ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Letter of the code?

Now here is a monkey wrench in this entire discussion:

What must an electrician do in an apartment building when renewing a branch of wiring in one apartment.

The branch in question is part of a 15 amp circuit feeding bedroom and bathroom (1950s vintage building) lightbulbs and wall sockets.

This includes the bathroom which is fed from the same circuit that feeds the adjoining bedroom.

The bathroom's original ungrounded receptacle integral to the lampholder mounted on the wall (I'm sure you've all seen these).

Theoretically a GFCI could be branched off this existing 15-amp, but as is obvious, that is against code.

What I'm not clear on still is, is there some sort of grandfather clause here that would permit an installer to technically move that receptacle to the wall (instead of next to the lampholder) but keep it on the same circuit as the bulb or does an electrician have to come in and pull a separate 20-amp feed from the buildings main fuse box?

The code states that a bathroom receptacle must be a dedicated 20-amp GFCI socket, right?

What I would like to know is this only for new construction and substantial renovation or does this also cover replacement of exisiting wiring through existing wiring paths?

Confused

Sven,

The answer is in the mind of the electrical AHJ for the place where the apartment is. S/He will know of the "remodeling code" modifications to the National Electrical Code that apply to the specific occupancy in question. I know this is a delicate issue with you, but, you really need to form a relationship with your AHJ.

I work in Minnesota. We have a uniform statewide interpretation of the NEC given from the Minnesota State Board of Electricity for all new construction. For existing buildings, the "rehab code" is described in many different places. . .the State Building Code, county and city. Sometimes, even a lending institution will make requirements, when it is their money that is being used by the party they are providing the loan to.

I have to be familiar with all of these regulations in order to give my customer the most value for his dollar. If I insist on only using the unmodified NEC, I penalize my customer.

Harold,

I like the idea of a single statewide rehab code. Anything that will reduce the number of bodies of regulation that I have to be familiar with is, potentially, an improvement.

ElectricAL,

The Rehab code is one of the reasons I brought this whole subject up. I know that we would all love to see every house wired perfectly. We all also know that it could happen only in a fairy tale. Sometimes there has to be a happy medium and I wonder if this Rehab code might be it. I know that there are bugs in the code, and hopefully over time, they too might get worked out. I also feel that the more we over regulate people, the more that they will back away from doing things the correct way. The general public will get discouraged from getting permits and getting inspections. Also no matter how fool proof we try to make electrical wiring, some dumb sope will find a way to kill himself.

the voice of reason as usual Harold.

i only wish there were more like yourself out there. you see as a rural electrician many of us are the ambassadors of the code, we have to sell it without much backup.

simply put, those that would stand on the letter of the code unbending without having it questioned do us a disservice in that role.

having individual states legislate around the NECorates is testimony to this, they are counterproductive to the very concept (safety) that they stand on.

this is what really gets my goat about the whole matter, live in the real world for cripes sakes!

ElectricAl, Sparky, et al:
Briefly, the "Rehab" code in NJ was/is intended to provide some financial relief for builders/developers within the "inner cities"
The reasoning that was provided to me was/is:
If they can rehabilitate existing structures and return the property to a useful state, and back on the tax roles, they can deviate from the current codes in effect, providing there is no compromise of safety.

Yes, I do not agree with the whole thing, but I am not the legislature, or the DCA.

It can and sometimes is abused...and it should be revised and be more specific, as to it's intent.

There are several AHJ's who are preparing submittals for revision/clarification. The bright side is that the State DCA maintains an office staff that can and do make clarifications, when the AHJ requires interpertation.

I'm jumping off the soap box.
John

Electrical, I agree that Harold's code seems to allow this. My points are based on the NEC. I am well aware there are many areas that use the NEC or modified versions. My state is one that uses modified version. I still beleive that on a new installation you must install to the current code.

I think that some are missing the point of code adoption. The NEC and any other code that AHJ's use have to be adopted legally to be enforced. Many adopters either at a state and/or local level modify the code when they adopt it.
No one can write a code that will cover all situations encountered in real world buildings. The age and workmanship of the builder and those who modified it over the years, and the care it recieved are all things that vary greatly.
We all have to make calls that are the best for our customer if we want to stay in business. If we don't our customers will NOT call us. Joe fly by nite will do what the customer wants and WITHOUT any permits or inspections.
So the question becomes who is going to do the work? A licensed caring electrician or joe fly by nite?

Electricmanscott,

I think I understand your point. Let me paraphrase: If the work results in an electrical outlet that is new, that wasn't there before in "this old house", then it is a "new installation".

Personally, only having to use the unmodified NEC would simplify and reduce the amount of studying I have to do, and that would be good for me. . .but, IMO, the resulting bill I give to my customer will be, on occasion, high, and the collateral costs to finish after my installation (wall surface repair and refinishing) will be high.

This begs the question.

HotLine1 said it well To "builders/developers" over in Minneapolis/St. Paul we add home owners. Individual homeowners of older homes, especially those built before about 1950, can maintain a property by meeting the Electrical Minimum Maintenance Code, (our local Rehab Code), which will maintain or increase property value in the tax base, and increase safety for the occupants of the dwelling. The target is the economically depressed areas of the Metro area.

I've been working with various Rehab Codes in my Metro area since I started business over 25 years ago, and find, overall, a great deal of common sense lies at the heart of this, and that, overall, the existing older housing stock doesn't stagnate, rather, continues to improve and remain viable.

[This message has been edited by ElectricAL (edited 03-20-2003).]

Lots of good points from both sides of this issue. Electricians AND Inspectors need to walk a fine line between the letter of the code and the spirit of the code. Not an easy job for either of us. And, unfortunately, it's an argument that's been around forever and will likely stay with us. I guess as long as we keep debating the issue, we keep from going to far in one direction or the other. I think that's the real issue here. If we swing too far to one side, there's no flexibility and the resulting costs and headaches will cause homeowners and contractors to try to skirt the code. But, if we create an atmosphere where we are so flexible that we make exceptions every time something would be expensive or inconvenient, we've defeated the purpose of having a code and inspections in the first place. More dialogue between electricians and inspectors and a better working relationship between them will help. And, a little (maybe a lot) less input from the politicians would really help. Let those of us in the trade make these kinds of decisions. Just my opinion...

Mvannevel,

I agree with you. As an inspector, I try to walk a fine line. I don't know any good electrical contractor that doesn't want a safe installation. I don't know any inspector who would allow any unsafe electrical installation. We all want safety. Execpt for the "jack-of-all-trades" who just wants his money and runs. Even the DIY who doesn't know anything and thinks that he is saving tons of money by doing himself, still wants it done correctly. I just don't want to see the NEC become TOO restrictive that it makes people shy away from geting inspections. I feel it is better if I do get to inspect them because even if it is wrong I can help them get it right. I know that like Joe T. ( who was my teacher, mentor, and a great friend.) who always wants safety first. (As I do.) My thoughts still come back to, no matter how hard we try to make electricty safe, some dumb a** is going to get his butt fried because he tried to get around the NEC. Can we stop him? NO, can we try to protect him? We can TRY. We can try to get people to protect themselves with codes but as Joe can show you in pictures, there are many people out there with out the common sense to help or kill themselves.