Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Without a grounding conductor EMT is an inferior wiring method. That is particularly true in a residence where unqualified people have an opportunity to compromise the system.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
wdecker wrote:
These houses are being torn down and bigger (4,500 to 6,500 SF, not including the basement) houses ... But, does not your position on commercial vs. residential construction mean that you would support commercial requirements for these large houses?
Those size houses are common in some areas around my neck of the woods, and they are still residential buildings with typical residential construction that do not have the more significant risks associated with larger/commercial buildings. A rule of thumb (and old code provision) is that special provisions should be used above about 7,000 s.f. for residential construction.
Don't be surprised if the outdated Chicago codes for homes change in the near future, like they have in other large cities like NY City. I agree with Bob that MC would be a better option over EMT if a better residential wiring method is desired over the typical sheathed cables. But if you are sure that EMT was the required wiring method for the home at the time of construction, I would write up sheathed cable as a defect or concern.
I just happen to believe that the cost difference between NM/MC and EMT wiring would be better spent towards real safety improvements to larger homes, like residential grade sprinkler systems ... which are real life savers. Now there's a thought.
-- 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: jwortham This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Can’t listen to the radio in Chicago without hearing ads for Local 533 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
That tells me LOTS Of money being spent to maintain the status quo. Doesn't hurt the union that Hizzoner Mayor Richard M. Daley loves the money they put in his political warchest.
So not sure I'd be holding my breath waiting for the codes to change here anytime soon. 
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Greg Fretwell wrote:
... 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.
Not necessarily true. For good cause, an administrative search warrant is completely valid ... and has held up in federal court several times in my municipality. The problems typically arise when local building officials get a big head and become defensive about being denied access for really minor things. Relates to "selective enforcement" ... very wise and profound statements.
My former mentor said ... "be tough when it counts for safety ... but be consistant and avoid selective enforcement"
Greg Fretwell wrote:
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.
Now there is a thought ... 
-- 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: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
like the NYC code was, due to to the costs to keep them updated.
Is there any talk of going to the ICC based codes (which includes the NEC)? I also see a lot of local municipalities in the IL area are switching to ICC based codes locally ... and the IRC in particular.
bbadger wrote:
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.
I also think Bob had a very excellent question as to why MC wiring (pretty tough flexible metal cable with a separate ground wire) would not be permitted ... 
(P.S. I just talked to a chief NYBFU inspector/supervisor today, who thinks that using EMT or MC able in residential dwellings is "BS" to put it mildly. Although EMT it's a better install ... it makes no sense, particularly with MC wiring out there if a better quality job is desired. But He even thinks that a code requirements of requiring MC or EMT wiring for typical residences under 7,000 s.f. would be "out there" for residential wiring ... to put it mildly ... lol).
William ... I think you are out on a very thin limb with the EMT only red flag on this one, unless specifally required by local codes at the time of construction ... which is beyond an home inspection to research.
-- 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