not making a violation worse

[CopperTone]

I don't really know if this is true but I can't seem to locate this in the code book. If you work on some piece of equipment or do some work in a house and there are existing violations, you may not be required to bring them up to code as long as you dont make the violation any worse.

is that true ans where would it be in the code book if true?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

This would not be in the code book however you cannot add any circuitry to an existing illegal install. IMO.....

 

[joebell]

I don't really know if this is true but I can't seem to locate this in the code book. If you work on some piece of equipment or do some work in a house and there are existing violations, you may not be required to bring them up to code as long as you dont make the violation any worse.

is that true ans where would it be in the code book if true?

It is in the MA amendment section of your code book. I left my book on site today but I do know for sure it is in there. I'm sure someone will post it.

 

[Cow]

I don't know how Oregon stands but I have heard Iwire mention there's a MA amendment for what you're asking.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I think that would be a local code, And I think they add the following as long as you make it better than before. And that it was code compliant at the time.

 

[joebell]

527 cmr

527 cmr

527 CMR 12.00

Rule #3

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.


I found a copy of the MA ammendments ,is this what you were refering to?

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

527 CMR 12.00

Rule #3

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.


I found a copy of the MA ammendments ,is this what you were refering to?

So does this mean you can replace a receptacle that is on #14 and breakered at 20 amps ? Or am i reading too much into this ? Here any violations noticed that were never ok must be fixed. Simply meaning if it never was to code your fixing it.

 

[hurk27]

I don't really know if this is true but I can't seem to locate this in the code book. If you work on some piece of equipment or do some work in a house and there are existing violations, you may not be required to bring them up to code as long as you dont make the violation any worse.

is that true ans where would it be in the code book if true?

It was article 80 in the 2002 NEC but was not adopted by any jurisdictions, (that I know of) so it was moved to Annex G in the 2005. Some areas did adopted a few sections of article 80, and this section is one of the more common ones they used with changes, and for the most part they didn't even reference the NEC from it, as they applied it across all trades.

Here is what is in the 2002 NEC article 80:

(C) is what you were trying to quote.

80.9 Application.

(A) New Installations. This Code applies to new installations. Buildings with construction permits dated after adoption of this Code shall comply with its requirements.

(B) Existing Installations. Existing electrical installations that do not comply with the provisions of this Code shall be permitted to be continued in use unless the authority having jurisdiction determines that the lack of conformity with this Code presents an imminent danger to occupants. Where changes are required for correction of hazards, a reasonable amount of time shall be given for compliance, depending on the degree of the hazard.

(C) Additions, Alterations, or Repairs. Additions, alterations, or repairs to any building, structure, or premises shall conform to that required of a new building without requiring the existing building to comply with all the requirements of this Code. Additions, alterations, installations, or repairs shall not cause an existing building to become unsafe or to adversely affect the performance of the building as determined by the authority having jurisdiction. Electrical wiring added to an existing service, feeder, or branch circuit shall not result in an installation that violates the provisions of the Code in force at the time the additions are made.

 

[tallgirl]

So does this mean you can replace a receptacle that is on #14 and breakered at 20 amps ? Or am i reading too much into this ? Here any violations noticed that were never ok must be fixed. Simply meaning if it never was to code your fixing it.

I think the amendment means you can replace the existing (hypothetically broken) NEMA 5-15, but cannot install a NEMA 5-20, even if it were a dedicated circuit. "Fixing it" would require that you replace the 20A 1P with a 15A 1P.

In other words, you can keep all the code violations you find, you just can't add new ones.

Did I get that right?

 

[iwire]

So does this mean you can replace a receptacle that is on #14 and breakered at 20 amps ?

Absolutely.

Here any violations noticed that were never ok must be fixed. Simply meaning if it never was to code your fixing it.

It sucks to be you. :grin:

Notice that if there is a real hazard the inspector is supposed to notify the owner, not the EC. The EC is not supposed to be left holding the bag.

