Change the standard: deadline approaching for NFPA 73 input

**david shapiro** · 05-16-2023, 01:55 PM

NFPA 73, Electrical Inspection of Existing Dwellings, is not ASHI or InterNachi, but it is adopted by a couple of states.

It might be worth your while to look at. It's not long, and you can find it at www.NFPA.org/73. If you select Current Edition and "Free view" you might find something you think is worth improving. Then you can back out one step and hit "Next Edition" ->Submit Input. As with all standards I've seen, input has to be specific wording to plug into a specific location in the standard, followed by substantiation.

If you wonder about the whole business of standards-development and adoption, some folks have proposed a framework for the process, including checking whether the document accomplishes the change people hoped for. The organizations that put this together are taking public comment on it:

https://share.ansi.org/Shared%20Docu...rds_051223.pdf

Similar Threads:

**Jerry Peck** · 05-16-2023, 07:24 PM

David,

I hate to be the one to point this out ... (okay, so I don't really hate being the one pointing this out

) ... but the farce starts here:

- 1.1 Scope. blah, blah, blah ... electrical systems in existing one-family, two-family, and multifamily dwellings, including mobile home and manufactured homes.

- - (My comment:

- - Manufactured homes and mobile homes ... which, by the way, are one and the same ... under the building codes and HUD, with the exception that they were called "mobile homes" if manufactured on or before June 14, 1976 because the HUD Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, effective June 15, 1976.

- - From Title 24 Subtitle B Chapter XX Part 3280 as currently on the CFR site ("Displaying title 24, up to date as of 5/12/2023. Title 24 was last amended 5/11/2023") only references NFPA 70 for 6 items:

- - - 1 - The installation of the service equipment complies with Article 230 of the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70?2005 .

- - - 2 - Bonding and grounding of the service must be in accordance with Article 250, NFPA 70?2005, National Electrical Code

- - - 3 - The manufacturer must include in its installation instructions one method of grounding the service equipment at the installation site. The instructions must clearly state that other methods of grounding are found in Article 250 of NFPA 70?2005, National Electrical Code

- - - 4 - See Article 110?22 of NFPA 70?2005, National Electrical Code (incorporated by reference, see ? 3280.4), concerning the identification of each disconnecting means and each service, feeder, or branch circuit at the point where it originated, and the type of marking needed.

- - - 5 - A substantial brace for securing a box, fitting, or cabinet must be as described in the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70?2005, Article 314.23(B)

- - - 6 - Electrical polarity checks to determine that connections have been made in accordance with applicable provisions of these standards and Article 550.17 of NFPA 70?2005

- - End my comment)

1.3.1 This standard shall apply to hazardous conditions of electrical systems including, but not limited to, the following:

(7) Noncompliant installations.

(My comment: Noncompliant to what? See 2.4 below.)

1.4 Equivalency.

- 1.4.1 Devices, systems, or methods that differ from those in this standard shall be permitted to be examined or tested according to the intent of this standard.

2.1 General. The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this standard and shall be considered part of the requirements of this document.

2.4 References for Etracts in Nadatory Sections.
- NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2017 Edition

- - (My comment: So ... NFPA 73 only applies to electrical systems in existing one-family, two-family, and multifamily dwellings, including mobile home and manufactured homes permitted under NFPA 70, 2017 Edition ... right? Keeping in mind that the HUD standard only refers to the NFPA 70, 2005 Edition.)

Please correct me where I made errors in reading and retyping.

**david shapiro** · 05-17-2023, 06:44 AM

Jerry, this is a fine matter for discussion. Part of the discussion may involve harmonization. First, a quibble. The 2023 NEC waffles a bit in Article 100, which contains all the definitions. It has separate definitions for Manufactured Home and Mobile Home, specifies that Mobile Homes do not have permanent foundations but that Manufactured Homes may or may not, and acknowledges that the terms are used interchangeably except where differentiated in the article.

A bigger issue is whether Title 24 has changed over time, and if it has, whether existing, out on the lot homes are considered grandfathered. I get the sense it is intended primarily for use in the factory, when the home is transported, and finally when it is put in place and hooked up.

What happens when an existing manufactured home, on a permanent foundation, is posted for sale, or is converted into a rental? In some cases, this has triggered a formal inspection. This may be a buyer-requested private inspection, or it may involve the jurisdiction. Rarely will it involve the Feds, and I don't know that many local jurisdictions inspect homes to CFR standards.

One reason for NFPA 73 to exist is that existing homes are not expected to comply with all of the latest edition of the NEC, or with the latest edition that?s been adopted locally. In most cases, it sets a more-minimum minimum standard. At the same time, it asks questions such as ?Does this listed receptacle still grab a plug well,? which should be irrelevant in almost all new work.

