Wiring in flooded homes

[Mr. Inspector]

We had some flooded areas and home owners and contractors are calling me for inspections. I simply say all wiring and equipment must be replaced below the flood line. They don't like my answer and I think they just keep calling other 3rd party inspectors to get a answer they like. Some think it's ok to replace equipment but not the wiring. One asked me what section of the IRC says this. I was stumped on this. What should I say?

 

[Beniah Naylor]

We had some flooded areas and home owners and contractors are calling me for inspections. I simply say all wiring and equipment must be replaced below the flood line. They don't like my answer and I think they just keep calling other 3rd party inspectors to get a answer they like. Some think it's ok to replace equipment but not the wiring. One asked me what section of the IRC says this. I was stumped on this. What should I say?

If the wiring has dried, I wouldn't make them replace it unless there are visible problems. The only issues that water will cause will happen when the wire or equipment is energized while it is wet, which may create short circuits and ground faults that may cause damage.

In the factories that make keyboards for computers, the keyboards are placed in a dishwasher to be cleaned before they are shipped. As long as they are thoroughly dried before they get energized, everything will work just fine.

Unless the conductor insulation rotted or something...

 

[fatboy]

Floodwaters are different than a dishwasher.

We had massive flooding in this area in 2013, everything below water was required to be replaced. Same with when we have structure fires, with the subsequent water damage. If it got wet, it gets replaced.

Been our hard and fast rule since I have been here, that's 24 years now.

 

[Mark K]

You can only enforce the adopted regulations. What is the code section?

What was the basis for making the decision made 24 years ago? How do you know if that decision was correct.?

In a situation such as this it might be a good idea to consult with an electrical engineer. It would not surprise me if the electrical engineer could devise a testing protocol that could safely verify that residual water is not causing a short in a circuit.

 

[jar546]

NM Cable, aka Romex, has paper that runs through it. I've been through this multiple times. One location, 4 months later was still doing renovations and did not replace the NM cable. I grabbed some NM that was flooded and bent, then I pointed it toward the floor and water came out. This is not regular water, this is water with fuel oil mixed in, pesticides, and whatever other chemical you could imagine that was swept up by the flood-waters. NM cable cannot be installed in wet locations and is not designed to be installed in wet locations. I called two of the manufacturers and discussed this issue and both stated the wire needed to be replaced. This is a major health and safety issue. The wire inside NM is not THWN and lacks any coating. The long-term effects of polluted water sitting for weeks and months inside the NM jacket is detrimental. It must be replaced whether they like it or not. Let them shop around until they hear what they want and walk away or hold steady. You can't save people from themselves.

 

[jar546]

You can only enforce the adopted regulations. What is the code section?

What was the basis for making the decision made 24 years ago? How do you know if that decision was correct.?

In a situation such as this it might be a good idea to consult with an electrical engineer. It would not surprise me if the electrical engineer could devise a testing protocol that could safely verify that residual water is not causing a short in a circuit.

This is where I will adamantly disagree with you. See my post above. You can test all day long today but as the water continues to sit there for weeks and months, it does damage to a cheap material that was never designed to be in damp or wet locations. When the manufacturers tells you it must be replaced and it spent weeks submerged (basements), it has been in an environment that it was never designed for. There is absolutely no need to involve an engineer unless you want to waste money and time. Not everything in this world needs an engineer to make a determination. Whether you like it or not, there are times when the AHJ can make decisions that you don't agree with.

 

[tmurray]

In situations like this I will always ask myself what the manufacturer would be OK with. As JAR pointed out, this is not just regular water. This is water contaminated with who knows what. What manufacturer is going to OK their wiring after it was submerged in what is essentially an unknown fluid? Probably not very many.

Mark is correct though, there should be legislation to enable this type of process. For us it lies with the fire marshal's office. Their granted authority is that they can order repairs where in their opinion a condition is creating a fire hazard. Not code, or standards (they do typically rely on these though) but just their opinion. This type of wording allows them to remain agile and address issues like this that are rarely codified in legislation.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I agree that romex needs to be replace but I'm dealing with mostly with houses over 100 years old with old type of wiring. I'm talking about the service wiring too which is usually in the basement. It would be nice to have a code number or something from the manufacturers. Is wiring made for wet areas ok to be underwater for a few days?

