If a condition is permitted under the 2008 NEC, but violates the 2005 NEC will it nevertheless be issued a violation, by a municipality that has not yet adopted the 2008 code and is still operating under the 2005 Code? (NYC). (Specifically I am concerned with 690.64(B)(2) which is LESS RESTRICTIVE in 2008 than in 2005.
Will that violation in general automatically be removed (voided, nullified) when the city adopts the 2008 code?
In Florida they passed an addendum to the building code to soften the "paved surface" bonding rules to reflect the 2008 changes(680.26(B)(2)(b)(1)), before we adopted the 2008. It is really the only legal way to do it if you are not using 90-4.
Re: Future less restrictive code trumps present code?
#196875 10/30/1011:53 AM10/30/1011:53 AM
I would say yes. That reminds me of a similar reverse situation where SE cables installed inside buildings under the '08 code were limited to 60-degree C, like NM cables, but might now be rated up to 75-degree C under the 2011. That is, if this change was actually made. I don’t have the 2011 NEC yet to verify this though
Kjay: From the 2011 (PDF version), book is in office...is this what you're looking for...
"(4) Installation Methods for Branch Circuits and Feeders. (a) Interior Installations. In addition to the provisions of this article, Type SE service-entrance cable used for interior wiring shall comply with the installation requirements of Part II of Article 334, excluding 334.80. Where installed in thermal insulation, the ampacity shall be in accordance with the 60°C (140°F) conductor temperature rating. The maximum conductor temperature rating shall be permitted to be used for ampacity adjustment and correction purposes, if the final derated ampacity does not exceed that for a 60°C (140°F) rated conductor. Informational Note No. 1: See 310.15(A)(3) for temperature limitation of conductors. Informational Note No. 2: For the installation of main power feeder conductors in dwelling units refer to 310.15(B)(7). (b) Exterior Installations. In addition to the provisions of this article, service-entrance cable used for feeders or branch circuits, where installed as exterior wiring, shall be installed in accordance with Part I of Article 225. The cable shall be supported in accordance with 334.30. Type USE cable installed as underground feeder and branch circuit cable shall comply with Part II of Article 340. 338.12 Uses Not Permitted. (A) Service-Entrance Cable. Service-entrance cable (SE) shall not be used under the following conditions or in the following locations: (1) Where subject to physical damage unless protected in accordance with 230.50(B) (2) Underground with or without a raceway (3) For exterior branch circuits and feeder wiring unless the installation complies with the provisions of Part I of Article 225 and is supported in accordance with 334.30 or is used as messenger-supported wiring as permitted in Part II of Article 396 (B) Underground Service-Entrance Cable. Underground service-entrance cable (USE) shall not be used under the following conditions or in the following locations: (1) For interior wiring 336.116 ARTICLE 338— SERVICE-ENTRANCE CABLE: TYPES SE AND USE 70–200
Lovely little conundrum, isn't it? Maybe we need to keep that in mind when we try to 'perfect' codes, or get into design issues. It's also a caution about blindly accepting whatever the 'wiseguys' decide.
Yet, with a newer 'model' code published, but not adopted, it is simply wrong to enforce language that has since been removed. That's precisely the sort of thing that led to the creation of the jury system - where no one is bound by 'precedent' or 'logic.' Indeed, the jury is the one place where someone can refuse to enforce a law that is seen as simply wrong, or wrongfully applied.
It's no accident that the Soviet author and political prisoner Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote of several such instances: folks imprisoned for making 'treasonous' or 'antisocial' assertions that were later found to be accurate. Unfortunately, that did not often result in the convicted being released. Nor was the 'system' in any way self-correction; the convict had to petition for a review.
We can't 'petition for review' after a building is built. Once an expensive error is made, the money and time is gone forever. So what's the solution?
Well, I've seen town councils move with lightning speed to enact bans on whatever harmless behavior becomes popular with unpopular ethnic, religious, or age groups. I suggest every inspector get the wheels turning to have enforcement of these questionable code provisions officially be put on hold, as quickly as possible.
That is simply not true. All it takes is for the city council to adopt an ordinance, and the ordinance can say whatever you want. I've yet to see a city department that didn't know exactly how to get something voted on at the next board meeting; in the meantime, there's usually a machanism to issue a temporary order until the next meeting.
As for simply enforcing laws as written - the 'just following orders' canard was dethroned decades ago.
Of course, I'm assuming that the town is the AHJ. Where that's not the case .... well, there seems to have been plenty of places that found ways to not comply with various laws to which they disagree. San Francisco's been pretty prominent, for example, in declaring that no city office will do anything to comply with (or enforce) immigration laws.
Simply put, where there's a will there's a way.
Of course I would prefer that this issue not arise. Let's think about that the next time we feel the need to add pages to the code books.
If the city, having jurisdiction, writes an ordinance, the code, as adopted, was "modified" then wasn't it? The fact remains, until the new code is adopted or until the old code is modified, the code that was adopted is still law.