Wiring in flooded homes

[Jenks]

Pardon me I admire your intilect. notice the spelling, I admire your non laymen retoric, spelling, but yes you are above average .,so therefore you do not represent the majority. So I really do believe…simply put if that’s possible….that majority would rather go with common sense ideas. Reason being is that they will have a better survival rate.. in the end. Only stupid people let things happen. Some just concentrate on how smart they think they are. Knowledge and degrees but Those people can’t change a litght bulb a tire probably even their life. I’m happy with the thought that some look I this and say …hah hah hah this guy can’t spell,!!! But they can’t figure out what it says.

Well, I nor anyone else here can speak for other departments, so it's a little bit of an exaggeration to say that "building departments perspective the laws are fluid". All I can say is that we try to apply code with an eye to the gravity of harm, likelihood of harm, and cost of repair (literally the standard established by our supreme court here). Again, allowing some use of discretion when detecting code violations. Our legal system felt that to codify everything was completely unreasonable and that a reliance on local AHJs was more suitable. I fail to see how this is a one way street. Contractors and owners benefit substantially more from this than mindless enforcement of the codes.

I'm sure there are nuances to all of this, but I am not licensed to practice law anymore than I am to practice medicine, so the nuances are largely beyond me. All I am aware of is what our supreme court has set into settled law, which I am communicating here. Are the supreme court in Canada violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Who's to say. Certainly not me, so I will rely on their rulings until I hear an argument of substance.

n

 

[jar546]

You can beat a dead horse all you want. I have been through this in a significant way 10 years ago. All of the manufacturers, based on their internal engineers say NM cable must be replaced. UL, NEMA, IAEI, FEMA, and many state agencies (hell, even Nebraska) require that all wiring such as NM cable that was submerged in flood waters be replaced. If you are working in a special flood hazard area and participate in the NFIP, you will be replacing the NM cable. Whine, moan, groan, complain, recommend an engineer all you want but this horse is dead. NM cable must be replaced when submerged in flood waters.

 

[Jenks]

You are special!!
I’m your puppet,

You can beat a dead horse all you want. I have been through this in a significant way 10 years ago. All of the manufacturers, based on their internal engineers say NM cable must be replaced. UL, NEMA, IAEI, FEMA, and many state agencies (hell, even Nebraska) require that all wiring such as NM cable that was submerged in flood waters be replaced. If you are working in a special flood hazard area and participate in the NFIP, you will be replacing the NM cable. Whine, moan, groan, complain, recommend an engineer all you want but this horse is dead. NM cable must be replaced when submerged in flood waters.

again I can’t emphasize it enough but I’m sure you are financially secure and do not care… that just exsplains a lot. Again sorry for my spelling but I need to say that because it may be beneath you. Bottom line is these rules,laws,codes ,are ridiculous.and cost people that have enough brains to know when something is wrong like…. I smell something burning! But too many that are making these rules have people doing the work around their homes!!! So simple .stop! Learn how to change a light bulb instead of hiring someone! But ya got enough money that ya. made from stupid comen sense codes made to make money that you don’t need to change light bulbs. There are certain people who are gods gift to all us stupid people

 

[Mark K]

The building code has provisions for flood loading. In many cases the habitable portions of the building are located above the expected flood level and some lower-level walls are designed to break allowing the flood waters to pass under the building. This lower level is typically used as a garage or similar use.

In such situations given that it is expected that the lower level will be subject to flood waters it would seem that all wiring below the expected flood level to be designed and installed as if they were submerged in use. I would also consider installing GFI circuits, located above flood level, to protect any outlets serving that space. The question is then would I do this because required by code or because it would be the right thing.

This discussion has pointed out the fact that building codes do not protect from all risks. I contend that the building departments job is not to protect us against all risks.

 

[jar546]

You are special!!
I’m your puppet,

again I can’t emphasize it enough but I’m sure you are financially secure and do not care… that just exsplains a lot. Again sorry for my spelling but I need to say that because it may be beneath you. Bottom line is these rules,laws,codes ,are ridiculous.and cost people that have enough brains to know when something is wrong like…. I smell something burning! But too many that are making these rules have people doing the work around their homes!!! So simple .stop! Learn how to change a light bulb instead of hiring someone! But ya got enough money that ya. made from stupid comen sense codes made to make money that you don’t need to change light bulbs. There are certain people who are gods gift to all us stupid people

I am not sure where you are going with this. The rules are what the rules are for health and safety. This has nothing to do with someone's ego or someone else's financial capabilities.

 

[jar546]

The building code has provisions for flood loading. In many cases the habitable portions of the building are located above the expected flood level and some lower-level walls are designed to break allowing the flood waters to pass under the building. This lower level is typically used as a garage or similar use.

