# Wiring in flooded homes



## Rick18071 (Dec 1, 2021)

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 (Dec 1, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2021)

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 (Dec 2, 2021)

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 (Dec 2, 2021)

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 (Dec 2, 2021)

Mark K said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2021)

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.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 2, 2021)

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 (Dec 2, 2021)

jar546 said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2021)

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 (Dec 2, 2021)

Mark K said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 2, 2021)

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 (Dec 2, 2021)

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 (Dec 2, 2021)

Mark K said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


I am a technical expert


----------



## Mark K (Dec 2, 2021)

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 (Dec 2, 2021)

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 (Dec 2, 2021)

Beniah Naylor said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2021)

Mark K said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2021)

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 (Dec 3, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> 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 


Mark K said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


Mark K said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2021)

Jenks said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2021)

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 (Dec 3, 2021)

jar546 said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2021)

Jenks said:


> 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.

​


----------



## Mark K (Dec 3, 2021)

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?


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 3, 2021)

"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.


----------



## Jenks (Dec 3, 2021)

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.


jar546 said:


> 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.


----------



## Jenks (Dec 3, 2021)

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!!”


----------



## jar546 (Dec 3, 2021)

Jenks said:


> 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?


----------



## Jenks (Dec 4, 2021)

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.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 4, 2021)

Jenks said:


> 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.


----------



## Jenks (Dec 4, 2021)

Nieve


ICE said:


> 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.






jar546 said:


> This is an example of a diversionary response to a question because of an inability to prove accusations with nothing more than personal beliefs.





jar546 said:


> 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.


----------



## Jenks (Dec 4, 2021)

Fl


fatboy said:


> 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


----------



## Jenks (Dec 4, 2021)

Not to mention the covering on the wire ,that everyone is concerned about ,that never breaks down in our oceans and landfills


----------



## ICE (Dec 4, 2021)

Jenks said:


> 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.


----------



## Jenks (Dec 4, 2021)

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!


----------



## Jenks (Dec 4, 2021)

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?


ICE said:


> 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.


----------



## Jenks (Dec 4, 2021)

How is it 


jar546 said:


> 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


----------



## Mark K (Dec 4, 2021)

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.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 4, 2021)

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.


----------



## Jenks (Dec 5, 2021)

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!


----------



## tmurray (Dec 6, 2021)

Mark K said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## ORinspector (Dec 6, 2021)

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


----------



## ICE (Dec 6, 2021)

ORinspector said:


> 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".


----------



## jar546 (Dec 6, 2021)

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.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 6, 2021)

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.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 6, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> 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.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 6, 2021)

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.


----------



## Jenks (Dec 6, 2021)

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. 


tmurray said:


> 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 (Dec 6, 2021)

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 (Dec 6, 2021)

You are special!!
I’m your puppet,


jar546 said:


> 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 (Dec 6, 2021)

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 (Dec 6, 2021)

Jenks said:


> 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 (Dec 6, 2021)

Mark K said:


> 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 (Dec 6, 2021)

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 (Dec 6, 2021)

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 


jar546 said:


> 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 (Dec 6, 2021)

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 (Dec 7, 2021)

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 (Dec 7, 2021)

Ok bye


----------



## jar546 (Dec 7, 2021)

Mark K said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 7, 2021)

Jenks said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2021)

steveray said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2021)

jar546 said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2021)

jar546 said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2021)

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.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 7, 2021)

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 (Dec 8, 2021)

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


Rick18071 said:


> 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.


----------

