A Fly in the Ointment: The "Grandfather Rule"

Status
Not open for further replies.
bkludecke said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think we see eye to eye. I try to stay away from terms that may not have a clear definition, such as "grandfather". Perhaps there is a legal definition of the term, but as I have never read it, I stay away from using it when I can.
 
Bronco25 said:
If one is going to insist upon current standards, does that mean removal of Aluminum or Knob and Tube wiring when encountered?
Click to expand...
There is no prohibition against using aluminum. K&T is specifically covered in Art 394.
 
Something of greater curiosity has plagued me , do you guys think that penguin really pushed that other penguin in the water ??

Existing installations is how I refer to them, whether they violate this code that code who cares , they exist and if they are dangerous I point it out . I also like our Rule Three . The code they refer to being violated is the only one that exists ,..the current one.

nor shall it increase the magnitude of an existing violation.
 
Last edited:
ryan_618 said:
I try to stay away from terms that may not have a clear definition, such as "grandfather."
Click to expand...
So do I. That is why I made an effort to say "the so-called grandfather rule," when I have commented within this thread. I might have slipped once or twice, but I tried. :grin:
 
M. D. said:
Something of greater curiosity has plagued me , do you guys think that penguin really pushed that other penguin in the water ??
Click to expand...
Not only that, but what if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about??? :-?





By the way, did you hear that the guy who invented the Hokey Pokey died?


It took them a week to put him in the coffin.
 
I think I know where the answer lies that you may looking for. Like Article 80 and Annex G, it depends on whether or not it was adopted by your Fire Department/Marshal. Check out section 10.3 in NFPA 1 - Uniform Fire Code. It has been adopted for the state of NH. I am under the impression that most do because it is the NFPA document that ends up adopting many other NFPA documents by reference. It is a one stop adopt...Check with your own State to see if they have.

10.3.2 Existing building that are occupied at the time of adoption on this Code shall remain in use provided that the following condition are met:
(1) The occupancy classification remains the same.
(2) No condition deemed hazardous to life of property exist that would constitute an imminent danger
 
Please read my previous post, as this applies to that..
I thought that this might also help...Also from NFPA 1

3.3.139 Imminent Danger. A condition or practice in an occupancy or structure that poses a danger that could reasonably be expected to cause death, serious physical harm, or serious property loss.

Stating that it needed to be code compliant at the time that it was installed removes all "Imminent Dangers" is only helping those that published and/or enforced the original code at that time form incurring liability.

If I inspected a brand new home built on the 05 NEC and a few years later they expand their home. The new installation being on the 08 NEC. I have to tell them that their new theatre room needs to have arc-fault protection. If asked why this one and not the old living room that they built a couple of years ago didn't, I have to be able to tell them that this is a new safety requirement. With a straight face tell them that the old living room is not in danger but the new one is if you don't put it on an arc-fault protected circuit......Try saying that and passing the "Straight Face Test!"

Now to my point, since we now have data that points out the fact that arc-fault breakers reduce the chance of electrical fires in a home, are the circuits that are existing in the home "Imminent Dangers." For it will result in at least, property loss........Or for the GFI discussed earlier, or the romex that once was able to be exposed....etc....

Thank you Charlie for asking this question...I often wondered how this is being interpreted and enforced.
 
Uniform Administartive Code 102.3 (NEC 80.9(B))Existing Installations: Building service equipment lawfully in existence at the time of the adoption of the technical codes may have their use, maintenance or repair continued if the use, maintenance or repair is in accordance with the original design and a hazard to life, health or property has not been created by such building service equipment.

And this comes up all the time with home inspectors. You do not have to have GFCI outlets in the kitchen or bath if the home was built in the 60's, etc. Sometimes you have to take the extra time to check the address files and yes it is a pain, but if you don't know when the house was built or the work was done then how do you know it's a violation.

Sorry I wrote this before I read all of the posts and so I see that some of us agree.
 
Last edited:
What I now find ironic (i.e., it is something that I just discovered today) is that Seattle, the city in which I live and work, has local amendments that include the ?it must have been legal when it was installed? kind of language.

That, however, does not change my opinion, and the reason I started this thread: Absent such language in a local code, all that matters is whether there is an imminent danger, not whether the ?present day violation? had met code when it was installed.
 
cowboyjwc said:
And this comes up all the time with home inspectors. You do not have to have GFCI outlets in the kitchen or bath if the home was built in the 60's, etc.
Click to expand...
By code, perhaps -- but by common sense, 99%+ of home buyers are going to expect them to be there.

