ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues NFPA 73 - Electrical Inspection Code for Existing Dwellings

I like this rule found in the 73 code:

2.9.8
Receptacles not having acceptable blade retention when tested with a listed retention tester shall be replaced.


[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 01-29-2003).]

I see a lot of room for abuse of power.

I find myself in conflict over this one. On one hand, I see how a document such as this could work to correct problem before they become a burned out shell. (Would the adoption of this mean the end to stablock panels?)

On the other hand, It's one more example of government saying that it has a right to poke it's nose into my business, with all of the tax spending bumblecrats that go with it. I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean that I welcome intrusions.

The compromise on this one will be tough.

TW

We have a thumb's up, and a thumb's down, maybe we need a thumb's straight out.

i understand the dislike of a police state, or a draconian shop.(ref ACLU of late)

bueracracy being the double edged sword...

having too little is as bad as having too much.

There is no way that you could use this type of code for routine inspections of homes. You would need probable cause and a search warrant to enter a home on a routine basis for this type of inspection. You could require something of this type at the time of sale.
Government intrusion into the lives of US citizens is, in my opinion, already excessive and is something that should be reduced, not increased.
Don

Joe:
Here in NJ, we have CCO inspections forresi, comm, and ind. properties that change type of occupancy or ownership.
I, as the electrical AHJ do a "visual" type inspection, and look for obvious life safety violations. The other inspectors also do the same for there technical areas (plumbing, bldg, fire, etc)
I'm going to obtain the NFPA 73, read it, and discuss if we can use it as a guide. I cannot "use" it without it being adopted, either by the State, or a municipality, as part of the UCC, or local ordinance.
John

Why, then, have none of the supporters of NFPA 73, even answered one question posted in my previous reply?
This code was, as I remember, a dead dog from day one. It's unenforcable expect by a police state. Bring this up at a town meeting in New Hampshire and you just may get stoned.

Adopted by the USA? What happened to states rights? Besides, a bill containg this code would die on the floor and never even make it to committee. This "code" has ex post facto written all over it and would also die under judicial review. Why?

1) It violates Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States: "...Congress shall pass no 'ex post facto' laws..."

2) It violates the Fourth Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Inspections of this type are called "fishing expeditions" in a court of law, and are not allowed under the rules of evidence.


Unfortunately, the two best examples of this philosophy actually being implemented were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

[QUOTE]"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety", --- Ben Franklin, who amongst his many other talents, was also a pioneer in our profession.[QUOTE/]

Joe, if you, pseudonym, and others wish the kind of safety NFPA 73 provides, then by all means move to Birmingham - but remember the old Chinese proverb, "BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR..."

Respectfully,
Len B

These inspections are usually done if the home sells by a home inspector(I know,I know,what are their qualification?}.But no matter what they see in violation,it usually just becomes a bargaining point for the buyer.Should the seller or the buyer be forced to correct this?I as a buyer would want the seller to and vice versa.
Maybe due to limited qualified inspectors,the home inspectors should be required to report any violations to the local inspector for further inspection and risk losing their license( aren't they licensed?)if they dont report a violation.The owner should be required to repair it.

I dont know what to do about the millions that dont sell but at least this would be a starting point.

I had thought NFPA 73 to be a two page generic (in the electrical sense) document for use by non-electrical inspectors?

In the past i had asked those to seek it out for rentals....

perhaps i was wrong.

I agree Len_B, (et all) with intrusion.

I wonder what ol' Ben Franklin's take on the Patriot act, Tips program, and Homeland Security would be.......

My apologies to anyone who was offended by the wording in my post. Certainly no offense was intended.

none taken here ga.sparky56,
some of us realize the sentiments towards McCarthyism.

Perhaps Mr. David Shapiro sheds some light on the subject at hand on pg 38 of Jan 03 EC mag, re; "New Rules for Old Wiring"

I see NJ is a leader??