In something over a year, I expect NFPA 73 to reference the 2023 NEC. I do not expect it to add a requirement for a firefighter's disconnect. I think that's too recent.

I've thrown in a bunch of inputs for this cycle. The substantiation for one of them is an ASHI spec, 11.1 in ?Auxiliary Standards of Professional Practice for Residential Deck Inspections,?
and I'd love to know, rather than just guess, how that came about. If there's a hot tub on a deck, it needs adequate support. Right, makes sense: water's heavy. I've suggested a general requirement for adequate equipment support be added to the requirement that it be secured. What I wonder is whether the ASHI document added this requirement in response to statistics or at least formal case reports.

**Jerry Peck** · 05-17-2023, 04:49 PM

David, first and foremost, if ... and that is a bing IF ... there is to be an NFPA 73 for "Existing" homes/dwelling/etc ... then the the scope should include a statement to the effect of 'compliant with the applicable codes at the time of construction or manufacture, and at the time the work was done, and ... a very important "and" ... "and" with the application and enforcement which was in effect at those same times.

Practical?

Of courses not. No jurisdiction will have detailed records of what code was in effect at what time and ... that very important "and" ... and how well the code was enforced at those times.

Just as importantly as "what code was applicable at such time" is "how strictly was that code enforced at such time".

There are some states which I have, in the past, said 'they don't have an building code', not because 'they did not HAVE a building code', but because 'they did not fully ENFORCE the building code' which was in effect.

It is unreasonable to expected the owners of EXISTING buildings/homes/dwellings/etc to meet a code which was in effect if that code was not ENFORCED ... and even more unreasonable to expect such buildings/homes/dwelling/etc to meet newer editions of the codes.

I did code inspections for AHJ and engineering firms for about 10 years and never ... NEVER ... found any jurisdiction which actually wanted the codes FULLY ENFORCED. Enforced to the least 'mostest' amount which they could do without having city/county commissioners/council members threatening the building officials with losing their jobs if they continue to fully enforce ... blah, blah, blah ...

And I did code inspections for clients as 'owner's representative' for probably 10 years prior to that, with some of those "owners" being the developer/contractor of the projects for their clients.

That would be like going back and reviewing all videos from wherever the videos were taken and giving out parking, speeding, running stop signs, etc, tickets years after the fact. It is ENFORCEMENT which is the kicker.

**david shapiro** · 05-17-2023, 05:09 PM

Jerry, you seem to argue for a higher standard than is feasible. If such a statement were included, what would be the point of the rest of a "standard for electrical inspection of existing dwellings"? One thing only: requiring replacement of equipment that had deteriorated badly.

My idea of NFPA 73 is a formal way to sketch out some of the times to say, "This here is just too dangerous." "That over there is worn out, and legal or not legal, doesn't do its job which is important for life safety." Things like that. These statements speak to practical issues, which don't hinge on what code was enforced when.

Do you believe there is no place for such a standard?

**Jerry Peck** · 05-17-2023, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by david shapiro

Jerry, you seem to argue for a higher standard than is feasible.

No, David, that standard is expecting EXISTING dwellings/etc to meet CURRENT safety requirements.

Yet, in that standard, there are no definitions for:

From 1.3.1
(1) Safety hazards
(2) Fire hazards
(3) shock hazards
(4) Overheating conditions
(5) Physical deterioration
(6) Abuse
(7) Noncompliant installations

... except for (7) Noncompliant installations which are referenced to a 2017 Edition of the code. Surely you are not suggesting that doing so it fair and appropriate, are you?

If such a statement were included, what would be the point of the rest of a "standard for electrical inspection of existing dwellings"?

Without such a statement, one can not be expected to find a 2017 compliant 1970 dwelling. If you disagree, please explain how one would accomplish such a feat.

One thing only: requiring replacement of equipment that had deteriorated badly.

Maybe we should require replacement of leaking roofs as leaking roofs can, and do, lead deteriorated roof structures, which can, and do, lead to structural failures.

If one wants all dwellings/ etc to meet 2017 or newer standards, there actually is a solution, and it would be a building boom as seldom seen (it happened after Hurricane Andrew in South Florida, and is happening in some parts of California from wild fires): tear existing houses down and rebuild with new (okay, Hurricane Andrew did the tearing down, and the wildfires did the burning down, people didn't need to do that, Mother Nature did it).

My idea of NFPA 73 is a formal way to sketch out some of the times to say, "This here is just too dangerous." "That over there is worn out, and legal or not legal, doesn't do its job which is important for life safety." Things like that. These statements speak to practical issues, which don't hinge on what code was enforced when.

