Working Clearance

[celtic]

I doubt the owner would have done anything if we had to bring the two buildings into 100% 2005 compliance.

That is one of the main inspirations for the Rehab Code ~ cost - keeping the requirement a bit lower than today's standard and maintain an adequete level of safety.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

The way i had it exsplained this way from an inspector.Anything that was to code at time of install can stay.Items that never met code and are visable to him must be corected.All new works needs to comply to current code.I think its wrong to have 2 sets of rules.Was it ever legal to have less than 36 inches ? If not then its a violation that needs taken care of.If 24 inches is safe for this panel then it should be for all panels.Had this been something like 35 inches i think most would let it slide.What your doing is letting unsafe conditions stay because of cost to fix.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

These rehab rules seem to follow an old addage...

"Money talks, BS walks"

I would bet that the politicians had a lot to do with the passing of these "rehab" rules. (additional taxes, work, etc...Safety?? who needs safety when we can make money)


I still stay that a safety issue such as the MINIMUM 3 foot requirement should not be relaxed to save someone a little money.

In the original OP, the installation was conforming, a wall (most likely no permit pulled - therefore not inspected - HMMM, 3 foot clearance) was installed making it nonconforming... to me it is a problem that even "rehab" rules should not permit to be "look the other way" attitude.

MY VOTE as an inspector - make the corrections!!!


Another thought just entered my small and feeble mind... lets drop all codes and the building industry will always be a big booming industry with lots of money to make for all...YEE HAH!!!

 

[iwire]

MY VOTE as an inspector - make the corrections!!!

I guess I am lucky that the this state does not agree.

Pierre honestly just because it has to do with money does not mean it is evil.

If we followed your method (100% compliance every time) IMO much less bad work would be corrected

IMO it is better to make some corrections than none.

I am going to start a new thread about this.

JMO, Bob

 

[celtic]

I fully understand the question/arguement about when the non-conforming wall appeared. I agree it should be make "conforming"....BUT...

Who is responsible (financially) for that work?
Even if this wall was not erected by the present HO?
Did the city not meet their requirements for CCO after the sale?
Was there even a sale?

Would it be better to just ignore the wall and the buried FPE to save the money and headaches?

Even w/o the required clearances, will installing a new panel be safer than what is there?

 

[celtic]

I am going to start a new thread about this.

Don't you threaten us with a 100 page thread!

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Bob
One day you may become an inspector, then you will read back over these threads and say "I understand how he feels"

It is not always money, and I certainly do not think money is evil... I am a person who thinks it is the people who wield things like money and guns, etc.. that are evil.

But who decides which jobs are to be inspected to which codes and why is it sometimes the codes are applicable and other times they are not? It would seem that money has a lot to do with why and why not . Safety can be put on the backporch and we will say "out of sight, out of mind". Now she has a new panel, and the electrician who has to work on it in the future may have a less safe work site, but that is now okay because money has been made, taxes go up and the industry moves forward. (I exagerated with the tax thing to push my point... you know, politicians making laws to suit their constituents needs )

 

[iwire]

Another thought just entered my small and feeble mind... lets drop all codes and the building industry will always be a big booming industry with lots of money to make for all...YEE HAH!!!

No one is suggesting that.

I believe what is being discussed is trying to make current codes retroactive which IMHO is a serious overstepping of the rules.

This to me has not about ECs making more or less money at all.

IMO It has to do with the customers being able to afford a simple panel change until an overzealous inspector says that along with that panel change the house needs to be rebuilt to current codes.

Than the customer either does nothing or goes with a handyman job without permits.

 

[iwire]

Bob
One day you may become an inspector, then you will read back over these threads and say "I understand how he feels"

Pierre I doubt that. (No offense meant)

I have a very different outlook than you do.

I feel if the choice is between a little improvement and no improvement that a little is much better than none.

It appears you want a perfect world, it ain't gonna happen so work with what we got.

Be happy when any improvement is made than push for more after that.

JMO, Bob

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

From Bob
"IMO It has to do with the customers being able to afford a simple panel change until an overzealous inspector says that along with that panel change the house needs to be rebuilt to current codes."

If the whole house needs to be rebuilt for the panel change, then there are more serious problems than I first read about in the OP's post. I merely was addressing the clearance issue in front of the panel.



I will always be OVERZEALOUS when it comes to the safety portions of the NEC that are there to help protect the installer (there are too few)... we all know most requirements are in place to protect the consumer.

I do not have all of the answers, but I still believe some of the code issues need to be addressed without money coming into play. If she cannot afford the panel change, I do not know the answer. I would say her and her electrician may be able to work out the money end, and if not, well...

 

[iwire]

I do not have all of the answers, but I still believe some of the code issues need to be addressed without money coming into play. If she cannot afford the panel change, I do not know the answer. I would say her and her electrician may be able to work out the money end, and if not, well...

What does that mean?

If an electrician is asked by a customer to do a job the customer can not afford the EC should eat the loss?

I have done some work like that when the ECs have felt it was the right thing to do, but it was there choice.

No AHJ could force them to take the loss, which leaves the customer with no work getting down.

