A Fly in the Ointment: The "Grandfather Rule"

Status
Not open for further replies.

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
Several recent threads have induced me to attempt to stir up a bit of a debate. I have hinted, perhaps even stated, my opinion from time to time. But I think this one is worth an open discussion.

QUESTION:

What aspect of the so-called ?Grandfather Rule,? or for that matter any other code article you choose to name, leads you (if by chance you have been led down this path) to conclude that,

? IF an installation is in violation of the NEC edition that is currently enforced in your area,
? THEN that installation is allowed to remain in place . . .

(NOTE: What follows is the reason for my question, so please pay attention),

? . . . IF AND ONLY IF that particular installation was allowed by the NEC edition that was in force at the time of its construction?

In other words, if you see something that violates today?s NEC, and if you are asked if it must be repaired or replaced or whatever, do you first seek to discover the date of its installation, and check to see if the NEC in force at that time would have allowed it? If so, why? What is your basis in code for looking at installation dates and old code books?
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
The first obstacle that must be overcome is to determine when it was actually installed.

All too often, the answer is "Well, we don't know. We bought the place and found this...."

Sometimes you can judge pretty accurately when it was done, but even if you had a definite year, that may not prvide the answer.

What I mean is, say you have an installation that, by current standards, is unacceptacle. For this purpose, let's say a bathroom recep. without GFI protection.

Now, suppose you went back and determined the house was built (and presumably wired at the same time) in 1977. So you get out your dusty-trusty 1975 NEC and there it is..210-8(a): "For residential occupancies all 120-volt single-phase, 15- and 20- ampere receptacle outlets installed outdoors and in bathrooms whall have ground-fault protection for personnel."

So should a GFI been installed? Now you need to find out when the '75 was adopted. Maybe the AHJ was still enforcing the '71 or even the '68. Heck, there's still places using the '99 today!

True, sticking a $12 GFI in is going to cost a whole lot less than investigating this scenario, but I just used that one to bring up this aspect of the issue.
 

ike5547

Senior Member
Location
Chico, CA
Occupation
Electrician
I, and most inspectors I have dealt with, only pay attention when it's obvious that an installation method could never have been in compliance with any code edition. I will sometimes recommend the violation be corrected but an inspector almost always requires a correction before signing off on a permit even if it (the violation) was not originally within the scope of the work being inspected.

Of course in San Francisco, where I work, most of the buildings are very old so it's often very difficult to determine.
 
Last edited:

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
Here is a "hint," or perhaps I should say a "conversation starter": Those who know me well would be well aware that I would never have posed this question, if it could be answered so easily.

Let me ask anyone who wishes to comment to first READ the so-called "grandfather rule." The come back and tell us what you think.
 

360Youth

Senior Member
Location
Newport, NC
I will check the grandfather rule later, but here is my take. An inspector, or at least a speciffic few, can deem almost any area to be electrically unsafe and require it to be "brought up to code" and/or made safe to occupy. On the flip side, I have had inspectors go overboard, IMO :roll: , on what they require to be brought up to code on a peice of property that has nothing to do with job in progress. If it was code compliant at time of install, and current work in progress has no affect, it should not be the ECs responsibility to upgrade. Example; if HO decides to add a 2-car garage to their 1940 farm house, then any installed receptacles should be 3-wire GFCI protected. But that does not require the EC to GFCI protect kitchen and bath, or existing outdoor recptacles. If AHJ wants to require upgrades of property owner and it becomes additional work for EC, than so be it, but that is somebody else's argument. IMHO. :)


Edited for redundancies. Oops.
 

ike5547

Senior Member
Location
Chico, CA
Occupation
Electrician
charlie b said:
Let me ask anyone who wishes to comment to first READ the so-called "grandfather rule." The come back and tell us what you think.
Could you provide a pointer to the specific text and/or location of the "grandfather rule" you are referring to? Is it local? National?

My local code (S.F. Electrical Code) is quoted as follows:

"Nothing contained in this code shall be construed to require any existing electrical equipment, wiring or systems regulated by this code to be altered, reconstructed, removed or demolished, provided such existing electrical equipment, wiring or system was installed and maintained in accordance with the adopted code in effect at the time of installation or subsequent alteration."

As to your question...

charlie b said:
...if you see something that violates today’s NEC, and if you are asked if it must be repaired or replaced or whatever, do you first seek to discover the date of its installation, and check to see if the NEC in force at that time would have allowed it? If so, why? What is your basis in code for looking at installation dates and old code books?
My answer is no. As uninteresting as it seems, if I am "asked to repair or replace or whatever..." I simply repair or replace. Why? Because I have neither the time, resources, nor inclination to figure out exactly when an installation occurred in what may be a 100+ year old building that may have changed occupancies and been remodeled I don't know how many times. And I know sure as hell the inspector is not going to do it for me.

But, apparently, that's not the kind of reply you are looking for in this thread.

*edit*

I seem to have misunderstood your question. You are asking what someone would do if they were asked if something must be repaired or replaced. Who would be doing the asking? Home owner? GC? Inspector? This question doesn't have a simple answer or one that can be uniformly applied to every situation.
 
