Replacing existing ungrounded NM cable

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SCourtney

Member
I am working on a remodel that has us rewiring a bathroom and several kitchen appliances, Small appliance branch circuits along with feeding an AHU that was incorrectly fed by another EC many years ago. We have set a sub panel (100A) in an adjacent hall way to feed the afore-mentioned circuits.

The existing wiring is 2 wire and 3 wire NM cable All ungrounded. (circa 1950 home). The bathroom ceiling had to be removed and caused us to remove the existing 14/2 feed to the bedrooms on that side of the house. I pulled a new 14/2 w/ grnd to the first device box and planned on setting a GFCI receptacle to feed the remaining devices on the newely fed bedroom CKT. The branch ckt feed is going to be connected to an AFCI device from the new sub panel. I believe we have met the intent of Art 250.130(C) and 406.3(D)(3)(b) in both instances.

The inspector has yellow flagged us citing that all of the existing wiring in the bedrooms must be replaced with 14/2 w/ grnd because in his opinion this is not an extension of the existing ckt as 250.130(C) states, he states that this is a new feeder and therefore all the devices downstream need to be wired with a cable that has an EGC.

I can?t believe this is the intent of the code to have all of wiring to be replaced every time a new branch feeder ckt is connected to the old existing wiring.

Any thoughts?
 
Unless there is a local ordinance, I doubt there is, I doubt the inspector will be able to show you an art. in the NEC that makes your install noncompliant.
 
I'm not quite sure of the inspector's reasoning.

All new receptacle outlets installed, whether on the old circuit or not, would require an EGC. Existing receptacles that were present would not require upgrading by the NEC, the sections you provided lay that out pretty clearly, IMO.
 
There is a lot of ways to look for information in the code book, one way is looking for definitive code reference requiring us to do something and another other is looking for the article that does not requiring us to do something.

I'm looking for the section that requires me to replace the wiring and I can't find it.

The real question is will this what will the AHJ interpert from our input verses the input of his staff.

Thanks for your posts! This was my first post and I got to tell you I was a little leary at first but I feel much better now.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Unless there is a local ordinance, I doubt there is, I doubt the inspector will be able to show you an art. in the NEC that makes your install noncompliant.
Click to expand...

You should have the inspector explain why, you seem to have your case all laid out. sounds like a good install.
 
SCourtney said:
I am working on a remodel that has us rewiring a bathroom and several kitchen appliances, Small appliance branch circuits along with feeding an AHU that was incorrectly fed by another EC many years ago. We have set a sub panel (100A) in an adjacent hall way to feed the afore-mentioned circuits.

The existing wiring is 2 wire and 3 wire NM cable All ungrounded. (circa 1950 home). The bathroom ceiling had to be removed and caused us to remove the existing 14/2 feed to the bedrooms on that side of the house. I pulled a new 14/2 w/ grnd to the first device box and planned on setting a GFCI receptacle to feed the remaining devices on the newely fed bedroom CKT. The branch ckt feed is going to be connected to an AFCI device from the new sub panel. I believe we have met the intent of Art 250.130(C) and 406.3(D)(3)(b) in both instances.

The inspector has yellow flagged us citing that all of the existing wiring in the bedrooms must be replaced with 14/2 w/ grnd because in his opinion this is not an extension of the existing ckt as 250.130(C) states, he states that this is a new feeder and therefore all the devices downstream need to be wired with a cable that has an EGC.

I can?t believe this is the intent of the code to have all of wiring to be replaced every time a new branch feeder ckt is connected to the old existing wiring.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

To me, it seems like this will be a function of the prevailing building code. Most likely, there'll be an existing buildings code with a section within it that defines the work area. It would seem to me that if the work area did not extend into the bedroom but was limited to the hallway remote panelboard and the bathroom ceiling than the branch circuit portion contained within the bathroom ceiling could be replaced since it was affected by the work and the remaining portion could be permitted to remain under the "branch circuit extension" portion of the circuit alluded to in 250.130(C).
In other words, the bedroom is not defined as part of the work area within the building permit, therefore the BC extensions are not a part of the work. Only that portion of the circuit affected by the actual work is subject to the code. :smile:
 
Unfortunately the remodel has also added a receptacle in the bedroom where a closet doorway was framed in to make room for the bath remodel and the closet in the other bedroom was split into two closets to accomodate both bedrooms. The closets had lights and switches added for this remodel.

It brings up an interesting view point. The Florida building code may have some stipulations that I'm not up to speed on for this situation... I'll have to look at that. Thanks
 
SCourtney said:
Unfortunately the remodel has also added a receptacle in the bedroom where a closet doorway was framed in to make room for the bath remodel and the closet in the other bedroom was split into two closets to accomodate both bedrooms. The closets had lights and switches added for this remodel.
Click to expand...
I'd say all of the new wiring must contain an intact EGC system, regardless of the rest of the supplying circuit.

It brings up an interesting view point. The Florida building code may have some stipulations that I'm not up to speed on for this situation... I'll have to look at that.
Click to expand...
In Va., if the remodel exceeds 50% of the total sq.ft. area of the premises, the entire structure must be brought to present code.
 
From your second post you've done more than rewire the branch cct to the panel. I've seen requirements like this as amendments to the NEC. Talk with the inspector. Ask if this is an interpretation of the NEC or an amendment to it. In the end, you can spend time and energy fighting the building department, or spend the same time rewiring the bedroom.

Dave
 
Tiger Electrical said:
From your second post you've done more than rewire the branch cct to the panel. I've seen requirements like this as amendments to the NEC. Talk with the inspector. Ask if this is an interpretation of the NEC or an amendment to it. In the end, you can spend time and energy fighting the building department, or spend the same time rewiring the bedroom.
Click to expand...
SCourtney,

Dave is right, trying to get the inspector to change his mind might be "winning the battle but losing the war".

Is the AHJ a real Electrical Inspector? In CT, smaller towns often have one person doing all inspections regardless of their background. If the AHJ has been in his position for a while and has had ruled in a like manner on other installations, he's unlikely to "back down".
 
I spoke to the head electrical inspector this AM and he assured me that what he wanted was, to make sure that any extension to the BC was properly terminated and connected to the EGC at the new panel. The original inspector was not as willing to reason this out with us. The good news is the job is OK and the homeowner is happy with our efforts to resolve the problem while keeping his bottom line in tact.
 
wbalsam1 said:
To me, it seems like this will be a function of the prevailing building code. Most likely, there'll be an existing buildings code with a section within it that defines the work area. It would seem to me that if the work area did not extend into the bedroom but was limited to the hallway remote panelboard and the bathroom ceiling than the branch circuit portion contained within the bathroom ceiling could be replaced since it was affected by the work and the remaining portion could be permitted to remain under the "branch circuit extension" portion of the circuit alluded to in 250.130(C).
In other words, the bedroom is not defined as part of the work area within the building permit, therefore the BC extensions are not a part of the work. Only that portion of the circuit affected by the actual work is subject to the code. :smile:
Click to expand...



Fred
Would you be alluding to Appendix J in the RCNYS, for the same kind of situation if it was to arise in NYS?
 
Originally Posted by wbalsam1
To me, it seems like this will be a function of the prevailing building code. Most likely, there'll be an existing buildings code with a section within it that defines the work area. It would seem to me that if the work area did not extend into the bedroom but was limited to the hallway remote panelboard and the bathroom ceiling than the branch circuit portion contained within the bathroom ceiling could be replaced since it was affected by the work and the remaining portion could be permitted to remain under the "branch circuit extension" portion of the circuit alluded to in 250.130(C).
In other words, the bedroom is not defined as part of the work area within the building permit, therefore the BC extensions are not a part of the work. Only that portion of the circuit affected by the actual work is subject to the code. :smile:
Pierre C Belarge said:
Fred
Would you be alluding to Appendix J in the RCNYS, for the same kind of situation if it was to arise in NYS?
Click to expand...

The OP's question was in regard to a 1950's type home, so I'm assuming it's a detached one-family dwelling. If this were the case in NYS, yes, Appendix J of the RCNYS would apply. If it were an apartment within a multi-family dwelling, the Existing Building Code of NYS would apply. :smile:
 
SCourtney said:
Unfortunately the remodel has also added a receptacle in the bedroom where a closet doorway was framed in to make room for the bath remodel and the closet in the other bedroom was split into two closets to accomodate both bedrooms. The closets had lights and switches added for this remodel.

It brings up an interesting view point. The Florida building code may have some stipulations that I'm not up to speed on for this situation... I'll have to look at that. Thanks
Click to expand...


I would think that this info should have been included in the original question? Am I wrong? :-?

People here are very helpful but when you ask a question you should tell the whole story so that you can get an accurate answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top