Flood Water Damage Dilemma

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mrmark

Member
Flood water damage to romex wiring ( NM CABLE
Article - 334) Currently I am fighting with an
insurance ( flood) adjuster. He states that he
has never paid a claim to replace romex wiring
because it is never damaged ( by water). I
disagree, romex is a dry location wire and
the insulation may be comprimised by the
comtaminated flood water or excessive moisture.
The house in question had it's romex submurged
in flood water which came into the house at
least 18" high. The homeruns under the house
were submerged, as were the outlet boxes in the
house. The local electrical inspector is not
supporting my request to have this wire replaced.
The inspector states that no code section
requires the wire to be replaced. I showed
the Adjuster the NEC Digest Fall 2003 Edition
Natural Disaster Issue. This issue is devoted
to flood water issues, and recommends the wire
to be replaced. We are governed by the NEC
1999 and the International Building Code 2003.
The adjuster wants a ruling in writing by
the local code official, who is less than
willing to take a stand on this issue.
Can anyone help with any articles in
the code?

Thanks
 
BUMP...I am interested in comments on this subject also. I have a situation with a bursted FHW heat pipe which flooded a home to the point thay ceilings came down. The romex has been exposed to water and we all know how the paper filler wicks water into the cable.

Will the cable ever dry out?

Will the water damage shorten the life of the cable?

Will there be a mold problem within the cable?

I'm thinking that all water damaged romex wire should be replaced...?

shortcircuit2
 
There was a recent thread in regards to wiring a house that is not dried in.The respose was mixed to say the least.IMHO replacement should be done.Think of all the homes flooded by Katrina and as long as they stayed underwater I would assume that some permanent condition would exist especially in a saltwater situation.
 
I can understand the official's hesitation. There is nothing cut-and-dried requiring replacement of the conductors. The NEC deals with the anticipated permanent "definition" of the location, not temporary events like floods.

If it were my house, I would likely replace the receptacles that were submerged, and leave the romex be. I'd sure like to hear others responses to this as well.
 
Mike, that's initially compelling, but it still leaves it open to question.

They use the phrase "exposed to water" not "immersed in water." So, by their reasoning, NM cable that's been exposed to rain, but not wicked up the moisture of the rain, should be replaced. I would not agree with that idea.

Take outdoor lights and receptacles at a dwelling unit, for example. Usually, if the cable is left long enough at the rough, unaffected cable is still present in the box. If it rained or snowed between rough and trim, this NEMA document could be viewed as advising replacement of the runs in question. That's overly protective, IMO.
 
georgestolz said:
Mike, that's initially compelling, but it still leaves it open to question.

They use the phrase "exposed to water" not "immersed in water." So, by their reasoning, NM cable that's been exposed to rain, but not wicked up the moisture of the rain, should be replaced. I would not agree with that idea.

Take outdoor lights and receptacles at a dwelling unit, for example. Usually, if the cable is left long enough at the rough, unaffected cable is still present in the box. If it rained or snowed between rough and trim, this NEMA document could be viewed as advising replacement of the runs in question. That's overly protective, IMO.
Click to expand...


Not trying to start anything here but if I was a code enforcement official no one that used an open bed truck would ever pass a job that installed NM cable.
Cable left exposed to the weather would be replaced before I would sign off their job.

I know officials that live by this rule. If NM cable gets wet then it is to be replaced, period.
 
George,

Re read the opening statement for the publication.

"This publication provides guidelines on how to handle electrical equipment that has been exposed to water through flooding, fire fighting activities, hurricanes, etc. It is designed for use by suppliers, installers, inspectors, and users of electrical products."

Note "normal weather" is not listed.
 
In a past thread I brought up that I would not want a home that was wired with saturated wire.The first thing that comes to my mind is mineral deposits in a water heaterLeave wire in that same water and it will aquire the same deposits hense contaminated.
If paint would require a panel/ meter to be replaced then water that leaves deposits on the conductors would do the same.Same horse just another color. :)
 
We do some work with a GC that does fire/flood restoration. I once had a minor part of a remodel on a Doctors Office, because the owner's husband of the beauty shop next door did a DIY plumbing repair over the weekend. Several inches of water in the Doctors office on Monday morning. The water never came close to the conductors or the outlets.

But with Fires: If the roof is gone or the wire has be "hosed" it goes. Not my rule, theirs, and they get the insurance to pay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top