In such situations given that it is expected that the lower level will be subject to flood waters it would seem that all wiring below the expected flood level to be designed and installed as if they were submerged in use. I would also consider installing GFI circuits, located above flood level, to protect any outlets serving that space. The question is then would I do this because required by code or because it would be the right thing.

This discussion has pointed out the fact that building codes do not protect from all risks. I contend that the building departments job is not to protect us against all risks.

Understood, but what does that have to do with replacing NM cable submerged in flood waters?

 

[fatboy]

All this, at the end of the day, I will still require replacement of any submerged electrical components. I doubt the naysayers have changed anyone's minds.

Jenks, please take your negativity to another forum, you have posted nothing that contributes to this forum.

 

[Jenks]

Again… one more time…. The rules and regulations ,as you say ,are for THEIR safety. yup! But some and a lot of them are too far fetched and not proven to be a problem. These rules,regulations,codes whatever… are an extreme hardship for many,many people. Your point of view may just come from your financial security. Who knows. What I do know is that if one family or whatever the situation is that cannot afford to abide by these ridiculous unproven what might go wrong codes is not right. I know it’s hard for some to believe but that’s enough to make some homeowners to sell,leave ,or whatever. That just sucks. That’s a fact! I hope they are all safe now looking for a place . Funny thing is there is a bunch of you saying huh what? This guys nuts! It’s a fact though . I don’t know whatever but all my service is underground and there’s more water in the conduit on my street than my sewer pipe .previous wet wire is not a fing issue .please it’s copper

I am not sure where you are going with this. The rules are what the rules are for health and safety. This has nothing to do with someone's ego or someone else's financial capabilities.

The rules as

 

[Jenks]

Just want people to cut the strings .if I had 1000 billion dollars I would guarantee that previously wet wires won’t harm a home or risk a life in simple residential property. I buy them a new home. Just please… give me some proof….that’s all I ask. It’s not a problem…come on will ya never has happened .but unfortunately rules ,codes and regulations have put people in the street. I’m sorry I am the type of person that goes by history and fact.

 

[Mark K]

the building codes, and potentially the property maintenance codes, do not address the issue of impact of floods on the electrical wiring so maybe the jurisdiction has no authority legally to compel that they be replaced. This does not necessaire mean that the wire should not be replaced.

Maybe insurance considerations will result in the wire being replaced but it is not the building department's role to enforce the requirements of the insurance companies.

I appreciate that the Type NM wire with water inside the insulation is not desirable but given time and some efforts to dry the wire could cure this. In such situations an objective test could possibly establish that it was safe to energize the wire. If the wires did not pass the test, it could establish that there was a short in the wiring and thus a non-code compliant situation that needed to be resolved prior to energizing the wires.

I suggest that type NM wire is different from plastic covered wire. The plastic covering does not allow space for water to get access to the wire except at the connections which are inspectable.

I contend that there is a bigger issue at play.

Given that this is a real concern that is not properly addressed in the adopted laws the question is what can an entity, such as the building department, do? You can only go so far by creative interpretations of the laws. I contend that there are situations where there is a real problem, but the building department has no authority to compel action. Not all problems can be solved by a building code regulation.

There may be a couple of options:
--Notify the owner of the building of the nature of the problem and the reason that you cannot compel him to replace the wiring and state that he is negligent and stupid if he fails to correct the problem. Yes, use the word stupid and possibly suggest that if there is a problem because of his failure to act that you will refer this situation to the District Attorney for possible criminal prosecution. Post this statement on the property. Also notify the utility of the concern and maybe they will not turn on power to that building.
--Check with the city attorney and see if these situations could be considered a nuisance. If so, a Court could possibly compel action by the property owner.
--If there was a declared state of emergency check with state laws to see if it is possible to adopt emergency regulations. I believe this is possible in California and assume other states. There may be limits on the duration of the emergency regulations. I would hope the emergency regulations would be based on science and not fear.
--If this is a reoccurring problem or if you have some legacy buildings on a mapped flood plain, consider modifying the laws. Would this be something more appropriate for a property maintenance code as opposed to a building code focused on new construction?

A reoccurring theme is that there are limits to what the building code can do and thus there are limits to what the building department can do. You also need to act in accordance with the laws.

 

[Jenks]

Ok bye

 

[jar546]

the building codes, and potentially the property maintenance codes, do not address the issue of impact of floods on the electrical wiring so maybe the jurisdiction has no authority legally to compel that they be replaced. This does not necessaire mean that the wire should not be replaced.

Maybe insurance considerations will result in the wire being replaced but it is not the building department's role to enforce the requirements of the insurance companies.

