• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Wiring in flooded homes

It sounds as if from the building departments perspective the laws are fluid but that let us look at it from the perspective of the owner of the project and the owner's consultants. And while reference was made to the laws of Canada how does that relate to the laws of the United States.

If an engineer were to ignore a code provision the plan checker could require that it be complied with. How does the Owner and engineer benefit from this fluidity? It is fluid for the building official but not for the project owner and his consultants.

In my experience plan checkers work diligently to point out violations

If the building official imposes a requirement not in the adopted laws this creates a lot of disruption and likely additional costs so the consultants do not know what is the code. While this fluidity may be attractive to building officials it creates problems for the owner of the project. The owner sees this fluidity not as an advantage but as chaos. I suspect that this chaos creates conditions that might foster corruption.

Compliance with the codes is also important for engineers because of concerns regarding professional liability. There is a concept called negligence per say, that says that if the design professional violated the code and there is a problem with the building the design professional is negligent and liable for the loss. On the other hand, if there was a problem but the design professional had complied with the code the design professional had some defenses that would likely
reduce or eliminate the liability.

Why is this flexibility and compassion a one-way street?
 
"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."

The lumber shouldn't have to be replaced as long as it is given time to dry out before insulation, drywall, etc. are installed.
 
I don’t even really know how to respond… I never Accused anything or anyone. It’s public knowledge .it’s not illegal. That’s how the government works. My defense or prove it as you say is to just do the research . Public minutes on the senate or the house of reps. Lobbyists! That work for businesses! It’s just the way it works! not illegal! I’m not here to insult but your like a puppet.we all are. It’s just fact. That’s how the government works! Just go to the minutes.
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.
 
yes ok . Let’s stop with the big words. Lay understanding.(notice the spelling?) paying money in the form of tax deductible campaign funds go a long way!!”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t even really know how to respond… I never Accused anything or anyone. It’s public knowledge .it’s not illegal. That’s how the government works. My defense or prove it as you say is to just do the research . Public minutes on the senate or the house of reps. Lobbyists! That work for businesses! It’s just the way it works! not illegal! I’m not here to insult but your like a puppet.we all are. It’s just fact. That’s how the government works! Just go to the minutes.
Is the NFPA a government entity?
 
Why don’t you look it up? Funny that people asks a question like that when they have a computer right in front of them.
 
Why don’t you look it up? Funny that people asks a question like that when they have a computer right in front of them.
This is an example of a diversionary response to a question because of an inability to prove accusations with nothing more than personal beliefs.
 
Nieve
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.


This is an example of a diversionary response to a question because of an inability to prove accusations with nothing more than personal beliefs.
This is an example of a diversionary response to a question because of an inability to prove accusations with nothing more than personal beliefs.
? A simple question was asked ,I gave a simple answer. Look it up. I did. This is an example how one cannot accept the fact that their wrong . I have proved my facts(accusations?). Some just have the inability to research things on their own I guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fl
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.
flood waters MAY be different than a pipe break of drinking water in a home. Still I beg to differ though since I see copper flashing used outside that is exposed to all kinds of elements,salt.asphalt roof shingle ,acid rain, you name it, and it still holding up. In some cases hundreds of years
 
Not to mention the covering on the wire ,that everyone is concerned about ,that never breaks down in our oceans and landfills
 
Nieve



? A simple question was asked ,I gave a simple answer. Look it up. I did. This is an example how one cannot accept the fact that their wrong . I have proved my facts(accusations?). Some just have the inability to research things on their own I guess.
I took the time to peruse your 36 posts. You have nothing to offer of any substance. You rail against code enforcement with moronic statements that are not even arguments. Thankfully there's just a few like you at the forum.
 
You obviously have a personal problem with people ,me or others, I am here to address the issues at hand. Not attack anyone. This is the problem! Fix the stupid issues that people encounter. That cost middle to lower income people ,that cost them money that they may not have. Back to the issue… replacing wire in most cases is not going to be a problem,please! No more than some person overloading a circuit . America! Freedom ! Stop with the stupid rules. COMMEN SENSE!
 
Oh and by the way not sure why you emphasize 36 posts compared to your hundreds plus. But I will admit that I don’t carry that 10pound badge like yourself. Don’t you just love that power?
I took the time to peruse your 36 posts. You have nothing to offer of any substance. You rail against code enforcement with moronic statements that are not even arguments. Thankfully there's just a few like you at the forum.
 
How is it
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.
a major health and safety issue? That is in your pipes throughout your house and that’s not wrapped in plastic like copper wire that been proven to holdup through time in all kinds of outside weather conditions. Ie. flashing. Acid rain, salt,asphalt shingles .. I don’t get enjoyment out of making a perfectly good point . Homeowners and people are seriously affected by these codes.a lot can not afford. Leaving them to sell,house being condemned, bacause they can’t get a loan,don’t have the money or… I understand the code rules are in place for safety. But they ruin peoples situations and lives. More than a wire that was previously wet and is now dry. Btw (my opinion i guess) when has it ever caused a problem? Definitely caused more of a problem for peoples safety because they could not conform t code requirements. Not all requirements make sense
 
Admittedly a flooded building causes a lot of problems but which of them should building codes address. When the legislative body decided to adopt building codes, they typically state what the intent of the codes were. If this statement just said that the intent was to protect safety, then code provisions to address other issues would be inappropriate. This does not mean that the other issues go away but it does mean that they cannot be resolved by codes and the enforcement process.

