that if it could be a major safety issue then that must be fixed as well.

- Drew

Many people don't understand "grandfathering". That really does mean the installation was code compliant at the time of installation and that it hasn't been altered since then in a way that would make it not code compliant.

That exposed buss sounds like a hazardous condition and a violation that can be written up against the owner.

You may not be the guy that gets to fix the problem but once written up someone will or they shut the power off.
 

Fitzdrew516

Senior Member
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Many people don't understand "grandfathering". That really does mean the installation was code compliant at the time of installation and that it hasn't been altered since then in a way that would make it not code compliant.

That exposed buss sounds like a hazardous condition and a violation that can be written up against the owner.

You may not be the guy that gets to fix the problem but once written up someone will or they shut the power off.


Agreed. What I mean to say is ... "you" (the OP) isn't necessarily responsible, but the owner should, and will get flagged for it... so in a round about way I think you'll have to end up fixing it. All you can do with cheap owners is explain to them the dangers and that they will likely have to replace it throughout the permit process. Most of the time the extra time and liability pushes owners into agreeing with you (as it should), but sometimes you will still get owners that refuse your suggestions. You can lead a horse to water...
 

growler

Senior Member
Location
Atlanta,GA
Agreed. What I mean to say is ... "you" (the OP) isn't necessarily responsible, but the owner should, and will get flagged for it... so in a round about way I think you'll have to end up fixing it. All you can do with cheap owners is explain to them the dangers and that they will likely have to replace it throughout the permit process. Most of the time the extra time and liability pushes owners into agreeing with you (as it should), but sometimes you will still get owners that refuse your suggestions. You can lead a horse to water...


Actually I was just trying to agree with you. Many customers think that just because something is pre-existing that it is automatically grandfathered or allowed to stay as-is.

Most inspectors don't even worry about simple code violations such as missing straps or a few degress of extra bend in the conduit but a safety violation or hazardous condition is another matter.
 

ActionDave

Chief Moderator
Staff member
Location
Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min from the winged horses.
Occupation
Licensed Electrician
No cape and tights for me today. Not gonna be electrical superman. Going to re-pull some feeders in a pipe that has more than 360 degrees of bend in the run. Most of the run is under the side walk. Are we going to refuse to do the job unless the owner agrees to let us bring in the jack hammers and back hoes so we can put in a pull box? No.
 

Fitzdrew516

Senior Member
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Actually I was just trying to agree with you. Many customers think that just because something is pre-existing that it is automatically grandfathered or allowed to stay as-is.

Most inspectors don't even worry about simple code violations such as missing straps or a few degress of extra bend in the conduit but a safety violation or hazardous condition is another matter.

I agree with your agreeing with me :lol:
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
No cape and tights for me today. Not gonna be electrical superman. Going to re-pull some feeders in a pipe that has more than 360 degrees of bend in the run. Most of the run is under the side walk. Are we going to refuse to do the job unless the owner agrees to let us bring in the jack hammers and back hoes so we can put in a pull box? No.

Grandfathering existing code violations, I suspect that this jurisdiction here is a lot like other places in the country. The state adopted its first building code in 2005 really not that long ago. S0, what determines if something was code compliant at the time of installation. We go in and out of buildings that where in existence way before 2005. True there where 2003 and earlier versions of the national electrical code. But since the first adopted code was in 2005 what make an installation non- code compliant at the time of installation.

It come down to imminent danger, if the installation is in such condition that the Authority determines the danger is certain.
 

gadfly56

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
Grandfathering existing code violations, I suspect that this jurisdiction here is a lot like other places in the country. The state adopted its first building code in 2005 really not that long ago. S0, what determines if something was code compliant at the time of installation. We go in and out of buildings that where in existence way before 2005. True there where 2003 and earlier versions of the national electrical code. But since the first adopted code was in 2005 what make an installation non- code compliant at the time of installation.

It come down to imminent danger, if the installation is in such condition that the Authority determines the danger is certain.

NJ adopted its Uniform Construction Code in 1977. Before then, it's impossible to tell what if any code might have been in force at the municipal or county level. We have structures going back to 1777 and earlier that are still in use, mostly as museums but not exclusively. I think that the common sense approach is to consider if the questionable portion of the work might have been code compliant under ANY edition of the NEC from the date the building went up. If the answer is "no", then it should be corrected.

If the customer refuses to have you correct the violations and/or imminent hazards I would suggest you walk away from this. It's not worth the potential headaches of sifting through the burnt rubble showing the lawyers which work was yours and which was not. :happysad:
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
NJ adopted its Uniform Construction Code in 1977. Before then, it's impossible to tell what if any code might have been in force at the municipal or county level. We have structures going back to 1777 and earlier that are still in use, mostly as museums but not exclusively. I think that the common sense approach is to consider if the questionable portion of the work might have been code compliant under ANY edition of the NEC from the date the building went up. If the answer is "no", then it should be corrected.

If the customer refuses to have you correct the violations and/or imminent hazards I would suggest you walk away from this. It's not worth the potential headaches of sifting through the burnt rubble showing the lawyers which work was yours and which was not. :happysad:

I think that the common sense approach is to consider if the questionable portion of the work might have been code compliant under ANY edition of the NEC from the date the building went up. If the answer is "no", then it should be corrected.

That's a tough position for me representing the Authority to take, I mean there are a lot of commercial building with NM cable above lay- in ceilings. Lots of work for electricians and lots and lots of business/property owners angry when I start writing up violations based on non existent adopted codes .
 

growler

Senior Member
Location
Atlanta,GA
That's a tough position for me representing the Authority to take, I mean there are a lot of commercial building with NM cable above lay- in ceilings. Lots of work for electricians and lots and lots of business/property owners angry when I start writing up violations based on non existent adopted codes .


