Romex Help???!!!!!

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



Hello fellow NACHI inspectors and friends. I have a Client that is trying to get me to pay over $2000 dollars for replacement of existing romex wiring with conduit because an electrician came in and told her it was all against code, and was a safety violation.


Now I know we do not inspect for code. I have tried to explain this to her several times. If I see Romex in the field, I simply note it as romex, and do not indicate that it is in any way defective. Why? Because in my opinion there is nothing wrong with Romex! Isn't 85% of the country wired in Romex?

Now the electrician provided me with an estimate which cites specific violations regarding NEC 300.4 (b)(1) , 334.15 (b)(c), and 320.23 (h). I can not seem to find anywhere on the web where I can access a copy of the NEC, without having to purchase a copy. Does anyone know what these specific issues are or know somewhere I can go to get a copy of the NEC?

It is my opinion that this electrician is just trying to get my client to do these upgrades even though they are not really necessary! Anyone have any info or advice on how I should handle this? Any help greatly appreciated.

John


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



John,


2002 NEC

http://www.christmas-onthe-hill.com/extension_cords.htm

2005 NEC

http://www.nfpa.org/freecodes/free_access_agreement.asp?id=7005SB

Not sure how old the house is but this will get you started. May be able to find a link for 99 NEC.

Not sure of all the details but of those references he gave you the first is for cabling through metal framing members and the last does not exist in 2005 NEC.


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



Also, a little more detail of the situation would help. Besides the references the Sparky gave you what else did they say was supposedly wrong? How old is the home? Did you note any visual deficiencies with wiring or other electrical, small or large, during the inspection?


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



Are you in Cook County?


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



Quote:
Now the electrician provided me with an estimate which cites specific violations regarding NEC 300.4 (b)(1) , 334.15 (b)(c), and 320.23 (h). I can not seem to find anywhere on the web where I can access a copy of the NEC, without having to purchase a copy. Does anyone know what these specific issues are or know somewhere I can go to get a copy of the NEC?


1.) A home inspector has NO code enforcement rights ANYWHERE so you are not responsible for the electrian who may or maynot have followed your local AHJ rulings.

2.) NM and NMC ( NMS-SmartHome ) is allowed in dwellings per the NEC no matter which version you choose to read. The sections that you bought up I will address.

a.) 300.4(b)(1) -This refers to NM being installed in metal frame members, it only states that the cable SHALL BE protected as it passes through the members with grommets or listed bushings.

Question: is it metal studs and you missed this in your inspection...still would not be your issue to pay for this, it also should have been picked up by the AHJ upon typical inspection.

b.) 334.15 (b)(c)- That has to do with exposed work...in a basement or so on...it should be sleeved in Sch.80 PVC and so on....and (c) addresses stapling and running of the wires.....anyway without going into much detail has NOTHING to do with using romex in a house.

3.) Art 320.15 - refers to attic s and running AC cable and so on which has again NOTHING to do with NM or Romex cable.

Lastly, I would suggest the electrician who sent you those tables call me and consider driving down for a NEC refresher course.....I do teach one in case he wants to know.

OK....with that said........many areas in IL ( chicago for one ) will not allow romex or NM in any form in a dwelling unit I believe....now I am not in IL so I can only take that from my years of hearing it.....but I can tell you it is a local AHJ thing that is adopted...and could be a statewide issue but again not the general rule for NM cable...as it would normally be allowed in dwellings...and in fact even other buildings with the advent of the new 2002 NEC and so on.

Here is the deal......You did not wire the house, you can only inspect what you see and in the end the local AHJ is the one who inpects it per NEC code. The electrician who wired it MUST do it as perscribed by their local AHJ and thus submit it for inspection by their local AHJ.

You are not supposed to make reports on CODE issues unless they pertain to the safety of the dwelling and client and based on the ones the person has listed for you they represent "Portions " of protection and installation specs but NOT issues a HI is accountable for in general.

I would simply tell the home owner.....You did not wire the house, the electrician is supposed to adhere to the AHJ rules and guidelines and your job is to NOT going outside the SOP of your organization and in doing so you do not make CODE suggestions or recommendations..

Asking YOU to pay $ 2,000 for the electricians screw up and the AHJ's non-ability to enforece the local guidelines is in my opinion slander to you and you should demand the person cease and desist right now their statements.