Because of our system where in a lot of areas in PA you have a long list of inspectors of your choice to choose from the people that don't like my answer must have found a different inspector that they liked their answer better because they don't call me back when I say everything needs to be replaced below the water line.

 

[Beniah Naylor]

NM Cable, aka Romex, has paper that runs through it. I've been through this multiple times. One location, 4 months later was still doing renovations and did not replace the NM cable. I grabbed some NM that was flooded and bent, then I pointed it toward the floor and water came out. This is not regular water, this is water with fuel oil mixed in, pesticides, and whatever other chemical you could imagine that was swept up by the flood-waters. NM cable cannot be installed in wet locations and is not designed to be installed in wet locations. I called two of the manufacturers and discussed this issue and both stated the wire needed to be replaced. This is a major health and safety issue. The wire inside NM is not THWN and lacks any coating. The long-term effects of polluted water sitting for weeks and months inside the NM jacket is detrimental. It must be replaced whether they like it or not. Let them shop around until they hear what they want and walk away or hold steady. You can't save people from themselves.

I stand corrected. How about 110.11 in the NEC about Deteriorating Agents? In the IRC, how about E3404.7 Integrity of electrical equipment?

 

[Mark K]

There are several issues at play.

First there is a difference between good practice and what can legally be required. Here the question has to do with what can legally be required not what is good practice.

We have a system of laws that requires that laws, including building regulations, be adopted according to a process. When you give the Fire Marshall, Building Official, or other individual the ability to impose new requirements (think laws) without due process I suggest that you have a legal problem. So instead of a system of laws do we now have an autocrat? While the initial reason for giving an autocrat power may have been well intentioned, over time we lose our rights.

Can we find a solution that respects our legal system?

I believe that any provision in the building code that gives an individual the authority to unilaterally impose new rules, is an affront to our legal system.

We should base any criteria on science and not justify it simply because that is the way we have always done it. I mentioned an electrical engineer because I think it is likely that he could develop a testing protocol that could find shorts resulting from water in the wiring. This could allow some circuits to be energized without starting a fire. This would be cheaper than replacing all the wiring. If there are shorts, then it could justify replacing the wire. Contaminants in the water may or not be a safety concern. We should base our decisions on the science not on our emotional reaction.

If the original wiring was nob and tube then it would appear that there would be no trapped water under the sheathing.

Maybe the answer is for the NEC, or other standard, that is properly adopted to adopt some objective criteria. If NEC was to address this issue, I expect that engineers and other technical experts would help to understand what is the real problem.

 

[tmurray]

There are several issues at play.

First there is a difference between good practice and what can legally be required. Here the question has to do with what can legally be required not what is good practice.

We have a system of laws that requires that laws, including building regulations, be adopted according to a process. When you give the Fire Marshall, Building Official, or other individual the ability to impose new requirements (think laws) without due process I suggest that you have a legal problem. So instead of a system of laws do we now have an autocrat? While the initial reason for giving an autocrat power may have been well intentioned, over time we lose our rights.

Can we find a solution that respects our legal system?

I believe that any provision in the building code that gives an individual the authority to unilaterally impose new rules, is an affront to our legal system.

So just to clarify, A requirement put into place by democratically elected officials giving an authority having jurisdiction latitude to deal with issues outside of the standard scope of a code or law is turning them into an "autocrat"? This autocrat, who works for the democratically elected officials, themselves answerable to the people, are now somehow not answerable to the people?

Elected officials are elected to represent the majority. They act on behalf of the majority. If they enact laws to delegate their powers to civil servants, it is as though the majority of the electorate did that. It is offensive to the very concept of a democracy to restrict elected officials in this matter.

What's more, to restrict them in this matter is to invite more complicated laws, code, and standards. We already hear complaints that things are too complicated. That too many codes and standards exist. But if expert AHJs are restrained from exercising good judgement, more standards will be necessary.

…I guess ICC or NFPA needs to get started on a flood code...

 

[ICE]

There is no question about the legality…seen post #9. The precept that every question deserves an engineer falls flat.

The likelihood of finding an electrical engineer that’s hungry enough to certify conductors whether they were under water or not is slim to none. Hopefully there are a few here at the forum that can chime in.