Last edited:

acrwc10

Master Code Professional
Location
CA
Occupation
Building inspector
80.9 Application.
(A) New Installations.
This Code applies to new installations. Buildings with construction permits dated after adoption of this Code shall comply with its requirements.
(B) Existing Installations.
Existing electrical installations that do not comply with the provisions of this Code shall be permitted to be continued in use unless the authority having jurisdiction determines that the lack of conformity with this Code presents an imminent danger to occupants. Where changes are required for correction of hazards, a reasonable amount of time shall be given for compliance, depending on the degree of the hazard.


If this is the "Grandfather Claus" I can say it leaves alot of wiggle room for an inspector.
 

cadpoint

Senior Member
Location
Durham, NC
Don't know

Don't know

Is the 4th post a variable to the orginal post ?

I personally, would note that the installation is quailified to the date of application. Wow that alone might be a show stopper.

If (untouched) the main service disconnect might remain as is.
Other branch services downline from that service that did not dis-qualify itself, or need to be updated by the application of new service or rehab, then the work might proceded but a few things might happen.

One as an installer would note that to owner and have them release said service, while (maybe) out of date to active standards, it was in compliance to its date and not in Gross error to the NFPA that jerpordize
anything forward from this point, but could be upgraded!

What I'm stating if its safe and not effected by additional or rehab service
then no, the owner signs or walk away.

Frankly, I'd like to beleive that if I didn't touch it, I didn't own it!

This same point came out a cycle or two ago that the company would have a waiver release, to the effect of having the home owner sign release form.

If your at a point that your bringing in a professional, are you going to do what is right or what they thought they needed ?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Charlie it is my opinion that there is no all encompassing grandfather rule.

Article 80 is for all intents and purposes meaningless text.

Few areas specifically adopt 80 and many areas have there own rules about this 'grandfathering' issue.

NJ has the 'rehab code' and likely other rules.

MA has 'Rule 3' which pretty much allows me to ignore existing violations.

But we also have 'Rule 4' which requires that the person enforcing the code send a written notice to the property owner "Where an actual hazard exists"
 
iwire said:
But we also have 'Rule 4' which requires that the person enforcing the code send a written notice to the property owner "Where an actual hazard exists"[/quote]


Like any other situation, this can get complicated by "personal" ideas of just what constitutes an "actual hazard".

The only answer I have for that is communication. Communicate with the inspector of record for that particular job, as only he knows what he is thinking. At least maybe he knows what he is thinking. :D
 

cschmid

Senior Member
this is an interesting question but no easy answer as I have been a victim of this rule..I was not a happy camper as I was required to fix problem and then collecting is another issue was cheaper to donate the time while owner bought parts..This is a very unfair statement in this code as it is totally the AHJ interpretation of the situation..It than becomes a situation between AHJ,EC,HO and the outcome can be muddled..because of the AHJ decision the EC has situation and if he wants paid for any of the job it must have a sticker and in order to get sticker you need to make repair..Damned if you do or you dont..So I think the rule sucks...
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
You?re getting plenty of good replies about the grandfathered concept such as:

ike5547 said:
I, and most inspectors I have dealt with, only pay attention when it's obvious that an installation method could never have been in compliance with any code edition.

I agree with the ?obvious? and ?could never have been? approach.

But I would like to comment about scope of work.

ike5547 said:
I will sometimes recommend the violation be corrected but ?..

It?s in the interest of the customer and the public at large to make your findings known. . But there?s a big difference between ?recommend? and ?require?.

ike5547 said:
?.. but an inspector almost always requires a correction before signing off on a permit even if it (the violation) was not originally within the scope of the work being inspected.

If an inspector does that in Ohio, he?s in trouble. . Scope of work must be honored. . The permit is for the scope of work not the whole building unless specified in the scope of work. . The prints layout the scope of work and the inspector must honor that scope when dealing with that permit. . Any violations beyond the scope of work must be handled with the building owner directly by an order from the CBO, Certified Building Official.

You can?t hold a permit hostage to a violation outside of the scope of work that is attached to that permit. . It?s possible that there might be a disagreement about the extent of the scope of work, but the prints should usually solve that. . Once it?s determined that the violation is outside the scope of work, an inspector needs to follow state law.

acrwc10 said:
80.9 Application.
(B) Existing Installations.
Existing electrical installations that do not comply with the provisions of this Code shall be permitted to be continued in use unless the authority having jurisdiction determines that the lack of conformity with this Code presents an imminent danger to occupants. Where changes are required for correction of hazards, a reasonable amount of time shall be given for compliance, depending on the degree of the hazard.

?an imminent danger to occupants?
That can be hard to define.

?a reasonable amount of time shall be given for compliance?
In Ohio that compliance is by the building owner not the contractor unless the violation is within his scope of work.

David
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
I need to add one thing.

