One Family Dwelling in Chicago area wired in thinwall

Originally Posted By: wdecker
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Greg;


Of course we have home stores. Why in our area we just got that new fangled indor plumbing and those shiny white inside outhouses!



You continue to miss the point.

It is more often than not true that when Joe Homeowner wires his own new basement rec room or runs a new branch to that ceiling fan that his wife wants put in right over their bed, he will make a mess of it. This applies whether he will be using ROMEX or EMT.

In out area, if he uses Romex, it is a clear and plain code violation. I call thse out to my clients because they are buying a house with added liability, both in the form of greater fire hazard, but also in terms of resale value. If a code inspector comes in and finds the Romex (and around here, code inspectors MUST be given access is they ask for it) he can red tag the house.

I know a guy who wanted to put new siding on his back porch. He reomved the service drop SE cable, put on the new siding and just stapled the old SE back on.

He sold the house. The inspectors didn't call this code violation out (mist be upgraded to rigid pipe SE when remodeled) and the new buyer got hit with a $3000 bill about 1 year after the sale. The new owner was assuming the liability without knowing about it.

If the work is done by a licensed and insured person, the tradesman has the liability AND the customer has actual recourse.

Sure, there are homeowners who know hos to do it, but they are few, I'm sure you would agree.


--
Will Decker
Decker Home Services
Skokie, IL 60076
wjd@DeckerHomeServices.com

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I guess I do miss the point. I thought this was a condemnation of Romex as an unsafe wiring method. Now it has morphed into a discussion of unlicensed, unpermitted wiring.


If you are saying to see Romex indicates an unpermitted, uninspected addition in your area I will agree but simply to say properly permitted, installed and inspected Romex is a hazard is ridiculous.


Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Seeing as we have already strayed all over the place I will continue doing so.


In my opinion the 'extra' money spent on EMT over NM could be better spent on fireproofing or residential sprinklers etc.

Remember EMT or NM we are still talking about wood framed structures with tons of combustible furnishings.

If NM was really the cause of more fires than EMT both the NEC (written by the National Fire Protection Agency) and the insurance companies would be up in arms.

IMO most fires start at terminations not in the middle of a run, NM or EMT the terminations will be in a box.

Yeah NM does not stand up to varmints chewing on it but I do not see that happening around my area.

Its all opinion, if someone wants to use EMT in their own house by all means go for it. ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif) However I am not ready to have the NEC say we have to.

Many of the electricians I work with have built their own house and not one has opted for EMT even though the stock would have been 'free'.


--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob you buy wire all the time. Correct me if I am wrong. It was my impression on my forays into the BORG that a 500’ spool of THHN cost about as much as 250’ of RX. If I pulled a green that is automatically a 50% increase in cost and I haven’t bought any EMT or any connectors yet. I can’t believe EMT is even close to the cost of a RX job. With labor it has to me more like 3x the cost I would think, especially if you are using plastic boxes that don’t require connectors. Those quarters add up pretty fast by the end of the day.


Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Greg I almost never see prices but I think you are in the ball park.


I figured on looking at HD prices and trying to make a comparison.

I think you hit the nail on the head with MC.

If this EMT requirement was only about safety, not labor IMO they would be running MC or AC. Both products can be had with steel jackets.

The big difference between the two is labor, I don't care how fast someone can pipe I can run circles around them with MC or AC and still have it look good.

No one will convince me this is not a 'make work' rule. ![icon_evil.gif](upload://1gvq2wV2azLs27xp71nuhZOKiSI.gif)

If I remember correctly they also have a rule that if you perform a service change the rest of the home must be brought up to current codes.

So a simple $1,000 to $2,500 service change now costs the homeowner $10,000 +.

Do you think this has helped or hurt overall electrical safety?

IMO it hurts it for two reasons.

1)Homeowners will do anything to avoid this costly service change.

2)Things are more likely to be done without inspections to avoid being told to upgrade the service.


--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



wdecker wrote:
In out area, if he uses Romex, it is a clear and plain code violation.

Careful there, and stick to "defects". The only person with legal authority to make the "code violation" determination is the local building official (AHJ). There are also code provisions for whats called an "alternate design", and an HI has no clue if that was done.

One of the other hats I wear is as a chief building official for a local municipality, and I have approved "alternate designs" for certain things as long as it's a safe installation. If an HI came along and flagged that as a "code violation" because it didn't comply with what is in the book, they would need an egg face scraper.

wdecker wrote:
If a code inspector comes in and finds the Romex (and around here, code inspectors MUST be given access is they ask for it) he can red tag the house.

Dead wrong. No matter what is written in a local code book, a persons right to privacy under the constitution can not be violated. An owner can deny access, in which case an administrative search warrant must be obtained. For jobs with open permits they never deny access, or it never gets approved to issue a CO in order to live there. For situations where it is just suspected there is an impropper installation, it gets very sticky.

