Do you have problems with your local codes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M. D. said:
because it says yes you can add or change ,.. but do it without bringing the remaining part of the installation into compliance . So if I wanted to ,... lets say add the proper support to the existing wiring method while I'm adding or modifying it ,..this actually says that I can't.
Click to expand...

I don't read it that way. I think this rule protects the installer from overbearing inspectors requiring repairs beyound the scope of their contract. Granted nothing is perfert. The advisory committee has been looking at this language for several cycles, but they have not made an adjustment, suggesting a modification would not improve the current language.

What language change would you suggest??
 
Well , Shall be is mandatory language and it says

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.
Click to expand...

Now I don't imagine this has ever been an issue,... but read it like a virgin (condensed Charlie's rule ) It says what it says.
Perhaps it should say "without having to bring" or "without being required to correct the existing violation(s).

or strike the "without bringing " and re-word it a bit

Additions or modifications to an existing installation shall be made in accordance with this Code.
The remaining part(s) of the existing installation shall not be required to comply 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.
 
pappa doc said:
I've been reading this website for a while now and I'd say half the time someone fails an inspection it's because of some local code. Not even in the NEC. Wouldn't things be alot easier for everyone if all the jurisidictions were on the same page.
Click to expand...

I totally agree....... My pet peeve is most definitely that Southampton town requires that the co detectors have a digital display showing the actual ppm of co in an onscreen display which costs about 75 bucks per device.
These co detectors are a pita to get and my problem is what the hell does a homeowner need to know what the ppm co is in the air.
It is either good or bad ............alarm or silence............ All fire departments by me have thier own co metering equipment which is by far the more expensive and acurate than a mass produced co /smoke alarm.
They are oversteping thier boundaries as far as getting involved in fire protection design and THIS frosts my cookies every time I have to buy one of these dogs.
I totally agree that licensing should be federal and the same throughout the great USofA.
 
iWire,
Speaking of having 'their own' code book.
I worked in a little local town and found out the hard way
that the amendments are all handled by the AHJ, verbally.
The only way to work in this community
is to call for an early inspection (and red tag)
just to hear what the AHJ had to say about "your work".
It was not bad inspecting, just not in writing.
:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top