Forget about rebuilding the house.

There is generally a large difference in price between a panel change and a panel relocation.

Even the NEC realizes that overhead clearance is an issue that must sometimes be ignored in panel replacements.

There is a subtle but important difference between zealous and overzealous.

It has been my experiance that when people are 'over the top' they tend to be ignored instead of listened to.


Again JMO, Bob

 

[coulter]

... lets drop all codes and the building industry will always be a big booming industry with lots of money ...

Pierre -

Where I live that's effectively the way it is for single family and two family dwellings. There is no state or local inspection. If one has to borrow money, then it's between the bank and you as to the level of inspection and even who does it.

State Law says following the NEC is required and also the IBC (maybe the UBC), but there is no enforcement.

In my case I needed some money from the bank, and they required I hire an engineer to do a plans review and a foundation inspection. Other than that, no one has looked at it but me.

Generally the houses get built in two flavors - junk and well built. It's pretty easy to tell the difference. It's on a prospective buyer to arrange for inspections and even the quality of the inspectors. Big Brother is not going to take care of you.

A couple of the larger cities have local inspection departments and code enforcement. I can't tell the houses are built any better.

Interestingly, the percent of burned-down houses here is not much different from the code enforcement cities.

I realize you were being facetious, but it does work pretty good for some types of building.

For public access facilities the state does require code compliance and has enforcement.

carl

 

[bikeindy]

The 36" rule is already in violation. The panel needs to be replaced. The homeowner can't afford to relocate the wall. Replace the panel and the home is safer. Don"t replace it and the homeowner is at risk. You replace the panel and urge the homeowner to do something about the space ASAP. This is common sence. If you don't replace the panel you have two problems and the old panel is the greater threat IMO.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

When there is work to be done, and part of the "existing work" was never in conformity - I am not talking about a job that was fine when built but does not conform to todays codes; but work that was never in conformity and somehow got past the inspector at the time it was performed or for whatever reason it got to be in the state it is in. This nonconforming issue has to do with saftety (not like a receptacle has to be added), then yes as I have said, that portion will have to conform... reinstalling a violation that may concern safety would never float. This has nothing to do with being overzealous...

I was reading your post in another thread, and I see how there you mention that the wording is what we should pay attention to... how is this any different?


Remember I said that if the Remodel Code was here, I would follow it, as it is the law, pretty simple, but I do not have to say I like it.

I did not make the statement that an AHJ should make anyone pay for the cost, especially a contractor, AHJs do not get involved in the money matters of the job. Your second sentence seems to show you understood what the intention of the wording was.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

I guess I am lucky that the this state does not agree.

Pierre honestly just because it has to do with money does not mean it is evil.

If we followed your method (100% compliance every time) IMO much less bad work would be corrected

IMO it is better to make some corrections than none.

I am going to start a new thread about this.

JMO, Bob

I do agree with the part of some correction better than none but i would not like working with my back touching a wall.Maybe line the wall with rubber.

 

[charlie b]

. . . but i would not like working with my back touching a wall.Maybe line the wall with rubber.

That would not eliminate the hazard. The problem is not having a grounded surface opposite the panel. The problem is having enough room to fall away from the panel, if your hands were to become locked onto an energized bus (i.e., current exceeds the "let go" limit).

 

[tntsec]

I have a new install where the Plumber has told the home owner that the "code" does not permit the electrical panel to be located in the same room as the hot water heater. Far as I can see in 126.10 ther is nothing regarding hot water heaters... as long as piping steers clear. Am I in the right section?

 

[77401]

The 36" rule is already in violation. The panel needs to be replaced. The homeowner can't afford to relocate the wall. Replace the panel and the home is safer. Don"t replace it and the homeowner is at risk. You replace the panel and urge the homeowner to do something about the space ASAP. This is common sence. If you don't replace the panel you have two problems and the old panel is the greater threat IMO.

I agree.
But am I the only one here thinking ..."WHY EVEN PULL A PERMIT?"
Just put the panel into code, clean up the mess, NEXT!

Remember 77401 Three C's
Close the sale
Close your mouth
Close the door.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

I agree.
But am I the only one here thinking ..."WHY EVEN PULL A PERMIT?"
Just put the panel into code, clean up the mess, NEXT!

Remember 77401 Three C's
Close the sale
Close your mouth
Close the door.

Pulling the permit puts you in a better position if someday they sell that house and a good HI cites it.You then are risking your license for doing unpermited work or fixing for free.Also is the issue of someone getting hurt or killed.You will look stupid in court exsplaing why you did not pull the permit for what you know is a violation.Pull the permit,get inspected,get paid.

 

[dnem]

Anything that was to code at time of install can stay.Items that never met code and are visable to him must be corected.All new works needs to comply to current code.I think its wrong to have 2 sets of rules.Was it ever legal to have less than 36 inches ? If not then its a violation that needs taken care of.

Was it ever legal to have less than 36 inches ?

And for that panel replacing the panel stuck in the crawl space, was the original panel legally installed by the code of that time ?

Does NJ allow replacement of items that were never in compliance the day they were originally installed ?

David