Just my opinion and 2-nickels ... ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: wdecker
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Again, your points on price and the increased work and all that stuff are valid.


But I am niot taklking about price or increased work or what you will or will not allow the NEC to put in place. I am talking safety.

The only argument you have given with regards to that is that Romex is 'safe enough'.

Guys, I don't know where you live or what you do for a living (electricians?). I am speaking as a state licensed home inspector in Illinois. EMT is a safer and more durable construction technique than Romex. Case closed.

But thanks for your comments.


--
Will Decker
Decker Home Services
Skokie, IL 60076
wjd@DeckerHomeServices.com

Originally Posted By: wdecker
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob;


Respectfully; I don't live in small town New York. I live in the shadow of Chicago. In Chicago, a person would be REAL STOOPID to try to stand on their 'constitutional rights'.

I know a guy who had a 3 flat. Pretty good condition.

A code inspector comes around every 2 years or so looking for a bribe.

This biulding owner, who also lived in the building, says to the inspectors, go away. Get a search warrant first.

This gets the inspector mad.

He had 2 squad cars out there in 5 miniutes and took the owner into custody. By the time the owner got out on bail (resisting arrest) his family and his tenents were out on the street and his building was sealed.

Took him about 3 months to clear all this up. Cost him about $10,000.

Is this right or correct or legal, no. But it does happen.

Just like you can give a variance, downward, to a book rule, here , they can also do a variance up, over and above what is required.

Welcome to my world.


--
Will Decker
Decker Home Services
Skokie, IL 60076
wjd@DeckerHomeServices.com

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



It’s not a small town area here right outside of New York City. The situation you described sounds like an unusual circumstance … but if it’s a common occurrence I am sure glad I don’t live anywhere near there.


In any case, I think most would agree that using EMT or AC/MC wiring is better in most cases (maybe not near ocean shorelines with salt laden air). But considering that sheathed cable has a proven performance record, most wiring problems occur at connections, and homes are just not required to have the same fire resistance as commercial buildings, that requiring the use of EMT is really overkill.

We could all live in concrete bunkers underground, with #8 BCW in rigid galv conduit and explosion proof equipment. Real safe, but just not a reasonable balance between safety and affordability.

Just my opinion and 2-nickels ... ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: wdecker
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob;


You wrote:

"homes are just not required to have the same fire resistance as commercial buildings"

Why is that?


--
Will Decker
Decker Home Services
Skokie, IL 60076
wjd@DeckerHomeServices.com

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



roconnor wrote:
... homes are just not required to have the same fire resistance as commercial buildings ...

wdecker wrote:
Why is that?

Because of the relatively small building size (limited "fire area"), ease of egress, and general knowledge of primary exits of the occupants.

In my opinion, the single biggest safety feature an HI should look for is the current model code requirement for interconnected and hardwired smoke alarms. No matter what wiring method is used, there will always be electrical fires in homes (most problems occur at connections). The point is to get people out of homes, and the insurance can take care of the rest. Homes can be replaced ... people cant ... ![icon_exclaim.gif](upload://kW92MliyHA8ygoXI0UsgtBSn4ZO.gif)

Its about having a reasonable balance between safety and affordability.

Just my opinion and 2-nickels ...


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: wdecker
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I Agree with the balance between affordability and safety.


Around here (Skokie, IL) we have a great number of 2-3 bedroom, ranch houses on a large lot (typically 90 x 60, but also larger). These houses are being torn down and bigger (4,500 to 6,500 SF, not including the basement) houses. There are three of these monsters being built within 1 block of my house. I also see a large number of these houses being constructed with the basement slab being placed from 15 to 20 feet below grade!

This, along with the prevailence of ballon framing, means that these houses usually employ more commercial construction techniques than traditional residential techniques. In reality, they are commercial properties being used for residential housing.

Now, this is, from a strictly 'code' (local, not NEC or IRC) point of view, EMT is required for electrical. They also now require that smoke / CO detectors be 'hard wired' into the electrical and have battery back up.

Romex is not even an option.

But, does not your position on commercial vs. residential construction mean that you would support commercial requirements for these large houses?

Also, most home owners, given the chance, would opt for the cheapest construction techniques, either for new construction or for remodeling and/or repair. As such, there is much more business for non-licensed, non-insured conractors (who may or may not be actually qualified to do the work), than for professional, qualified, licensed and insured tradesmen.

People want a good quality (and safe) job, but are very indignent when they find out that they actually have to pay for it! But the reality is that they cannot have both.

One job of a home inspector is to point this out. Again, we cannot require them to use licensed and insured workers, but we can recommend. If they don't and the manure hits the ventilator (and it does, eventually) we must make sure that we have clearly and plainly documeted why. That is why I 'recommend' what I do.