Pie in the sky. You need to wear some shades when looking up at the bright sun up in the sky ... but there still will not be any pie up there.

Do you believe there is no place for such a standard?

I could not have worded the answer any better.

There "is no place" for such a standard.

First and foremost: ENFORCE (completely enforce) the applicable codes on new construction. (okay, that is actually second).

First and foremost: ADOPT consistent codes throughout the country, without each area of the country having the ability to say 'we don't need that here' ... but that is never going to happen.

If ... IF ... the above second "first and foremost" thing gets done, then go to the first "first and foremost" thing and actually enforce those codes.

Do you think either of the above will actually be accomplished? No a chance. Too many locals "know better" and "know" that the things they don't want at "unnecessary".

David, I applaud you for thinking toward that goal, but first, the above two things must be done to achieve the initial goal of actually constructing compliant dwelling AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION which are:

(1) Safe from hazards
(2) Have no Fire hazards
(3) Have no shock hazards
(4) Have no Overheating conditions
(5) Have no Physical deterioration (yes, even in new construction - years ago I posted photos of new construction at framing stage where I stuck a screw driver through 2x4s, entire second floor was constructed with them - I gave those reports to my clients at the time)
(6) Have no Abuse (yes, also at new construction)
(7) Have no Noncompliant installations (and especially this at new construction)

**david shapiro** · 05-18-2023, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No, David, that standard is expecting EXISTING dwellings/etc to meet CURRENT safety requirements.

Yet, in that standard, there are no definitions for:

From 1.3.1
(1) Safety hazards
(2) Fire hazards
(3) shock hazards
(4) Overheating conditions
(5) Physical deterioration
(6) Abuse
(7) Noncompliant installations

The rule for NFPA standards is that when a term is not defined--and as of the 2023 edition of the NEC, this means defined in Article 100--you look to the dictionary. If we believed these were used as terms of art, meaning having special, non-dictionary meanings, then we could add definitions for them to NFPA standards.

... except for (7) Noncompliant installations which are referenced to a 2017 Edition of the code. Surely you are not suggesting that doing so it fair and appropriate, are you?

Without such a statement, one can not be expected to find a 2017 compliant 1970 dwelling. If you disagree, please explain how one would accomplish such a feat.

>There's a basic rule that I've seen enforced: if something is added illegally, it needs either to be yanked or brought into compliance with the rule that currently is enforced.

>The research that led to the creation of this code identified hazards that were largely the ones you have noted yourself: work that wasn't compliant from the git-go. It may have been done wrong at initial stick (or factory) construction, or it may have been illegal replacement work. Based on the "origin and development" writeup, I believe, but am not sure, that the presumption was that most of the illegalities was created in the course of replacement. After all, it initially was titled a "maintenance" code. The research that led to its creation found noncompliance such as luminaires fed by conductors with the wrong temperature rating. I find it hard (not impossible, but mighty hard) to imagine this error at the time of initial construction.

Maybe we should require replacement of leaking roofs as leaking roofs can, and do, lead deteriorated roof structures, which can, and do, lead to structural failures.

>I do think that at the times an NFPA 73 inspection is likely to be performed, or an ASHI SOP inspection, or InterNachi, or what-all, leaking roofs should be cited, and replacement/repair of the roofs and any ancillary damage by arranged either the seller or the person converting the property into a rental or other category--or credit for the work factored into the price paid by a new owner.

If one wants all dwellings/ etc to meet 2017 or newer standards, there actually is a solution, and it would be a building boom as seldom seen (it happened after Hurricane Andrew in South Florida, and is happening in some parts of California from wild fires): tear existing houses down and rebuild with new (okay, Hurricane Andrew did the tearing down, and the wildfires did the burning down, people didn't need to do that, Mother Nature did it).

Pie in the sky. You need to wear some shades when looking up at the bright sun up in the sky ... but there still will not be any pie up there.

>I hate shady dealings. And many years ago, when my wife asked me what I wanted for my birthday, I asked for (and got) her to wake me with a chocolate cream pie in the face. Not the sky, but close enough: she lights my life.

I could not have worded the answer any better.

There "is no place" for such a standard.

First and foremost: ENFORCE (completely enforce) the applicable codes on new construction. (okay, that is actually second).

First and foremost: ADOPT consistent codes throughout the country, without each area of the country having the ability to say 'we don't need that here' ... but that is never going to happen.

If ... IF ... the above second "first and foremost" thing gets done, then go to the first "first and foremost" thing and actually enforce those codes.

Do you think either of the above will actually be accomplished? No a chance. Too many locals "know better" and "know" that the things they don't want at "unnecessary".

