Should 100% Compliance Always Be required?

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
In another thread we where talking about NJs 're-hab code' and MAs 'Rule 3'

Both seem to allow modifications to installations that do not comply to current codes without bringing every thing into compliance.

Here is MA 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
Click to expand...

Now here is what a service looked like Saturday AM

Bad_Service1.jpg


Bad_Service2.jpg


Here is what it looked like Saturday PM.

Bad_Service3.jpg




Keep in mind this was not 'my job' I was simply labor, there are some items I would have done differently.

Also this was one of two buildings side by side that had identical services.

Now when all is said and done is it safer now than when we arrived?

Where are the mains?

They are in each tenant space.

Would it have been better if we moved the mains outside?

Sure, and it would have added significantly to the cost of the job.

Keep in mind the owner could have simply ignored this entirely, they voluntarily decided to up grade after some gentle prodding by the power company.

If we went for full compliance than the owner would have said no (within their rights) and nothing would have changed.

Just wondering what others think?

Should there be allowances for existing conditions.

I think it is clear how I feel. ;)

Edit in the correct 'after' picture
 
Last edited:
What's the difference from AM to PM?
(not being smart, maybe my resoltion is low or just poor eye sight)
 
celtic said:
What's the difference from AM to PM?
(not being smart, maybe my resoltion is low or just poor eye sight)
Click to expand...

LMAO

err...uhh...that was just a test to see if anyone was paying attention. ;)

I will go back and fix it.
 
iwire said:
LMAO

err...uhh...that was just a test to see if anyone was paying attention. ;)
Click to expand...

That was close..I thought I was going to have to buy a BIGGER monitor and thick glasses :D :) :D
 
The difference I would be concerned about would be the safety issues. If the Rehab rules in Jersey and Rule # 3 in Mass are properly enforced and safety does not come into play, I see no problem. If safety is put "out of sight, out of mind" I am not for it 100%.

BTW: If these rules are adopted by the local or state level, I would adhere to them, as I do not make the rules, I try to follow them... even when I do not like them.
 
iwire said:
Now when all is said and done is it safer now than when we arrived?
Click to expand...

I can't tell a difference between pics 1 and 3. That must've been some sly work y'all were doing. :)

iwire said:
Should there be allowances for existing conditions.

I think it is clear how I feel. ;)[/I][/FONT]
Click to expand...

I live and work in a slightly-depressed, tired old rust belt city and probably 90% of my work is on old houses. I am firmly in favor of any municipal allowances for existing conditions that offer homeowners a means to make their houses safer than they currently are without forcing sweeping changes that would price improvements out of their range.

Within reason, of course. We all know that risks work at different levels, and some situations are inherently less safe (or more safe) than others. A recognition of that at the AHJ level is, I think, both prudent and progressive.
 
ceknight said:
I can't tell a difference between pics 1 and 3. That must've been some sly work y'all were doing. :)
Click to expand...

One of these days I'll remember to refresh my browser screen before hitting the "submit" button... Bob changed the pictures on my while I was typing my reply. :)
 
Shockedby277v said:
Much cleaner :) Is that nice fence going back up?? :)
Click to expand...

No, the fence will all be coming down.

The power company meter reader used to have to step over the live wires to read the meters.

Now they will just drive by, I believe the power company said the new meters are read by inferred means.
 
bikeindy said:
When was that other work done? I can't believe that was ever seen as a job well done.
Click to expand...

That is a good question.

The power company inspector said he has been on that area for 35 years and it was before his time.

What he and I both felt was originally this pad held power company pots. At some point the pots where relocated by the power company up to the top of the pole and the power company simply extended the secondary leads down the pole to tie onto the existing conductors.

That weather head coming up out of the ground is not the feed, it is a load out to a tenant space.

No it was not a pretty job at any time.
 
iwire said:
Keep in mind this was not 'my job' I was simply labor, there are some items I would have done differently.
Click to expand...
What would you have done differently?

I agree with you, there are some occasions were flexibility is the best policy. :)
 
georgestolz said:
What would you have done differently? :)
Click to expand...

I was not happy with the unistrut clips used with the PVC.

They are rock solid and long lasting but they do not let the PVC slide as it expands and contracts. 352.30

Also disappointed that the right hand weather head was not as high as the left hand side.

Regardless it is much better than it was and we had a lot to do. This was one of two buildings and we replaced some panels inside as well.

We had seven guys and the power company had at least that many.

The power company redid all the overhead work, replaced some poles and relocated the transformers out to the street.

They actually pulled copper quadplex overhead.
 
From the after photo, I would say that the weatherhead to the right is lower than the point of attachment or maybe I just need glasses too.;)
 
infinity said:
From the after photo, I would say that the weatherhead to the right is lower than the point of attachment
Click to expand...

You are correct.

I placed the left hand weather head and shortly after that the point of attachment. Later someone else ran the right hand riser lower.

However 230.54(C) does not apply to raceways.
 
I'm all for rule 3. Full compliance will often lead to a job not getting done, or done without a permit if they can get away with it.
 
Was that 4th meter even bolted to the wall? It seems to be taking on water and listing hard to port ;->
 
Iwire,

WOW!

"The power company meter reader used to have to step over the live wires to read the meters."

How could the installer of this sleep at night???


Justin J. Walecka
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top