 

[Mark K]

A democratically elected body may have the authority to adopt building regulations but there are limits on what they can do. One of the things that they cannot do is to delegate the authority to adopt regulations without due process. This would create problems with the US Constitution and likely the state constitution.

While more complex laws may not be desirable the solution is not to give all power to an individual.

If a city could delegate to an individual the authority to unilaterally, without due process, impose new requirements where would that stop. Could you get rid of the building code and let the building official require what he wishes to require that day?

Reality is messy.

 

[jar546]

There are several issues at play.

First there is a difference between good practice and what can legally be required. Here the question has to do with what can legally be required not what is good practice.

We have a system of laws that requires that laws, including building regulations, be adopted according to a process. When you give the Fire Marshall, Building Official, or other individual the ability to impose new requirements (think laws) without due process I suggest that you have a legal problem. So instead of a system of laws do we now have an autocrat? While the initial reason for giving an autocrat power may have been well intentioned, over time we lose our rights.

Can we find a solution that respects our legal system?

I believe that any provision in the building code that gives an individual the authority to unilaterally impose new rules, is an affront to our legal system.

We should base any criteria on science and not justify it simply because that is the way we have always done it. I mentioned an electrical engineer because I think it is likely that he could develop a testing protocol that could find shorts resulting from water in the wiring. This could allow some circuits to be energized without starting a fire. This would be cheaper than replacing all the wiring. If there are shorts, then it could justify replacing the wire. Contaminants in the water may or not be a safety concern. We should base our decisions on the science not on our emotional reaction.

If the original wiring was nob and tube then it would appear that there would be no trapped water under the sheathing.

Maybe the answer is for the NEC, or other standard, that is properly adopted to adopt some objective criteria. If NEC was to address this issue, I expect that engineers and other technical experts would help to understand what is the real problem.

I am a technical expert

 

[Mark K]

California has a requirement that the framing lumber shall not have a moisture content in excess of a certain number at the time the building is enclosed. If the building was flooded the moisture content of the wood would increase likely to a level in excess of the amount allowed. This would result in a code violation and to be consistent with what is proposed here would require that the framing members be replaced with code compliant lumber.

 

[Joe.B]

Many complex issues arise due to natural disasters. The OP was contacted to do an inspection, or potentially do so. I think the best advice to give someone in this situation is to consult with a licensed contractor. The people who actually do this work will have a good idea of the damage and what needs to be done. They can then work with the customer to find solutions that fit within their budget. Once the homeowner selects a contractor they would apply for a permit and begin discussions on what the AHJ will or will not approve. Until there is a permit application I don't think it's necessary for an AHJ to be involved, unless there is immanent threat to life and safety. Any other discussions are really moot at this point, IMO.

 

[fatboy]

I stand corrected. How about 110.11 in the NEC about Deteriorating Agents? In the IRC, how about E3404.7 Integrity of electrical equipment?

And to those that suggest I would need an engineer to tell me that this is a problem, I'll spin it 180 degrees....I will say replace, find an engineer that will sign and seal it that the flooded wiring is safe to continue to use.

 

[jar546]

California has a requirement that the framing lumber shall not have a moisture content in excess of a certain number at the time the building is enclosed. If the building was flooded the moisture content of the wood would increase likely to a level in excess of the amount allowed. This would result in a code violation and to be consistent with what is proposed here would require that the framing members be replaced with code compliant lumber.

You are too literal. Now I know why you are an engineer. You need structure and black and white rules, otherwise, there is a struggle to acknowledge.

 

[Mark K]

There is a legal concept called "void for vagueness";

"A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications."

My position is that when the laws are vague the decision of what to do should be made by the building owner and his design professionals, not by the building official

Contrary to what some may believe a lot of subjective decisions are made when applying the structural provisions in the code to a real building.

 

[Jenks]

We had some flooded areas and home owners and contractors are calling me for inspections. I simply say all wiring and equipment must be replaced below the flood line. They don't like my answer and I think they just keep calling other 3rd party inspectors to get a answer they like. Some think it's ok to replace equipment but not the wiring. One asked me what section of the IRC says this. I was stumped on this. What should I say?