I would hope that a home inspector would raise this issue as something that should be remedied regardless of when the home was built. The selling HO may or may not be legally required to do install GFCIs, but that is basically moot as it is a point of negotiation between buyer and seller (excepting those situations where this info somehow gets reported to the AHJ -- still baffled on that one).
 
tallguy said:
By code, perhaps -- but by common sense, 99%+ of home buyers are going to expect them to be there.

I would hope that a home inspector would raise this issue as something that should be remedied regardless of when the home was built. The selling HO may or may not be legally required to do install GFCIs, but that is basically moot as it is a point of negotiation between buyer and seller (excepting those situations where this info somehow gets reported to the AHJ -- still baffled on that one).
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a bad idea, but the HI's tend to write it as required and not as a suggestion. Every house I have bought I tell the sellers to don't even bother cleaning as I'm going to be gutting most of it anyways.

It gets reported because the smart agents know it's not required and they want convermation because the sellers don't want to pay some guy a couple hundred bucks to come in and replace some outlets, because they are trying to save every dollar they can for the new house that they are buying and they can't get that seller to change out the outlets either.
 
charlie b said:
eprice said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

I agree here! If this is service the electrician on site is the qualified professional. Often though the site electrician may state ?code? or use it to support what he is already determined to provide anyway. So the site electrician may not be using code to change a pre-existing condition as much as he is using code as a supportive document or prop to clarify his point.
 
tryinghard said:
I agree here! If this is service the electrician on site is the qualified professional. Often though the site electrician may state ?code? or use it to support what he is already determined to provide anyway. So the site electrician may not be using code to change a pre-existing condition as much as he is using code as a supportive document or prop to clarify his point.
Click to expand...

No it's not 50 / 50 its either Right or Wrong !
 
charlie b said:
What I now find ironic (i.e., it is something that I just discovered today) is that Seattle, the city in which I live and work, has local amendments that include the ?it must have been legal when it was installed? kind of language.

That, however, does not change my opinion, and the reason I started this thread: Absent such language in a local code, all that matters is whether there is an imminent danger, not whether the ?present day violation? had met code when it was installed.
Click to expand...


More then likely if it was installed to the "code of the day" it is not an "IMMINENT DANGER " now. A panel cover left off with live parts open to any potential Darwinian wantabe able to touch them that is an "imminent danger. A non GFI outlet somewhere in a 25 year old bath/laundry/kitchen etc ,not an imminent danger.
"Possible" and "imminent" are not the same.
On a completely differant note , Do you think the code making panels spend this much time hashing out a new code change?????????????? :smile:
 
acrwc10 said:
More then likely if it was installed to the "code of the day" it is not an "IMMINENT DANGER " now. A panel cover left off with live parts open to any potential Darwinian wantabe able to touch them that is an "imminent danger. A non GFI outlet somewhere in a 25 year old bath/laundry/kitchen etc ,not an imminent danger.
"Possible" and "imminent" are not the same.
On a completely differant note , Do you think the code making panels spend this much time hashing out a new code change?????????????? :smile:
Click to expand...

I sometimes gotta wonder....
 
acrwc10 said:
On a completely differant note , Do you think the code making panels spend this much time hashing out a new code change?????????????? :smile:
Click to expand...

Not as I understand it. I've been told by a CMP member they have an average of about 5 minutes per proposal.

I know two things, there's two weeks in Nov-Dec they meet, (10 days * an assumed 8 hours per day = 80 hours) and there's 19 CMPs (80*19=1520 hours). Now, does anyone have a number of how many proposals there are each Code cycle? Given that, we can calculate a rough answer (1520 * 60= 91,200 minutes. 91,200 / # of proposals = the minutes per proposal).
 
Last edited:
480sparky said:
Now, does anyone have a number of how many proposals there are each Code cycle?
Click to expand...
An inexact method (searching for the phrase "final action:") for the most recent ROP turned up 3697 proposals. Wow!

91,200 / 3697 = 25 minutes each. This sounds pretty reasonable to me, especially considering that a large number of these are either variations on a theme, bracketing strategies (i.e. forcing them to take a stand one way or another on a single issue), duplicates, or DOA.

If anyone wants to get a good overview of the process, it is right here. It's fairly involved, and allows for numerous opportunities to put on the brakes. Not saying it's all "fair" and on the up and up, just that there is some process there that isn't "wham bam".
 
US Constitution

US Constitution

Took a long time to wade through this. The "Grandfather rule" is NOT in the NEC but in the US Constitution:

"No bill of attainer or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

The NEC cannot make a past installation illegal after the fact. So if the installation was legit at the time of installation then it remains legit long after the laws and code have changed.

FPN: Certain conditions such as health and welfare can condemn past practices thereby requiring immediate or reasonable replacement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top