1968 Edition of NEC as recommended by the NFPA

[Doug-f]

Hello, I purchased a home on the 13th of feb and on the 20th I received a letter that it is going to be tore down due to code violations. I am scrambling to bring all to minimum code in order to satisfy city. The city follows the 1968 edition of the NEC and does not have their own codes above and beyond. The home has new service to the box with one outlet right outside of the box. The electric for the rest of the house is unhooked from the box as it is to be replaced. Can anyone tell me if I am satisfying the NEC code according to the 1968 edition with this current set up? If not what is or where could I find the min?

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by Doug-f

Hello, I purchased a home on the 13th of feb and on the 20th I received a letter that it is going to be tore down due to code violations. I am scrambling to bring all to minimum code in order to satisfy city. The city follows the 1968 edition of the NEC and does not have their own codes above and beyond. The home has new service to the box with one outlet right outside of the box. The electric for the rest of the house is unhooked from the box as it is to be replaced. Can anyone tell me if I am satisfying the NEC code according to the 1968 edition with this current set up? If not what is or where could I find the min?

Your premise is unbelieveable and your question makes no sense. You've got one hour to prove to me that you're for real. If you can't I'm going to delete this thread.

- Jim Katen

Electrical Forum Moderator

[hausdok]

Hi,

Well, without knowing what the specific complaints are, there's no way that we can help you here.

It sounds like you bought the house without an inspection. If the problem is with the electrical, you need to hire a licensed electrician immediately to go down to city hall, get a copy of the violation, and then begin one-by-one to verify them and correct them.

Are you sure about that 1968 edition of the NEC? Did you actually talk to the local building inspector about this? Hell, that doesn't even require GFCI protection on the exterior. Why would any city open itself up to that kind of liability by using a 40 year old code?

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[hausdok]

I see that Jim was thinking the same thing that I was. I'm thinking a scanned copy of the official notice on the city's letterhead - no?

OT - OF!!!

M.

[emalernee]

I recommended Doug ask the question to you here in TIJ. The city is Weirton, WV that may not have had any new homes built since 1968. Think "Rust Belt".

He called me about this and I live 90 miles away, plus I do not own a copy of the 68 NEC, so I thought he could get some guidance on here. According to him, the city has given him 10 days or the house get torn down.

The first question is; does a house with a new service installed and one outlet next to that box (no other circuits are connected) meet the standard set by the 68 NEC?

I have already suggest that he contact a local Electrician.

Ezra Malernee

Canton, Ohio

[hausdok]

Heck Ezra,

It doesn't sound like it meets the 1909 NEC! I think you'd be really pushing it to try and find a home inspector - other than Douglas Hansen, perhaps - who has a copy of the 1968 NEC.

Has he tried the Mike Holt forum? If anyone would be able to help, I would think that crew over on those boards would - they're mostly electricians and code gurus. http://www.mikeholt.com

This doesn't make sense, though. When was the home built and why wouldn't they require folks to build homes to a later/safer version of the code?

OT - OF!!!

M.

[Bill Kibbel]

When my Mom and her family first came here from Finland, she lived in Weirton.

Could this be Doug's situation:

"The mayor reported a major issue with dilapidated structures is people purchasing them from out of state on tax auction without even seeing their condition. According to Harris, it is usually months before the new owners are able to repair the building and, by that time, the Building Enforcement Agency may have already marked it for demolition.

'These properties are a safety issue as well as an eyesore,' he said. 'We’re not just tearing them down because we can'.â€

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by emalernee

I recommended Doug ask the question to you here in TIJ. The city is Weirton, WV that may not have had any new homes built since 1968. Think "Rust Belt".

He called me about this and I live 90 miles away, plus I do not own a copy of the 68 NEC, so I thought he could get some guidance on here. According to him, the city has given him 10 days or the house get torn down.

The first question is; does a house with a new service installed and one outlet next to that box (no other circuits are connected) meet the standard set by the 68 NEC?

I have already suggest that he contact a local Electrician.

Ezra Malernee

Canton, Ohio

OK, an endorsement from Ezra is plenty good for me.