The lobbyist for the electrical cable manufacturers pay a lot of money to the decision makers (government) So they can sell more of their products.don’t kid yourselfs

A democratically elected body may have the authority to adopt building regulations but there are limits on what they can do. One of the things that they cannot do is to delegate the authority to adopt regulations without due process. This would create problems with the US Constitution and likely the state constitution.

While more complex laws may not be desirable the solution is not to give all power to an individual.

If a city could delegate to an individual the authority to unilaterally, without due process, impose new requirements where would that stop. Could you get rid of the building code and let the building official require what he wishes to require that day?

Reality is messy.

Lobbyist for the cable manufacturers pay a lot of money to the decision makers ah sell more product?

You can only enforce the adopted regulations. What is the code section?

What was the basis for making the decision made 24 years ago? How do you know if that decision was correct.?

In a situation such as this it might be a good idea to consult with an electrical engineer. It would not surprise me if the electrical engineer could devise a testing protocol that could safely verify that residual water is not causing a short in a circuil

 

[jar546]

The lobbyist for the electrical cable manufacturers pay a lot of money to the decision makers (government) So they can sell more of their products.don’t kid yourselfs

Lobbyist for the cable manufacturers pay a lot of money to the decision makers ah sell more product?

Jenks,
That is a pretty tall accusation. What specific manufacturer or organization and to whom exactly are these checks being written to? If you are going to make a statement like that, you may want to be prepared to defend it or prove it with factual information.

 

[Mark K]

The influence of private interests is real even if in reality it is more indirect.

Look at the ICC process of modifying the model codes such as the IBC. The various material interests make sure that their representatives are actively involved with the code modification process. These representatives are there to promote the interests of the organization, of manufactures, that sends them.

 

[tmurray]

You are too literal. Now I know why you are an engineer. You need structure and black and white rules, otherwise, there is a struggle to acknowledge.

I think those of us who have been sitting in the AHJ seat for any amount of time comes to understand this mindset. The belief that rules must be followed regardless of the context. A belief that falls flat whenever you apply common sense and empathy. When I am teaching certification level courses for our provincial building officials association, I relate it to me students as this: imagine that you have a family member suffering from a heart attack. An ambulance is not available to transport them to the hospital and you must drive them. Would you follow the speed limit knowing that every second of delay could result in their death? I have yet to have a student say they would follow the speed limit. Most agree that, while they would try to drive as safe as possible, they are also going to drive as fast as possible. Breaking whatever laws are necessary to transport their loved on to the hospital.

Laws cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. They require context. So to does evaluating compliance and non-compliance. Our supreme court has recognized this and set it into settled law in what I think of as the most descriptive decision I have heard from them: Code officials are not expected to be code enforcement robots. Rather, they must exercise their discretion and expertise in the discharge of their duties.

RDPs are not the "be all, end all" they have been held out by society as. Lawmakers know this. We can see the proof of this since they are still subject to reviews by AHJs.

Secondly, I question how many RDPs would be willing to devise any testing procedure, knowing that they would be liable should it fail to produce reliable information. Such a system would need to undergo extensive testing to ensure it was rigorous enough to be relied upon. What is the cost of this system on the home owner? With the basement already completely gutted and exposed, how costly is the replacement of electrical? Ethical engineers would likely direct the owner to replace the wiring knowing that the likelihood of testing being less costly is slim to none.

 

[ICE]

The lobbyist for the electrical cable manufacturers pay a lot of money to the decision makers (government) So they can sell more of their products.don’t kid yourselfs

Lobbyist for the cable manufacturers pay a lot of money to the decision makers ah sell more product?

Nearly everything related to the use of electricity is listed and labeled by an NRTL. Such is the case with cable. The NRTL has a Standard that is referenced in the evaluation of the cable. The Standard does not change.

The Standard is created by a panel and the panel came from AHJ's, manufacturers, NRTLs and academia.. There are no lobbyists or they are all lobbyists. The point is that the term lobbyist is not appropriate....no one entity had undue influence on the makeup of the Standard.

Codes are formulated in a like manner. Sure there will be parties with a vested interest....but those will be balanced by the other participants. Looking at the result is proof enough that an equitable code has been achieved.

​