I appreciate that the Type NM wire with water inside the insulation is not desirable but given time and some efforts to dry the wire could cure this. In such situations an objective test could possibly establish that it was safe to energize the wire. If the wires did not pass the test, it could establish that there was a short in the wiring and thus a non-code compliant situation that needed to be resolved prior to energizing the wires.

I suggest that type NM wire is different from plastic covered wire. The plastic covering does not allow space for water to get access to the wire except at the connections which are inspectable.

I contend that there is a bigger issue at play.

Given that this is a real concern that is not properly addressed in the adopted laws the question is what can an entity, such as the building department, do? You can only go so far by creative interpretations of the laws. I contend that there are situations where there is a real problem, but the building department has no authority to compel action. Not all problems can be solved by a building code regulation.

There may be a couple of options:
--Notify the owner of the building of the nature of the problem and the reason that you cannot compel him to replace the wiring and state that he is negligent and stupid if he fails to correct the problem. Yes, use the word stupid and possibly suggest that if there is a problem because of his failure to act that you will refer this situation to the District Attorney for possible criminal prosecution. Post this statement on the property. Also notify the utility of the concern and maybe they will not turn on power to that building.
--Check with the city attorney and see if these situations could be considered a nuisance. If so, a Court could possibly compel action by the property owner.
--If there was a declared state of emergency check with state laws to see if it is possible to adopt emergency regulations. I believe this is possible in California and assume other states. There may be limits on the duration of the emergency regulations. I would hope the emergency regulations would be based on science and not fear.
--If this is a reoccurring problem or if you have some legacy buildings on a mapped flood plain, consider modifying the laws. Would this be something more appropriate for a property maintenance code as opposed to a building code focused on new construction?

A reoccurring theme is that there are limits to what the building code can do and thus there are limits to what the building department can do. You also need to act in accordance with the laws.

Nothing would get done in your world. You're anti-building department views are getting more extreme. You should try doing this job once in your life and step out of your role in Perfect World. Most of us can't afford a ticket to Perfect World. Actually, none of us can.

 

[steveray]

I don’t know whatever but all my service is underground and there’s more water in the conduit on my street than my sewer pipe .previous wet wire is not a fing issue .please it’s copper

Your underground service conductors are wet location rated......FYI....I agree that it would be great if the manufacturers or someone that makes all the money on selling or installing the wire would come forward certifying a "safe" amount of wetting for the conductors...Can they wire a house with NM before the roof goes on? Can they pull MC through bar joist before the roof deck is on? Firefighting operations? Broken pipes? There is certainly enough juice above the code enforcers, that if they wanted to make this clear in code/ standard they could...The fact that they don't means they do not want to be on the hook....

 

[jar546]

Your underground service conductors are wet location rated......FYI....I agree that it would be great if the manufacturers or someone that makes all the money on selling or installing the wire would come forward certifying a "safe" amount of wetting for the conductors...Can they wire a house with NM before the roof goes on? Can they pull MC through bar joist before the roof deck is on? Firefighting operations? Broken pipes? There is certainly enough juice above the code enforcers, that if they wanted to make this clear in code/ standard they could...The fact that they don't means they do not want to be on the hook....

He is clearly out of his element and lacks basic knowledge in the electrical field.

 

[steveray]

He is clearly out of his element and lacks basic knowledge in the electrical field.

What's to know? Red is positive and black is negative....

 

[EugeneNinniePEAIA]

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.

My thoughts exactly.....unfortunetly those are the laws of physics when it comes to FLOODS.....its expensive and it isn't easy. Why take a chance with electrical wiring that is still wet and compromised long after the flood. With electricity there are no second chances and it isn't worth loosing a life over it. Remember uphold LIFE SAFETY. The Code and those who enforce it protects people from themselves.

 

[Jenks]

There still is no proof that anyone was hurt by not replacing wire that once got wet. There is proof that many family’s and people have been hurt because replacing the wire was just enough to make it over one’s budget. Forced to sell their homes. Not everyone has all kinds of money.accept for the people that make these codes.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

By the way I did not require these inspections. I am just a 3rd party inspector. I get a call asking me to do an electrical inspection, I make an appointment, then I do the inspection, I pass it, fail it or partial pass it. That's it.
Most of these old houses have old cloth-type covering of wiring.

 

[Jenks]

Now you got me …that i didn’t think of…clothe type of wiring should be replaced even tho the individual conductors are covered in plastic or whatever. I have seen a lot of that type of coverings cracked and brittle

By the way I did not require these inspections. I am just a 3rd party inspector. I get a call asking me to do an electrical inspection, I make an appointment, then I do the inspection, I pass it, fail it or partial pass it. That's it.
Most of these old houses have old cloth-type covering of wiring.