If I were to report that the electrical is Romex and that is safe enough and it probably was done correctly (which I can't determine without opening every recepticle and junction box to check every connection) and that if I do find a double tap or an undersized wire, "yeah, go ahead and hire the guy from two doors down who once re-wired his Christmas tree lights with interior zip cord, he probably knows what he is doing", I would be negligent in my responsibility.

As such, If I see Romex in an area where I know that the local code doesn't allow it, I call it out as a 'proable' code violation and 'recommend' that it be evaluated by a licensed and insured electrical contractor. If I see Romex in an area where it was (at the time of the original construction) code or still is 'allowable, I write it up as a 'less safe' technique and, again, recommend evaluation by a licensed and insured sparky. I have, therefore, fulfilled my mandate from the state law and, at least, given full disclosure to my client.

I have also, properly, shifted, my liability from myself to those who the law wants to have it.

That is the point, isn't it.


--
Will Decker
Decker Home Services
Skokie, IL 60076
wjd@DeckerHomeServices.com

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
1)Homeowners will do anything to avoid this costly service change.

2)Things are more likely to be done without inspections to avoid being told to upgrade the service.


Bob,

I agree, at some point it is counterproductive to be so restrictive. ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)

Did you ever hear of the big orange?


--
Joe Myers
A & N Inspections, Inc.
http://anii.biz

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
Dead wrong. No matter what is written in a local code book, a persons right to privacy under the constitution can not be violated. An owner can deny access, in which case an administrative search warrant must be obtained. For jobs with open permits they never deny access, or it never gets approved to issue a CO in order to live there. For situations where it is just suspected there is an impropper installation, it gets very sticky.

Just my opinion and 2-nickels ... ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)


That is also the opinion of the former judge that gave the Florida BOAF seminar on legal issues for building officials. The 4th amendment still applies to inspectors. A permit does give some latitude but even having an open permit is not carte blanche access. It can really get "sticky" on a renovation of an occupied dwelling. A pile of building materials in the yard may indicate there is work going on in the house but the BO may still have problems obtaining a warrant to go in and look. If the homeowner has a decent lawyer he probably wins. The main reason this doesn't come up more often is a decent lawyer costs more than a decent contractor who can pull permits and do a code compliant job.


Originally Posted By: wdecker
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Remember, different state laws differ, even with regards to the local interpretation of the 4th amendment.


Look at how the 10th amandment has been rendered essentially meaningless by the 'interstate commerce' clause.


--
Will Decker
Decker Home Services
Skokie, IL 60076
wjd@DeckerHomeServices.com

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



wdecker wrote:
Remember, different state laws differ, even with regards to the local interpretation of the 4th amendment.

Look at how the 10th amandment has been rendered essentially meaningless by the 'interstate commerce' clause.


Yeah, they used to lynch people they didn't like in Mississippi too but times have changed. The only reason your BOs are getting away with this extortion and illegal entry is they have never been hauled into FEDERAL court. When it happens, expect a huge tax increase to cover the judgement. If this case gets brought by a person of color as a class action you could really spend some money.


Originally Posted By: wdecker
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



a lawyer friend of mine says that they can do this:


a) because this is Chicago.
b) because of the assumtion of a hazard to public safety.
c) because, in the City of Chicago, there have been 23 deaths this year on property (mostly multi-family) that either was inspected by the code poeple OR where the code guy documented that he inspected it (but proably didn't).
d) because 'Da Mayor' says so.

Do I like it? No. Do I think it is fair or legal? No.

But it does happen. Therefore, the fact must be recognized.


--
Will Decker
Decker Home Services
Skokie, IL 60076
wjd@DeckerHomeServices.com

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I see.


"Chicago, we are corrupt and damned proud of it"

I stand corrected
Maybe you folks need EMT.

The rest of the country does fine with Romex, but our inspectors are not "on the pad".


Originally Posted By: wdecker
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Simplistic response.


![eusa_snooty.gif](upload://h0w74XZzBTuIb3EDm0sMZ2yGxHz.gif)


--
Will Decker
Decker Home Services
Skokie, IL 60076
wjd@DeckerHomeServices.com

Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



wdecker wrote:
Simplistic response.


What else can be said?

You basically said it's corrupt and we all put up with it. ![icon_confused.gif](upload://qv5zppiN69qCk2Y6JzaFYhrff8S.gif)

Back to the NM.

You do not find it the least bit odd that NM is accepted by the rest of North America but not in Chicago?

Again, the money spent on the EMT could be better spent on fireproofing the wood frame building.

Do they start teaching the anti NM propaganda in grade school?

They sure have you all convinced you are much better of with EMT.

Can you answer why a product like MC with a steel jacket and insulated grounding conductor is not allowed?

Steel jacket MC is as tough as EMT and will flex out of the way instead of bending or kinking.

The answer is in the labor hours, an MC house could be roughed in a day, an EMT house has got to take 3 or 4 times as long.

Gotta keep the IBEW members off of the bench.



Bob


--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN