Knob & Tube Wiring Again (sorry)

Status
Not open for further replies.
goldstar

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
I know many insurance companies now want ALL active K&T wiring removed from a house or they won't insure it. However, somewhere during my many years I remember taking a CEU course where it was mentioned that it was acceptable to install a GFCI ahead of all K&T wiring providing you mark the receptacle(s) with a "no equipment ground" label. I don't remember if it was an NEC rule or a NJ Rehab Code rule. Is anyone familiar with this and if so, can you give me a reference ?

OR

Was I dreaming about this :?:p

Any answer is acceptable.
 
goldstar said:
I know many insurance companies now want ALL active K&T wiring removed from a house or they won't insure it. However, somewhere during my many years I remember taking a CEU course where it was mentioned that it was acceptable to install a GFCI ahead of all K&T wiring providing you mark the receptacle(s) with a "no equipment ground" label. I don't remember if it was an NEC rule or a NJ Rehab Code rule. Is anyone familiar with this and if so, can you give me a reference ?

OR

Was I dreaming about this :?:p

Any answer is acceptable.
Click to expand...


406.4 (D)(2)b&c are the NEC articles that permit you to replace an old 2 wire receptacle w/ gfci.
 
goldstar said:
I know many insurance companies now want ALL active K&T wiring removed from a house or they won't insure it. However, somewhere during my many years I remember taking a CEU course where it was mentioned that it was acceptable to install a GFCI ahead of all K&T wiring providing you mark the receptacle(s) with a "no equipment ground" label. I don't remember if it was an NEC rule or a NJ Rehab Code rule.
Click to expand...

You are recalling a NEC rule that has been in existence for decades.

The basic nub is that one can install grounding type receptacle devices at existing outlets on an ungrounded wiring method IF the grounding type devices are labeled NO EQUIPMENT GROUND at each device and they are protected by GFCI protection. Also remember that the act of replacing the receptacle device also triggers the need for AFCI and TR at each device replaced. If one is in for a part of 406.4(D), one is in for all of it.

In your case, if one simply puts GFI protection at the overcurrent protection for a K&T branch circuit, one may not need to do any labeling of devices if they are all legacy two-wire nongrounding type.

Ultimately, whether that will satisfy a particular insurance carrier's policy restrictions is an issue outside of the NEC.
 
al hildenbrand said:
You are recalling a NEC rule that has been in existence for decades.

The basic nub is that one can install grounding type receptacle devices at existing outlets on an ungrounded wiring method IF the grounding type devices are labeled NO EQUIPMENT GROUND at each device and they are protected by GFCI protection. Also remember that the act of replacing the receptacle device also triggers the need for AFCI and TR at each device replaced. If one is in for a part of 406.4(D), one is in for all of it.

In your case, if one simply puts GFI protection at the overcurrent protection for a K&T branch circuit, one may not need to do any labeling of devices if they are all legacy two-wire nongrounding type.

Ultimately, whether that will satisfy a particular insurance carrier's policy restrictions is an issue outside of the NEC.
Click to expand...

That would not be true in NJ.
 
al hildenbrand said:
I work in a State that adopted the NEC without modification. Are you referencing a NJ amendment?
Click to expand...

Even without amendment, the NEC says you don't have to bring existing installations up to the current code and 210.12 only kicks in if you replace, modify, or extend the circuit. Replacing a receptacle is not one of those. And yes, NJ has a rehab code that would otherwise nullify the requirement, although if you were extending a circuit into new construction you would probably have to go AFCI.
 
gadfly56 said:
Even without amendment, the NEC says you don't have to bring existing installations up to the current code and 210.12 only kicks in if you replace, modify, or extend the circuit. Replacing a receptacle is not one of those.
Click to expand...
Actually, you will find, for the first time, in the 2014 NEC, that an additional requirement beyond 210.12 exists in 406.4(D), specifically 406.4(D)(4). The arc fault protection may come from an AFCI receptacle. The 2017 NEC continues the 406.4(D)(4) AFCI requirement.

gadfly56 said:
And yes, NJ has a rehab code that would otherwise nullify the requirement, although if you were extending a circuit into new construction you would probably have to go AFCI.
Click to expand...
I have no experience with the language of New Jersey's rehab code, so I accept what you say as so.
 
user 100 said:
406.4 (D)(2)b&c are the NEC articles that permit you to replace an old 2 wire receptacle w/ gfci.
Click to expand...
Yes. Thank you. I found that but I was almost certain there was specific verbiage in the NJ Rehab Code regarding this. In the case I have coming up the HO wants to sell her house but the buyers' insurance company will not insure the house if it has K&T. That said, I'm just trying to offer a quick remedy to make the house safe for sale. Irrespective of what my remedy may be, insurance companies are not required to insure your house if it has K&T.

I haven't been there yet so I don't know what I'll run into. From my experience in these older homes typically where K&T is present there is or was a fuse panel. I'll post what I find. I've worked in several older houses in the Glen Rock and Ridgewood, NJ area where I had to literally cut out a channel of plaster and wood lath in a 1st floor hallway to replace K&T. In some cases, if the basement isn't finished replacement is somewhat easy. Getting to second and third floors becomes complicated. I wonder what EC's do in historical homes where walls and ceilings have to remain as original as possible.
 
I'm not trying to high-jack this post. Does anyone know of insurance companies allowing K&T to stay if it is arc-fault protected at the panel?
PS. Although arcfault protection is a great idea, I'm not sold on the fact that the existing AFCI devices actually do what they are supposed to do.
 
Regardless of codes, GFCI, AFCI, etc. an insurance company is free to object to having any K &T in something they provide coverage for if that is what they want. Your choices are to comply with their request or seek coverage elsewhere. If someone else will provide coverage, you may not get as good of a rate as you might if you didn't have k &T wiring though
 
kwired said:
. . . you may not get as good of a rate as you might if you didn't have k &T wiring though
Click to expand...
Compared to what?

The replacement of a core wiring method of K&T can run well beyond $10,000, including collateral damage repair and finishing. And the more ornate the Victorian accents, the higher the final cost. All to avoid, what, a $100 per year adder to include K&T, and letting go of a "loyalty" to an insurance agent (or agency or company name)?

Given that there are many millions of dwellings with core wiring from first electrification in the early 1900s all over this country, and most all of them are insured. . . the question really is why one would even put up with the petty tyranny of an insurer based ban on K&T.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Compared to what?

The replacement of a core wiring method of K&T can run well beyond $10,000, including collateral damage repair and finishing. And the more ornate the Victorian accents, the higher the final cost. All to avoid, what, a $100 per year adder to include K&T, and letting go of a "loyalty" to an insurance agent (or agency or company name)?

Given that there are many millions of dwellings with core wiring from first electrification in the early 1900s all over this country, and most all of them are insured. . . the question really is why one would even put up with the petty tyranny of an insurer based ban on K&T.
Click to expand...
Is kind of what I was getting at. If one company won't insure it, another one might. Don't expect same rate, it could happen but doesn't have to happen. If you have a loan, the loan provider may come into play as well, but usually leave this sort of issue up to insurance providers, and don't care as long as any potential loss will be covered.
 
I've heard of some insurance companies in our area refusing coverage of homes built pre- WW2 that still have galvanized water piping. They are saying that the design life of the pipes is 75 years.

Maybe if the house has K&T and galvanized pipe, it will cancel out because the burst pipe will extinguish the electrical fire. LOL
 
mjf said:
Are insurance companies really looking that closely at the electrical wiring in homes nowadays?
Click to expand...

goldstar said:
Unfortunately for HO's - yes they are. Fortunately for us EC's it's more work but it's dirty work.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I suspect this really is related to certain policy / plans that are sold for lower risk structures and the insurance agent or company is saying that the risk exposure is different for a different structure and the additional risk exposure is something they want to be paid for.

Some agents or insurance companies are interested in only cherry picking the highest profit margin (lowest risk) situations to extend their coverage to, and nothing more.

An insurer profit motive should absolutely not be construed as a blanket finding of "high" risk. There is good reason that K&T is still in the NEC, in my opinion.
 
mjf said:
Are insurance companies really looking that closely at the electrical wiring in homes nowadays?

how are they to know what's within wall cavities?
Click to expand...
I think it does vary. I haven't tried to insure an old house so can't really say, but do occasionally hear about someone that can't get insurance (at least from a specific provider) unless they make some changes, and not always just for electrical issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top