--
Paul W. Abernathy- NACHI Certified
Electrical Service Specialists
Licensed Master Electrician
Electrical Contractor
President of NACHI Central Virginia Chapter
NEC Instructor
Moderator @ Doityourself.com
Visit our website- www.electrical-ess.com

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



He seems to be upset with the way some of the cable is routed. These are the code references.



300.4(B)
Quote:
Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cables and Electrical Nonmetallic Tubing Through Metal Framing Members.
(1) Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable. In both exposed and concealed locations where nonmetallic-sheathed cables pass through either factory or field punched, cut, or drilled slots or holes in metal members, the cable shall be protected by listed bushings or listed grommets covering all metal edges that are securely fastened in the opening prior to installation of the cable.


334.15
Quote:
Exposed Work.
In exposed work, except as provided in 300.11(A), the cable shall be installed as specified in 334.15(A) through (C).
(A) To Follow Surface. The cable shall closely follow the surface of the building finish or of running boards.
(B) Protection from Physical Damage. The cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary by conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC rigid nonmetallic conduit, pipe, guard strips, listed surface metal or nonmetallic raceway, or other means. Where passing through a floor, the cable shall be enclosed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC rigid nonmetallic conduit, listed surface metal or nonmetallic raceway, or other metal pipe extending at least 150 mm (6 in.) above the floor.
(C) In Unfinished Basements. Where the cable is run at angles with joists in unfinished basements, it shall be permissible to secure cables not smaller than two 6 AWG or three 8 AWG conductors directly to the lower edges of the joists. Smaller cables shall be run either through bored holes in joists or on running boards.



320.23(B) <there isn't an "H">
Quote:
Cable Installed Parallel to Framing Members. Where the cable is installed parallel to the sides of rafters, studs, or floor joists, neither guard strips nor running boards shall be required, and the installation shall also comply with 300.4(D).



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



Paul, this is how you get to the AC article 320 from NM article 334.


Quote:
334.23 In Accessible Attics.
The installation of cable in accessible attics or roof spaces shall also comply with 320.23.


There are other "cable" articles that reference the AC articles.


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



Sorry, that wasn’t supposed to be a “H”, but an “A” for section 320.23


Thanks guys for the replies. This is all very helpful. Keep it coming!


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



Home was in Lake Bluff, IL. Lake County…not Cook. I know Chicago does not allow NM or NMC, but have never heard of this rule in Lake County.


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



Quote:
Now the electrician provided me with an estimate which cites specific violations regarding NEC 300.4 (b)(1) , 334.15 (b)(c), and 320.23 (h).


Which NEC book are you looking at....320.23 refers to AC cable. I am only able to go by what is posted......and it was indeed 320.23 as one of the issues that were posted by the electrician.

I do agree greg the guy was simply pushing off the code where it refers you from 334.23 to 320.23 but if you ask me quite crappy to do so without actually explaining the violations in his terms versus just giving someone who does not inspect code a bunch of code references. He should have listed the 334.23 and referenced it to 320.23.......which we have to do when giving code inspection issues.


--
Paul W. Abernathy- NACHI Certified
Electrical Service Specialists
Licensed Master Electrician
Electrical Contractor
President of NACHI Central Virginia Chapter
NEC Instructor
Moderator @ Doityourself.com
Visit our website- www.electrical-ess.com

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



OK John, it is still the same kind of stuff


Quote:
320.23 In Accessible Attics.
Type AC cables in accessible attics or roof spaces shall be installed as specified in 320.23(A) and (B).
(A) Where Run Across the Top of Floor Joists. Where run across the top of floor joists, or within 2.1 m (7 ft) of floor or floor joists across the face of rafters or studding, in attics and roof spaces that are accessible, the cable shall be protected by substantial guard strips that are at least as high as the cable. Where this space is not accessible by permanent stairs or ladders, protection shall only be required within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the nearest edge of the scuttle hole or attic entrance.



These things all sound like he is unhappy with places where the romex is exposed.
"physical damage" is always a local call, highly based on judgement of the inspector.
I agree with the others here, this is probably beyond the scope of home inspection. How did the electrician get involved in the first place? Was any of the wire actually damaged?