In Ohio there is a "mission creep" forced by state law upon the contractor for smoke detectors in residential. . No grandfathering for smoke detectors [RCO 313.1.1]
 

M. D.

Senior Member
iwire said:
Charlie it is my opinion that there is no all encompassing grandfather rule.

Article 80 is for all intents and purposes meaningless text.

Few areas specifically adopt 80 and many areas have there own rules about this 'grandfathering' issue.

NJ has the 'rehab code' and likely other rules.

MA has 'Rule 3' which pretty much allows me to ignore existing violations.

But we also have 'Rule 4' which requires that the person enforcing the code send a written notice to the property owner "Where an actual hazard exists"

Thought I would post them (notice it says enforcement authority and not AHJ, I think the AHJ in Mass is the State Board of Fire Prevention)

Rule 3. Additions or modifications to an existing installation shall be made in accordance with this Code without bringing the remaining part of the installation into compliance with the requirements of this Code. The installation shall not create a violation of this Code, nor shall it increase the magnitude of an existing violation.

Rule 4. Where an actual hazard exists, the owner of the property shall be notified in writing by the authority enforcing this Code. (See M.G.L. c. 166, ?? 32 and 33, for enforcement authority.)
 
Last edited:

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
My intent for bringing up this issue is to break people of the habit of applying, and also passing along to new members of the industry, ?code requirements? that are not actually in the code.

Take a look at the San Francisco code language in post #6. And by the way, thanks Ike, for posting that quotation. Then take a look at the NEC language in post 7. The SF version has the words that everyone seems to think are the essence of the Grandfather Rule: the words about the installation being in compliance with the code that was in effect at the time of construction. Those words are not in the NEC!

It is my opinion that (absent any local code such as the one Ike quoted for us) if you come across an installation that has a violation of the current NEC, you should not, Not, NOT ask any questions about when it was installed, and what code was in effect at that time. Such information has no meaning, no value; it is absolutely irrelevant! Nothing in 80.9(B), the so-called ?Grandfather Rule,? says anything about being in compliance with the code in effect when it was built. The one and only one thing you should be asking yourself is whether you consider the violation to represent an immediate danger to occupants.
 

dlhoule

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
charlie b said:
My intent for bringing up this issue is to break people of the habit of applying, and also passing along to new members of the industry, ?code requirements? that are not actually in the code.

Take a look at the San Francisco code language in post #6. And by the way, thanks Ike, for posting that quotation. Then take a look at the NEC language in post 7. The SF version has the words that everyone seems to think are the essence of the Grandfather Rule: the words about the installation being in compliance with the code that was in effect at the time of construction. Those words are not in the NEC!

It is my opinion that (absent any local code such as the one Ike quoted for us) if you come across an installation that has a violation of the current NEC, you should not, Not, NOT ask any questions about when it was installed, and what code was in effect at that time. Such information has no meaning, no value; it is absolutely irrelevant! Nothing in 80.9(B), the so-called ?Grandfather Rule,? says anything about being in compliance with the code in effect when it was built. The one and only one thing you should be asking yourself is whether you consider the violation to represent an immediate danger to occupants.

Will you please define an immediate danger to occupants. If they have lamp cord running under the carpet, and it is a new lamp cord I would not consider it an immediate danger, but I would consider it dangerous. It wouldn't become an immediate danger until such time as it started a fire.

Likewise where they have had a 150 watt bulb in a fixture rated for 60 watt and started tripping the breaker because the insulation has melted off wires. They discovered that breaker quit tripping if they left fixture hanging by wires. They know enough not to touch the bare wires hanging from the ceiling, so it is not an immediate danger to the occupants.

Just where do you or anyone else draw the line?
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
dlhoule said:
Will you please define an immediate danger to occupants.
Sorry, I should have said ?imminent,? not ?immediate,? to match the wording in the code. Will I define it? Nope. That is not my role.

dlhoule said:
. Just where do you or anyone else draw the line?
I don?t. That is up to the AHJ.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I am still at a loss why Article 80 keeps being brought up.

It means nothing unless specifically adopted, it is not part of the NEC.
 

bkludecke

Senior Member
Location
Big Bear Lake, CA
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Around here we run into this debate when there is a home inspection on a pending real estate sale. The HIs rarely are that sharp on the NEC in the first place so they write up all sorts of violations on a house built 40 years ago (GFIs etc.).

As far as "grandfathering" is concerned on a project; one thing to remember is that "grandfather" needs to have a birth certificate. This means that in order to use that arguement you must be able to determine exactly when the questioned installation was made and exactly what the NEC requirements were at that time.

Our local AHJs will work with us if we do the homework.
 

cschmid

Senior Member
I would agree allot of valid points made..I like the way charlie is pointing out local differences..Davids arguement that the AHJ cannot hold your permit hostage is also a valid point..Bobs point out about that article 80 is not part of the code...I like these arguements but in realality the AHJ is the legal rep for the state in which they are employeed..So once they make their decision is made and it takes time and money to get the decision reviewed..So it is normally easier to comply with the AHJ than to contest his decision..The politics of this are very far reaching..I think I understand what charlie is trying to get at yet what kind of out come can be gained here..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top