Read the enabling legislation that allows the adoption of building code. What is says controls even if you can find provisions to the contrary in the building code itself.
 
Those of us in the special flood hazard area that participate in the NFIP through FEMA also have model floodplain ordinances that were adopted. In many instances, these ordinances address items not in the building code. In addition, FL has integrated flood components into its FBC.
 
After all that I have ranted about here(somewhat sorry). Probably not the forum! For that I apologize. Just have a problem with some codes that don’t make sense. I have a hard time calling it opinion also. My problem I guess? Carry on .life is good!
 
It sounds as if from the building departments perspective the laws are fluid but that let us look at it from the perspective of the owner of the project and the owner's consultants. And while reference was made to the laws of Canada how does that relate to the laws of the United States.

If an engineer were to ignore a code provision the plan checker could require that it be complied with. How does the Owner and engineer benefit from this fluidity? It is fluid for the building official but not for the project owner and his consultants.

In my experience plan checkers work diligently to point out violations

If the building official imposes a requirement not in the adopted laws this creates a lot of disruption and likely additional costs so the consultants do not know what is the code. While this fluidity may be attractive to building officials it creates problems for the owner of the project. The owner sees this fluidity not as an advantage but as chaos. I suspect that this chaos creates conditions that might foster corruption.

Compliance with the codes is also important for engineers because of concerns regarding professional liability. There is a concept called negligence per say, that says that if the design professional violated the code and there is a problem with the building the design professional is negligent and liable for the loss. On the other hand, if there was a problem but the design professional had complied with the code the design professional had some defenses that would likely
reduce or eliminate the liability.

Why is this flexibility and compassion a one-way street?
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.
 
While not part of the building code. FEMA does have a guide for homeowners regarding repairing flood damage: https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/wsm/rivers/docs/Repairing Your Flooded Home FEMA 234r.pdf
Page 21 is the electrical section of the document. It says that everything can all be reused. The recommended treatment for receptacles and switches is to soak them in a pail of clean water. You'll need a garden hose for the mud in outlet boxes and the service panel. As things are turned back on, if breakers trip, repeat the rinse and dry. If they trip again you should use your eyes and nose to detect fire or melting plastic.

It states that fabric covered wire should be replaced but plastic covered wire can be reused unless it was flooded with salt water.

Some years ago the police deployed dozens of gas grenades in an attempt to end a standoff with a man in a house. Every window was busted out and there were a lot of dents in the stucco from errant grenades. The insurance company determined that the entire electrical system, which included the Romec had to be replaced because of exposure to the gas. A main panel, sub-panel, every device, every fixture and all of the cable had to go. The refrigerator, washer and dryer, dishwasher, televisions, computers, furnace, microwave and yes, the alarm clock....all were replaced. That was an insurance company....FEMA would have said "Ah, turn it all on and see what happens".
 
Last edited:
Until you have experienced a significant flood that involved hundreds of properties and personally walked into hundreds of basements after they were pumped out, saw the damage first-hand, smelled the aftermath and witnessed the result of those that hosed down their panelboards. watched "flood mud" come out of the main breaker handle with water after the electrician said it was good when you cycled it, dealt with the owners in a completely devastated state of mind and were overwhelmed with the amount of destruction and workload needed to balance the FEMA requirements with compassion, keep your negative opinions to yourself. It is easy to sit back when you have never actually had to deal with reality. If you can't tell. I have.
 
I don't inspect to FEMA but only to the state adopted codes. I think the best way to go with the wiring in this case is that the conductors were being used where they were not rated for (under water) which voids the UL cert and would need to be replaced or retested by UL only.
 
I don't inspect to FEMA but only to the state adopted codes. I think the best way to go with the wiring in this case is that the conductors were being used where they were not rated for (under water) which voids the UL cert and would need to be replaced or retested by UL only.
If you inspect in the flood hazard zone, you are held by that under the town's floodplain ordinance which all inspectors must know.
 
The FEMA guidance makes sense and if probably informed by experts not typically available to a local building department. It is also suggested that given that these recommendations have likely been followed numerous times and the recommendations are still made available suggests that they are reasonable.

The UL rating has to do with conditions of use not conditions previously exposed to. With plastic encased wires no longer submerged in water there should be no need to replace the wires. Otherwise, if somebody poured water on the wire then it would need to be replaced.

From a code perspective we need to distinguish between UL certification and conformance with the UL standard. The legal version of the UL standard is the version in effect when the code was adopted unless the code lists an earlier version. To give UL the ability to impose a later version of the standard or to give UL authority to impose other standards through their certification process would in effect give UL the authority to modify the adopted codes would create legal problems. Thus, from a code perspective, evidence from another source showing compliance with the adopted standard should be acceptable.
 
Top