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



Paul, they reference the AC article 320.23 in 330.23 (MC), 334.23 (NM) and indirectly in 338.10 (SE) and 340.10 (UF) because they reference 334.


It is a requirement that stays the same across any cable wiring method you might use. It is just not repeated, only referenced but still enforceable.


Ain’t the NEC fun icon_wink.gif


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



man…forget this adding to a post…lol…too much trouble.


Anyway...I think greg is right on where the person is trying to go but you will need to see if the local AHJ happens to have the same issues as places like Chicago.

But in the end....expecting YOU to pay $ 2,000 dollars for it is not right nor is is correct.


--
Paul W. Abernathy- NACHI Certified
Electrical Service Specialists
Licensed Master Electrician
Electrical Contractor
President of NACHI Central Virginia Chapter
NEC Instructor
Moderator @ Doityourself.com
Visit our website- www.electrical-ess.com

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



During inspection, I reccommended client call qualified professional electrician to:

  1. replace exterior outlet with a GFCI type

  2. Master Bath GFCI would not trip with tester, needed further evalutation

  3. Wall outlet in Kitchen had an open ground condition


After they bought the home, they brought in electrician to address the above issues, and apparently he found the rest of these new issues while doing the original scope of work.

According to the Village of Lake Bluff website (section on building codes), they go by the 2002 version of the NEC.

This is the first time I have used this message board! I am so impressed I am speechless! Thanks so much guys! There is nothing worse than the phone call of an unhappy client! This is making my crappy day a little better now!


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



Greg,


I think the point I was trying to make ( read my last post, I tried to edit it but it is too much trouble...lol)

Is this........sure the NEC references it but again the HI is not bound by it and the posts as it pertains to references ( code articles ) do not sum up $ 2,000 in electrical changes that a HI would have to pay.

Now......here is the point...we do not know enough about the house in question....is it metal studs..? and are these references made by the electrician correct for the area...sure they are correct as it pertains to requirements of the code....

But for example the grommets issue was not expressed nearly as clear in the 1999 NEC....or earlier....how old is the home.

My point is........should not be a HI' problem and NM is not something to list wrong on a report.


--
Paul W. Abernathy- NACHI Certified
Electrical Service Specialists
Licensed Master Electrician
Electrical Contractor
President of NACHI Central Virginia Chapter
NEC Instructor
Moderator @ Doityourself.com
Visit our website- www.electrical-ess.com

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



Someone asked how old the house was. Built in 1964. Single story ranch w/ partially finished basement. Detached garage.


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



ok…1964…I just HAVE to ask…Metal or Wood Studs???



Paul W. Abernathy- NACHI Certified


Electrical Service Specialists


Licensed Master Electrician


Electrical Contractor


President of NACHI Central Virginia Chapter


NEC Instructor


Moderator @ Doityourself.com


Visit our website- www.electrical-ess.com

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



Wood wood and more wood! If there is a metal stud in that house…I certainly never saw it!


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



teehheeee…lol…Ok I did have a funny story of a house back in the 60’s that was metal…I know…I know…trust me it was one of a kind…lol…build frame by frame by the home owner.


Anyway......one of the articles he references is 300.4(b)(1) which pertains to NM in metal frame members.......so I was curious as to why he made that statement.

Maybe greg has some insite on that.....found it strange to me.

Anyway......look it.....the house is 1964......the code that may be in the area can't turn back time....they quite possibly have no ruling on NM in your area...or they could...but again NM is not dangerous...unless it was the NM without ground in which you should write up.....


--
Paul W. Abernathy- NACHI Certified
Electrical Service Specialists
Licensed Master Electrician
Electrical Contractor
President of NACHI Central Virginia Chapter
NEC Instructor
Moderator @ Doityourself.com
Visit our website- www.electrical-ess.com

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



I am still not sure why this is supposed to be your problem. I know when my daughter had an HI look at her house he missed a lot of things I found but his contract was written such that he was not liable for ANYTHING.


Actually, without looking and only reading the articles you referenced these things are actually fairly minor. A lot really depends on "traffic" around these sections of exposed Romex. I would suggest that if it survived 41 years without any physical damage it is probably OK.

The fact remains you could only enforce the JFK era code if you were the municipal inspector unless there were renovations.

It sounds like you may just have some PR work to do.