David, I applaud you for thinking toward that goal, but first, the above two things must be done to achieve the initial goal of actually constructing compliant dwelling AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION which are:

(1) Safe from hazards
(2) Have no Fire hazards
(3) Have no shock hazards
(4) Have no Overheating conditions
(5) Have no Physical deterioration (yes, even in new construction - years ago I posted photos of new construction at framing stage where I stuck a screw driver through 2x4s, entire second floor was constructed with them - I gave those reports to my clients at the time)
(6) Have no Abuse (yes, also at new construction)
(7) Have no Noncompliant installations (and especially this at new construction)

>I wonder: how often, in the ordinary course of life, do homebuyers in new developments hire HIs to inspect this big, big purchase? I suspect this is quite rare. Yet in buying a previously occupied home, this is done frequently. I have, as you have, seen hideous violations in homes that were quite overlooked by licensed HIs. They might have looked at all the items their SOPs told them to look at, but I know that some of them didn't recognize what they were seeing. I've looked at reports and the laughable descriptions of the pictures in them. This is one reason I think NFPA 73 might--might--help in some cases.

**Jerry Peck** · 05-18-2023, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by david shapiro

>I wonder: how often, in the ordinary course of life, do homebuyers in new developments hire HIs to inspect this big, big purchase? I suspect this is quite rare. Yet in buying a previously occupied home, this is done frequently.

In relation to buyers having existing homes inspected by HIs versus new construction homes inspected by HIs, while maybe no longer be "rare", it is "much less common" - I will agree with that.

Having done both types of inspections ... I can attest to the fact that the vast majority of contractors/builders do not want, and would not allow if they could deny such, HIs inspecting their new construction.

Heck, contractors and builders do not even want code certified/licensed AHJ inspectors inspecting their new construction ... so having to deal with code unlicensed/uncertified HIs is understandable to an extent ... because there are many code unlicensed/uncertified HIs who have provided their clients, and those contractors, with reports which include embarrassing items.

Embarrassing items? Yes, because the HI does not ... and I do not say that lightly ... does not know or understand the code to which they should be inspecting new construction to.

MY OPINION is that if HIs 'are not code certified' (i.e., have passed the ICC Residential Building Inspector, Residential Mechanical Inspector, Residential Electrical Inspector, and Residential Plumbing Inspector test, which then also gives them the ICC Residential 1 & 2 Family Dwelling Inspector - which I think is now called "Residential Combination Inspector" - MY OPINION is that the HIs who do not have that should clarify to their clients that the HI is 'only doing a cosmetic inspection'.

And any HI who does a 'cosmetic inspection' is opening themselves up for grief as there are no 'cosmetic inspection' standards to base their inspection on. Is the HI using what is 'cosmetic to them and what the HI thinks is 'oh, that is not good''?

Thus ... MY OPINION ... is that all HIs should take the ICC tests and get their ICC "Residential Combination Inspector (RCI)" certification ... but I've been saying that for over 30 years (okay, first it was SBCCI over 30 years ago , which became ICC a little over 20 years ago).

Why? Why get that ICC certification when you are inspecting older existing homes when you are not doing a code inspection? Because you have a better understanding of how things are supposed to be built, and ... oh, yeah, there are those new construction houses that HIs are inspecting.

OFF MY SOAP BOX NOW ...

I have, as you have, seen hideous violations in homes that were quite overlooked by licensed HIs. They might have looked at all the items their SOPs told them to look at, but I know that some of them didn't recognize what they were seeing. I've looked at reports and the laughable descriptions of the pictures in them. This is one reason I think NFPA 73 might--might--help in some cases.

Agreed. However ...

Again, David, I have, and I am sure that you have too, seen hideouse violations in new construction homes and buildings.

So don't go blaming HIs for the failures of the contractors. Yes, the failures of THE CONTRACTORS.

It is not the responsibility of AHJ inspector to make sure that buildings are built correctly - that is the responsibility of the CONTRACTORS. Al the AHJ inspectors do ... all they should have to do ... is go around and look at things and give the CONTRACTORS an "Attaboy" for doing the work as the contractor said they would do the work - to code.

Instead, the AHJ inspectors are left with the task of pointing out all of the noncompliant work the CONTRACTORS did.

There is just one party which is responsible for the construction meeting the approved construction documents and the codes. Can you guess which party that is?

Before you blame HIs for things on existing homes, blame the AHJ inspectors for allowing so many things on new construction, and before you blame AHJ inspectors for the things on new construction, blame the contractors who did that work.

I,e,. "new work" is "new construction" and thus applies to existing homes.

DANG! I thought I was off my soap box, but somehow I must have stepped back up on it.