I happen to own a copy of the 1968 NEC. A house with only a service box and a single receptacle outlet doesn't come close to meeting the '68 NEC. The basics of the old code aren't any different from the modern NEC.

For starters, you'll need receptacle outlets in nearly every room, spaced roughly 12 feet apart. You'll also need switched lighting outlets and small appliance branch circuits.

There's really no point in trying to install an electrical system in accordance with an obsolete code. You need to hire an electrician to wire your house to a modern standard.

How did you come to buy a house that's ready to be torn down?

- Jim Katen

[hausdok]

Hi Bill,

After reading that article, one would suspect that might be the case.

I don't think talking to us is going to help - he needs a local guy who's right there to bird dog this thing.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[emalernee]

Thanks for your replies, I'm sure that Doug has his answer to his question, whether on not it is what he wanted to hear is another ?

The article that Bill Kibble directed us to is what is happening in many old cities. Tearing down old buildings that could be rehabbed, just to leave a weed filled lot that no one wants and that brings in no taxes, seems to be the only answer government can come up with.

It is happening in my city also, We have lost over 40,000 (10,000 houses) in population in the last 35 years, but the length of our roads, water, sewer and utilities haven't been reduced so taxes go up for those remaining. Some in our government want to tear down every other house and split the land between the remaining houses to make the city look more like the burbs. Yet, the burbs are suffering even greater in this market turn-down and as the population ages, most move away from big houses and yards.

Cities should update their maintenance codes and enforce them! If people choose not to keep up their property (affecting the value of their neighbors house) and are unable to sell them, homesteaders should be allowed to take over and bring the house up to current standards.

There, I solved some of the Problems of the world, now to go drown myself in a adult beverage.

Ezra Malernee

Canton, Ohio

P.S. I asked Doug to come to this forum because of the discussion going on at my other favorite forum on opening "it" up to the public to ask questions. Kurt and others have the solution to that problem, but will "they" listen?

[hausdok]

Hi Ezra,

I certainly appreciate the explanation. We meant no offense to Doug, but his post did seem pretty bizarre. 1968 Code? It sure seemed pretty far fetched.

I know what you're talking about when you refer to deteriorating houses. Have you ever checked out bid4assets.com ? There are thousands of distressed homes all over the country.

OT - OF!!!

Mike

[Steven Hockstein]

Originally posted by emalernee

Thanks for your replies, I'm sure that Doug has his answer to his question, whether on not it is what he wanted to hear is another ?

The article that Bill Kibble directed us to is what is happening in many old cities. Tearing down old buildings that could be rehabbed, just to leave a weed filled lot that no one wants and that brings in no taxes, seems to be the only answer government can come up with.

It is happening in my city also, We have lost over 40,000 (10,000 houses) in population in the last 35 years, but the length of our roads, water, sewer and utilities haven't been reduced so taxes go up for those remaining. Some in our government want to tear down every other house and split the land between the remaining houses to make the city look more like the burbs. Yet, the burbs are suffering even greater in this market turn-down and as the population ages, most move away from big houses and yards.

Cities should update their maintenance codes and enforce them! If people choose not to keep up their property (affecting the value of their neighbors house) and are unable to sell them, homesteaders should be allowed to take over and bring the house up to current standards.

There, I solved some of the Problems of the world, now to go drown myself in a adult beverage.

Ezra Malernee

Canton, Ohio

P.S. I asked Doug to come to this forum because of the discussion going on at my other favorite forum on opening "it" up to the public to ask questions. Kurt and others have the solution to that problem, but will "they" listen?

NJ has come up with a solution to this issue and it seems to be working. We have a "Rehab" Code that deals with the problem of old housing stock that is cost prohibitive to completely restore and meet current code.

The cost of tearing down and rebuilding does not make economic sense for speculators and the locals can't afford to rebuild.

When the the two choices were knock the house down or meet current code, many houses were just abandoned. Now if the owners or builders follow the "Rehab" code, the buildings can be saved and made safer for a lot less money. Everyone comes out ahead.