 

[hurk27]

527 CMR 12.00

Rule #3

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.


I found a copy of the MA amendments ,is this what you were referring to?

So does this mean you can replace a receptacle that is on #14 and breakered at 20 amps ? Or am i reading too much into this ? Here any violations noticed that were never ok must be fixed. Simply meaning if it never was to code your fixing it.

the wording is in part because of the grandfather laws, if there are violations that never met any code then they are open game and not covered by any grandfather laws, but violations that met the code in force at the time of the install can remain in place and all new work must be to "This Code"

Now doing additions can not make an existing installation a violation.

One such common example of this is relocating a service and using the existing panel as a sub panel, we now have made the bonding of the neutrals with the grounding a violation, also if there is any 3-wire dryer or range feeds from this subpanel they would too have become a violation, and would require addressing.

This is all that it is saying.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Absolutely.




It sucks to be you. :grin:

Notice that if there is a real hazard the inspector is supposed to notify the owner, not the EC. The EC is not supposed to be left holding the bag.

Never upsets me, just means more work and more hours for Jim to be paid for. I do not try to hide old violations and if possable will try to point him in right direction to find them. Builds a trust relationship with inspector. I want it passed because it is to code. When asked about anything i just tell it as it is. Once had inspector ask me if a new box was bonded. I told him that my guy was instructed to do it but i did not personally see it. We opened the box and yes was done.

 

[CopperTone]

527 CMR 12.00

Rule #3

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.


I found a copy of the MA ammendments ,is this what you were refering to?

yes this is exactly what i was looking for - thank you.

 

[knoppdude]

I concur with Dennis on this one, and there may be local building codes that address this specifically. I do think that you should inform the customer about the existing danger, and that you can fix it if they want, it could get you extra work, but get it in writing. I dred the day something happens near or on work that I have done, so I am always leary of working on old systems, as it is possible to make a marginal situation turn catastophic.

 

[electricmanscott]

I concur with Dennis on this one, and there may be local building codes that address this specifically. I do think that you should inform the customer about the existing danger, and that you can fix it if they want, it could get you extra work, but get it in writing. I dred the day something happens near or on work that I have done, so I am always leary of working on old systems, as it is possible to make a marginal situation turn catastophic.

Sounds great in theory. In reality every single house I go into is loaded with violations. Most get ignored unless there is a serious danger. We all know most code rules can be violated without creating a serious danger and for the most part the average person could care less. Do the lights work? Will my TV turn on? That's all that matters.

 

[Cow]

Sounds great in theory. In reality every single house I go into is loaded with violations. Most get ignored unless there is a serious danger. We all know most code rules can be violated without creating a serious danger and for the most part the average person could care less. Do the lights work? Will my TV turn on? That's all that matters.

Exactly. Read my mind.

 

[iwire]

Never upsets me, just means more work and more hours for Jim to be paid for. I do not try to hide old violations and if possable will try to point him in right direction to find them. Builds a trust relationship with inspector. I want it passed because it is to code.

Jim, where has anyone said anything about trying to hide anything or lie to the inspector?

All I expect is that if the work we did is code compliant the permit we pulled for that work will be signed off.

If there are other violations, and many times there are it is not my problem to deal with them.

If the inspector feels these violations need to be corrected it is the inspectors job to tell the property owner. The property owner may ask us to fix these other things and it will be apparent those are over and above any price agreements.

 

[tkb]

Would adding a receptacle to an existing circuit be exempt from having an AFCI breaker installed by Rule 3?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Would adding a receptacle to an existing circuit be exempt from having an AFCI breaker installed by Rule 3?

A little foreshadowing:

2011 NEC 210.12 AFCI Protection

(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications — Dwelling Units. ​

In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A), where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following:

(1) A listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch circuit

(2) A listed outlet branch-circuit type AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit​

​

​

If MA Rule 3 were to exempt it now, it doesn't look like it will for long. . . .​