pfalcon said: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."
Just inform the inspector that you are sworn to protect and uphold the US Constitution.
pfalcon said: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."
tryinghard said:I agree, it would be wrong to not make it right (safely correct to the application/situation)
charlie b said:...
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?
tryinghard said:Is it ?grandfathering? or ?been there long time - nobody dead yet? when you see sub panels (past the service disconnect in the same building) bonding the grounded conductor at the sub panels?
I?ll bet most of us have seen this, how hard to you press for the correction, and what do you use to prove the hazards?
Previously I asked, ?when you see sub panels (past the service disconnect in the same building) bonding the grounded conductor at the sub panels (this has never been allowed in NEC), how hard do you press for the correction, and what do you use to prove the hazards??pfalcon said:I put five tests (not all inclusive) in post #63. If any say recommend a repair then you should do so. Test 5 asks if a hazardous condition exists. If it does then you recommend the repair. The GC at that point is irrelevant. The GC and "nobody dead yet" are separate questions.
My basis in Code is "local ordinance".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?
M. D. said:What do guys make of this , does it nullify local rules,.. it seems to
21.04 Effect of local By Laws and Ordinances
Unless otherwise noted in M.G.L. c. 143 ??3 through 60 inclusive, the State Board of Fire Prevention Regulation, including the Massachusetts Electrical Code, as incorporated into the state building code, supercedes any and all local by laws and ordinances relating to the installation, repair, and maintenance of electrical wiring and electrical fixtures used for light, heat, power, fire warning or security system purposes.
al hildenbrand said:Bob,
Where does "grandfathering" come from?
Inquiring minds. . .
:smile:
cschmid said:I also do not know of any where in the code that would allow an inspector to require that and be-able to site a code violation
He was wrong. Nothing requires it to be replaced. The presence of a FP panel is not a violation of the code. It is generally considered a good idea to upgrade and FP or a Zinsco to more modern equipment. But "good ideas" are not the same as NEC requirements.goofy256256 said:He told me that the FP panel must be replaced. . . .
charlie b said:
He was wrong. Nothing requires it to be replaced. The presence of a FP panel is not a violation of the code. It is generally considered a good idea to upgrade and FP or a Zinsco to more modern equipment. But "good ideas" are not the same as NEC requirements.