A Fly in the Ointment: The "Grandfather Rule"

[charlie b]

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.

I agree completely. I brought it up because I read several threads recently in which it was cited as the reason something was acceptable, or was not acceptable.

 

[charlie b]

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.

Not true! Absolutely not true!

This is exactly why I started this thread. Too many people believe this, and it is not true.

Please look again at 80.9(B), and tell me where it says anything about the code in effect at the time something was built.

 

[360Youth]

Code should be limited to work at hand that falls under the scope of current permit, unless life safety becomes an issue upon inspection.

 

[bkludecke]

Not true! Absolutely not true!

This is exactly why I started this thread. Too many people believe this, and it is not true.

Please look again at 80.9(B), and tell me where it says anything about the code in effect at the time something was built.

Beg to differ. It's Absolutely true in the two jurisdictions where we work here. Charlie, you are making an NEC arguement but out here we have local amendments and local polititions who decide how these things are to be delt with. Even when I disagree (which is often) I ask myself "is this a hill I'm willing to die on?".

It could be that you are correct and that that local AHJs are doing it wrong. Fine. But as long as they are in charge that's how we will operate (within reason).

 

[masterelect1]

Grandfathering

Grandfathering

I can only speak for Baltimore City here but Home Inspectors are forcing home buyers here to change non GFCI recepts in Kitchen and bathrooms to GFCI.
I know this because my sister is a real estate agent and when this occurs she sends the business (if she can) my way:grin:

Fortunately she has a different last name so it doesn't appear to be a conflict of interest:wink

 

[charlie b]

Beg to differ. It's Absolutely true in the two jurisdictions where we work here.

I have already acknowledged that local rules will override the NEC. My objection is to general statements that appear to imply that the NEC requires something that it does not require. If you had said that, in your area, a grandfather must have a birth certificate, I would have used that as reinforcement of the notion that NEC rules are different than local rules.

Just out of curiosity, has your local jurisdiction formally adopted a rule similar to the SF rule quoted in post #6? Or are they just enforcing what they want to enforce?

 

[charlie b]

I can only speak for Baltimore City here but Home Inspectors are forcing home buyers here to change non GFCI recepts in Kitchen and bathrooms to GFCI.

Home Inspectors do not have the authority to force any such actions. However, they can have a significant, un-official, influence. The possibility of the cancellation of a sale can be a huge motivator, in the real estate business.

 

[earshavewalls]

Charlie, if you check the adoption matrix (being in California, the NEC does not govern, it is only the model for the California Electrical Code), Article 80 is ONLY applicable to OSHPD governed installations (hospitals, public schools, government owned or financed buildings, etc.) not to all installations.
I have been trying to wrap my head around California's codes for a year now, performing MEP reviews, and it is not just a little confusing and confounding, it is a lot. I have learned to check the adoption matrix at the front of the code with the current codes, as of January 1, we will be on the 2007 CEC, which I have not had the opportunity to thoroughly peruse yet.
I agree that if it is a violation of a current code, it should be corrected no matter when it was installed, but legal eagles have usually had their way with this issue in the past..........of course, unless the AHJ or whomever has the authority determines that it is an imminent hazard.
Keep the faith!!

 

[jim dungar]

FWIW

In Wisconsin, Comm 16.03(3) and 16.03(4) cover exisiting installations and repairs. These sections require you to use the "electrical code that applied when the installations were installed". Of course, the AHJ can require current codes requirements based on the ambiguous "hazard to life, health, or property..."

 

[eprice]

Back to the original question, I would look at it this way: Is there a statute of limitations on the NEC? I don't think there is. If an installation was in violation of the code back when it was installed, it is still in violation of the code. Just because the violation was not discovered until now, that doesn't mean that it can't be required to be corrected.

The so called grandfather rule comes about because if the installation was code compliant when it was installed, there is nothing (with specific exceptions) that would trigger a requirement for it to be brought up to today's code.

Now, whether or not I would push for the correction of a violation that has been sitting around un-noticed for a long time, would depend upon whether or not it causes a serious safety concern.

 

[cschmid]

This is interesting..So we understand that article 80 has no legal hand hold in the NEC..That Home inspectors, which are individuals who are stating whether your home is in safe and working order with no hidden major repairs..Who legally have no jurisdiction in pronouncing whether something is a code violation or code compliant..Yet both are very much alive and well..in fact both article 80 and home inspectors carry an impact in our lives and neither are in a position to be legally responsible..I find this very interesting..

 

[360Youth]

If an installation was in violation of the code back when it was installed, it is still in violation of the code. Just because the violation was not discovered until now, that doesn't mean that it can't be required to be corrected.