Go back to the 1999 NEC and you won't find NM "uses not permitted" to include above lay-in ceilings but it does state that structures over 3 floors. In more recent codes the wording has changed again.

If it was considered safe enough in 1999 and there was no code adoped at the time of installation how would you know which version of the code they were in compliance with. There are still areas of the country that are useing the 1999 NEC.
 

gadfly56

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
Go back to the 1999 NEC and you won't find NM "uses not permitted" to include above lay-in ceilings but it does state that structures over 3 floors. In more recent codes the wording has changed again.

If it was considered safe enough in 1999 and there was no code adoped at the time of installation how would you know which version of the code they were in compliance with. There are still areas of the country that are useing the 1999 NEC.

In that case, if the building was pre-1999 you could reasonably conclude that the NM above the drop ceiling was OK, as long as you're under 3 stories. This is basically the approach that NJ takes in its Rehab code.
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
In that case, if the building was pre-1999 you could reasonably conclude that the NM above the drop ceiling was OK, as long as you're under 3 stories. This is basically the approach that NJ takes in its Rehab code.

I'm trying to reason that this approach somehow could be enforceable for an authority, I can't see it, if there was no adopted building codes in 1999 I cannot see how you could in 2015 write a violation that a buildings electrical system to be not in compliance with a 1999 electrical code. If a state choice not to have a standard as a code in 1999 for electrical installations how could a buildings electrical system be not in compliance with any code.

Again I would take that position that if there is immanent and present danger that a building is a hazard or has hazardous conditions that is a threat to public welfare a correction order could be written. I cannot see how a correction order could be written for other reasons of being not code compliant to a code that was published during 1999
 

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
Many people don't understand "grandfathering". That really does mean the installation was code compliant at the time of installation and that it hasn't been altered since then in a way that would make it not code compliant.
But my understanding is that if you do alter such a system then you are obligated to bring it up to current code. Is that not correct? It's what I was told by a utility official here.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
Doing a commercial job at a strip mall yesterday and I ran into some really bad code violations for the panels that control the exterior / parking lot lighting. In a large metal enclosure on the back wall is a 277/480v panel and a 120/208v panel. Numerous wiring violations throughout, exposed bus, etc.

My question is, once I put my hands in there am I responsible to bring this to code? ....

Here's my take...

If your scope of work doesn't require you to do any work inside of that equipment then it isn't your responsibility.

If your work does require you to do work in that equipment, and you can easily fix the violations, then fix them. I figure in most cases if the time and materials is only a couple percent of the job price then I'm not going to make a fuss about it.

If the violations are severe - say you cannot fix them without replacing the equipment and/or other wiring that has nothing to do with your work - then ask the customer to either:
1) agree to a change order that pays you for the fixes, or cancel the job, especially if the AHJ would make you fix it
2) sign a release of liability that states very specifically what is outside your scope of work, what the problems are, and that you are not to be held liable for any damage related to the equipment that happens subsequent to your work being completed

Sometimes it's about the AHJ: I figure the AHJ can hold me responsible for anything related to equipment I work in, but in many cases I know from their history that they won't. Sometimes it's about liability. We do subcontract work for a large company that will not let us do any work in Zinsco or FPE panels as part of their projects. (That is, any work in them that doesn't involve replacing them.) Personally I think it's overkill but they've made that decision at a high level.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
No cape and tights for me today. Not gonna be electrical superman. Going to re-pull some feeders in a pipe that has more than 360 degrees of bend in the run. Most of the run is under the side walk. Are we going to refuse to do the job unless the owner agrees to let us bring in the jack hammers and back hoes so we can put in a pull box? No.

I probably would refuse, unless my quote already includes the jackhammers. What if you pull the existing wire out (or partially out) and can't pull the new stuff (or the old stuff) back in? Then you're screwed. You'll have to bring the jackhammers out anyway and they didn't agree to pay you for it ahead of time.
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
But my understanding is that if you do alter such a system then you are obligated to bring it up to current code. Is that not correct? It's what I was told by a utility official here.

My experience, most authorities will hold you to the scope of your work. I hear terms like alteration compared to saying repair these terms affect the way your question is answered. Generally speaking Authorities hold you to the scope of your work especially if a permit is being pulled for the repair or alteration.
Check and see if your state adopted an existing building code or if the state adopted building code has a section that deals with existing buildings.
Call the Authority and asked what there policy is. A utility company official usually, if by that you mean power company employee than he is most likely saying if you alter the electrical service you will be required to make sure the whole service can pass an electrical inspection
 

Strathead

Senior Member
Location
Ocala, Florida, USA
Occupation
Electrician/Estimator/Project Manager/Superintendent
I'm trying to reason that this approach somehow could be enforceable for an authority, I can't see it, if there was no adopted building codes in 1999 I cannot see how you could in 2015 write a violation that a buildings electrical system to be not in compliance with a 1999 electrical code. If a state choice not to have a standard as a code in 1999 for electrical installations how could a buildings electrical system be not in compliance with any code.

Again I would take that position that if there is immanent and present danger that a building is a hazard or has hazardous conditions that is a threat to public welfare a correction order could be written. I cannot see how a correction order could be written for other reasons of being not code compliant to a code that was published during 1999


Assuming that you are not the AHJ, but you work for the AHJ, what is his/her position? The first time someone gets hurt in your jurisdiction and they stumble across this page, there will be plenty of finger pointing. I can't even conceive how an area could have no "code" for electrical installations in the modern world, circa 1950 say. You mean people could do anything they wanted and the local power company would just hook it up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top