ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Is the NEC "Law"?

"Notwithstanding, the national model code standards adopted into Title 24 apply to all occupancies in California except for modifications adopted by state agencies and local governing bodies."


Like this one... (Note it has not been changed to the current 2004 CEC with additions, the webmaster is slow...)
SF Code

Apparently they have switched over to the new code, but don't have it widley published yet. (Outside of thier office) So on my last inpsection, I asked what changed? The answer was "Oh, I don't know, but I can't hold you to them unless it becomes more available anyway, but simular to the same type of changes we made in years past."

Hillsbourogh hasn't up-dated thiers either... (Electrical starts on page 14)

Hillsborogh Code

(Expect Electure to pop in soon on this... Notably a pet peev of his in the past.)


From what I understand the State adopts a code and it is mandatory Statewide, (Spare Federal facilities) and Cities and Counties have to enforce it, but can add, delete, or change parts of it for local reasons. Like Hillsborogh says they have banned romex because they have a "Rat Problem". But MC is not allowed either... Conduit wiring methods only... IMPO They try to artificialy drive up building costs to keep undesirable people from building there...

SF has been sued and won about thier own state superceding codes. But has also given in on long standing arguments they have had in the past. Like 2 hour rated property line walls, one cable per hole in framing, and 10' ground rods only.

In my area (Chesapeake, VA), NEC is considered "law" in a roundabout way.

Chesapeake invokes VA state Uniform Statewide Building Code.

VAUSBC invokes IBC 2003 code.

And IBC 2003 references NEC 2002.

So, by law, NEC 2002 is required here, but it's far removed from actual state code.

"Any city, county, or fire protection district may establish more restrictive building standards than those contained in the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), if the amendment is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions [Health and Safety Code Section 18941.5(b)]."

They must:
"Make an express finding that each change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions."

With a couple of hundred different local jurisdictions here in So CA, I welcomed this addition to the CA Code. It provides some consistency. What was required in one city could be a violation 10 feet away in another.
That was supposed to change.

The "Sovereign City of San Francisco", among others, believes it is above the law.

edited for typo




[This message has been edited by electure (edited 12-12-2005).]

"That was supposed to change."

Scott,
What makes you think its going to change? "change is reasonably necessary" - "climatic, geological, or topographical" Language like that gives them permission to do whatever they want!

Unless you sue them, and have 20X's more "Experts" than what they think they have in the courtroom on your side, nothing will change. Hillsborogh will still ban NM due to thier non-existant "RAT Problem", and demand conduit methods only, because they claim it can "be re-pulled after a fire". (I Had to scape myself off the floor when thier Inspector told me that...)

"Sovereign City of San Francisco", will still say NM, and NMC is an un-nessesary toxic hazard to firefighters in commercial buildings due to buling density, and higher fire-rating requirements for those buildings with zero clearance property lines. NMC will still be banned for all but in concrete slabs in all residences as well for the same reason. Etc, etc...

Towns (Some) along the coast of San Mateo will still outlaw Flex, MC, and AC due to "Corrosion" when it is concealed in an inslated weather proofed wall...

They'll all have they're own regional excusses.... And an "Expert" to justify it....

Bigger cities often have enough political power to make their own rules. Here in Illinois, there are a lot of laws and rules that say, "xxxx, except for municipalities of over 500,000 population"...that means Chicago can do what it wants to in many cases.
Don

Fortunately for skingusmc and myself, Los Angeles (population more than 3.5 million, nearly 5 times that of San Francisco, and more than 340 times the size of Hillsborough)) didn't make a bunch of stupid amendments of their own.

[sarcasm] San Franciscans should rest well and feel safe at night knowing that the high-legs of their delta systems are marked purple, instead of orange, as required by the "menial" NEC.[/sarcasm]
A violation could in its extreme result in an EC being fined, imprisoned, or both.

Instead of "going with the program" and cooperating with the State, SF's elected officials are busy doing things like THIS
It's no WONDER everybody thinks that Calfornians are all crazies.

Ridiculous and absurd



[This message has been edited by electure (edited 12-13-2005).]