Electrical wiring problem

[hibb]

If you think every homeowner in your area gets everything inspected when he is puttering around the house you are a likely off your rocker.

I've had a couple of additions put on this house over the last 30 years in which I've done the electrical. They both were inspected and passed with no problems to fix. So either I am doing a good job or the inspector is not worth the $125 fee. Take your pick.

You may have noticed that I took an extra few days to research and analyze the problem before deciding what to do and have now added a sub panel to the breaker box and will be replacing all that old wire that I have found and breaking up some of those connections into smaller circuits. And I have noticed that while it is very possible that there might still be a small amount of the old wire left that I am not aware of, there's no longer any of the old wire that makes it to the breaker boxes.

David

[gfretwell]

Hence my original point. It depends on where you live as to what the law says and I can only enforce what the law says. If something is existing and not in the scope of the permitted work it is grand fathered in. I can "suggest" they change something because they can see it but if it is not in the scope of the permitted work I can't make therm do it. The reality is, if this whole circuit is not being replaced, what do you fix by replacing a short segment that is exposed?

Now if they damaged a section in the demo I might be able to get the damaged part replaced but it is essentially what was originally installed there is not much I can do about it ... legally.

Read that again if you are confused

"...without requiring the EXISTING INSTALLATION to comply with all of the requirements of this code."

Nowhere in there does it say anything about "exposed".

[gfretwell]

There is also 250,86 Exception No. 1: Metal enclosures and raceways for conductors added to existing installations of open wire, knob-and-tube wiring, and nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall not be required to be connected to the equipment grounding conductor where these enclosures or wiring methods comply with (1) through (4) as follows: (1) Do not provide an equipment ground (2) Are in runs of less than 7.5 m (25 ft) (3) Are free from probable contact with ground, grounded metal, metal lath, or other conductive material (4) Are guarded against contact by persons

[Tom Horne]

Even I will except that you are required to redo any exposed work were you are. You should except that Bud is not absolutely wrong when he says "that is certainly not true here." The "Authority Having Jurisdiction" in your community is not some all powerful arbitrator of what is required in other parts of the country. In most cases the local AHJ has no authority in another part of the State.

-- Tom Horne

[bud--]

The K&T (knob and tube) FUD guy is back. hallerb has the same kind of opinion-parading-as-fact as Evan.

Since K&T is not a code violation, there is no more reason to disclose its existence than Romex. K&T is still in the NEC.

As has been documented in several previous threads, insurance companies may or may not object to K&T.

hallerb has provided no actuarial basis for objecting to K&T. A source provided by hallerb said "Properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not an inherent fire hazard." (All improperly altered wiring can be a problem.)

or the record of a complaint to the Maine state Bureau of Insurance by a homeowner against an insurance company that denied renewal of a policy based on K&T wiring. The insurance company was ordered to renew the policy because the insurance company "provided no justification for its position that knob and tube wiring per se automatically provides grounds for nonrenewal".

hallerb has provided the same evidence of risk - none.