That much I agree with, as well local amendments superceding code or different locales having their own set of guidelines. If it is local statutes, then it is enforceable. That is one of the reasons I like to talk with local inspectors for unfamiliar territories when our jobs wander to the outer reaches. I like to be aware of what they will be looking for.

 

[andinator]

At the risk of sounding incredibly stupid...Something I excel at! Where the **** is this Article 80?? I'm looking in my '05 and '08...

 

[480sparky]

See Annex G.

 

[andinator]

See, I told you I excel! Thanks!

 

[charlie b]

I agree that if it is a violation of a current code, it should be corrected no matter when it was installed . . . .

If you agree with that, then you are not agreeing with me. Nor are you agreeing with the wording in 80.9(B). It speaks of existing installations that are not in compliance with the code. It does not speak of being in compliance with the current code or any other version of the code. If it is not in compliance, then it can remain, so long as the AHJ does not consider it an imminent hazard.

Is there a statute of limitations on the NEC? I don't think there is. If an installation was in violation of the code back when it was installed, it is still in violation of the code.

I agree with that statement.

Just because the violation was not discovered until now, that doesn't mean that it can't be required to be corrected.

I do not agree with this one. For the moment, set aside the possibility that the AHJ might consider it an imminent hazard. What authority does the authority have, to require it to be corrected? I am not asking about right and wrong, nor about good practices, nor about what anyone thinks. What do the words say?

Keeping in mind that 80.9(B) is not enforceable, just look at its words. Does it distinguish between the violation that was installed a decade ago from the violation that was installed yesterday? It does not. If an Inspector walks in to look at a job in Room #1, and in passing through Room #2 notices a violation that is not related to the work scope of the permit for Room #1, what article in the code allows the inspector to say that the Room #2 violation MUST be corrected? Whatever answer you may give to this question, I submit that you cannot give 80.9(B) as the answer.

The so called grandfather rule comes about because if the installation was code compliant when it was installed, there is nothing (with specific exceptions) that would trigger a requirement for it to be brought up to today's code.

I say again, where in the NEC are there ANY WORDS that speak of being code compliant when it was installed?

. . . of course, unless the AHJ or whomever has the authority determines that it is an imminent hazard.

That much I do agree with, for that is written, very clearly, in 80.9(B).

Now, whether or not I would push for the correction of a violation that has been sitting around un-noticed for a long time, would depend upon whether or not it causes a serious safety concern.

That is the essence of my entire point. If you see an existing violation, you must ask yourself about safety concerns. Unless you have a local code that says otherwise, you should not spend even a moment’s thought about when something was installed and what code was in effect at that time.

 

[bkludecke]

I have already acknowledged that local rules will override the NEC. My objection is to general statements that appear to imply that the NEC requires something that it does not require. If you had said that, in your area, a grandfather must have a birth certificate, I would have used that as reinforcement of the notion that NEC rules are different than local rules.

Just out of curiosity, has your local jurisdiction formally adopted a rule similar to the SF rule quoted in post #6? Or are they just enforcing what they want to enforce?

Please don't blow a gasket over this, we need you for the really big stuff.:smile: One of the AHJs I work with uses the grandfather idea to justify the iminent thing. It's just one way to explain why they are calling for an upgrade or not. The other has a formal policy adopted by the county board of supervisors that has all sorts of stuff in it, including "'ol grand dad". Speaking of which - it's quitin' time. So have a good weekend and...

Peace Charlie

 

[ryan_618]

There is no such thing as a "grandfather" rule. An installation either complies or it doesn't. The key word here, however, is installation, as that is the only thing the code applies to, per 90.2(A). As Eprice has pointed out, at least in my state, there is no statute of limitations for a noncompliant job. If the law was not adhered to, it is a violation. If a job was installed in 1920 and it did not meet the 1920 NEC, it is noncompliant and therefore violated the law at that time. In Utah, if you could find the original installer, such installer would be required by law to make it comply with the 1920 code.

Now, if the electrical installation occured in 1920 at met the 1920 adopted code, it is a compliant building until somebody makes it not comply. If somebody installs something, it had better comply with the law for the installation (NEC).

 

[Bronco25]

Muddy the waters a little?

Muddy the waters a little?

If one is going to insist upon current standards, does that mean removal of Aluminum or Knob and Tube wiring when encountered? Would an inspector recognize an Ideal 30-x65 connector with an aluminum and copper wire in place?

 

[bkludecke]

Ryan; we agree almost completely. By grandfather many believe it means just what you said. If it was ever legal, it is legal today unless you alter it, then all bets are off and current codes apply.

I guess the question for me is this; If I add a spa circuit to a dwelling unit must I then bring the rest of the system up to current codes? Probably not. Why? 'cause of grandpa, ie, it was compliant when it was built. I suppose we're just getting into semantics at this point though.