Originally posted by charlie b:
Al briefly touched on the possibility of local codes having a say about this question. But I think one aspect of this discussion is worth a bit more emphasis. The notion of "grandfathering" anything is pure fiction. The rules are the rules. There is nothing in the rules that says that any new or changed rules cannot be enforced on a facility that was built under earlier rules.
Common practice is that the term "grandfather clause" usually means that something that was legal when it was installed doesn't have to be brought up to current codes as long as you leave it alone. I agree that that NEC doesn't specify that it only applies to work done since a particular version of the NEC was adopted.
Here's an example. You pull a permit for, and install, the wiring and components for a new hot tub. The Inspector walks into the house, looks at the service panel (for the new hot tub circuit), sees (for example) that there are no AFCI breakers, and concludes that the bedroom outlets are not AFCI-protected. You say, "Excuse me, but the hot tub is over here, not in the bedroom." Tell me what NEC article forbids the Inspector from writing up a violation. Tell me the article number of the NEC article that bears the title, "Grandfather Clause." Cite the NEC article that you can use as a basis for your plea, "I did not touch the bedroom circuits at all, so I don't have to install AFCI protection for the bedroom circuits."
Perhaps, but if the rules were interpreted this way, that would mean that everyone would be required to bring their house up to current code every three years. Clearly, this is an unreasonable burden to expect people to bear. Imagine, for example, if multiwire circuits were prohibited in a future edition of the code. So I pull a permit for, say, adding a new circuit in someone's house, and when the inspector looks over my work at the panel, he sees that every old circuit in the house is a multiwire circuit. The inspector then writes up a violation and says that the entire house has to be rewired.
If the rules were enforced this way, I'd bet there would be a steep decrease in the number of permits applied for. I'm sure I'd see a big drop in business if I had to tell everyone that if I touch their electrical system, I have to inspect their entire house and will have to bring everything up to current code, especially since I work almost exclusively on pre-WWII houses.
So why would you expect that the Inspector would ignore the non-compliance with current codes in an area not covered by the permit? I suppose that would depend on the actual wording of the permit, and the wording of the local laws and regulations that govern electrical installations, permits, and inspections. In other words, there might be a "grandfather clause" in the local codes, or it may simply be a matter of common practice and common expectation. But it is not an NEC issue, and therefore you cannot rely upon the AHJ to view existing installations in the same way that you would view them.
Maybe it should be an NEC issue. It would be nice to have a clause saying that a particular edition's rules are only meant to be enforced on work done after that edition of the code is adopted. That's how the AHJs around here do things. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect new work to comply with the current code.
In the various jurisdictions where I work, it's common to see language on inspection forms or in official documents that basically says that work that was legal when it was installed doesn't have to be brought up to code as long as it's safe to leave it as it is.
Another thing to consider is the legal implications of imposing ex post facto requirements on people. I'm no lawyer, but many of my friends are, and I'm sure they would tell you that ex post facto enforcement of rules is something that often gets challenged successfully in the courts. As an example, when Washington, D.C., implemented its very strict gun ban in the 1970s, they included a clause that said anyone possessing guns legally at the time the new law went into effect could still keep them. These "grandfather clauses" are often written into laws, probably so people don't sue.
) are a joke.
