When does "existing" matter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sfav8r

Senior Member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Last Thursday I had an inspection on a job where I swapped out a fuse panel for a breaker panel. The panel was located in the garage. The inspector said the work I did (I used EMT) was fine , but that all of the romex below 8' had to be removed. This is a 6-1/2' garage, so basically that included all of the romex running to the living room, dining room and kitchen.

I explained that this was all existing (which was quite obvious). He said that he realized it was existing but that didn't matter because it has never been legal to run romex below 8' and if something was not legal when it was done, it isn't protected by the existing "exemption."

I understand what he is saying, but on the other hand, does this mean every time I pull a permit everything that was ever done not to code has to be changed in the entire house??? This seems ridiculous and I have never had another inspector call existing work.

The second problem is that he is saying that I have to bring 100a service to the house. It is an older house with only 60a service and the owner neither needs or wants a bigger service. I did not touch the overhead or the meter base where the power enters the house. I did change the panel after the meter and used a back fed 60 breaker.

He couldn't tell me where the code says I have to change it. He simply said "it's obvious it's not enough power." His personal opinion aside, the client doesn't want it done and they have all gas appliances in a 900 sq. ft. home.

Can anyone offer any help on this. I may request a review on this but I'd like to have my facts straight.

Thanks for any input.

[ May 22, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: sfav8r ]
 
Re: When does "existing" matter?

Well, you did change the service equipment, and the smallest dwelling service permitted is 100 amp, so I agree on this.

Changing all the romex home runs because they're above the garage rafters but below 8', that's a local rule. I'm constantly amazed how many Nazi inspectors want all this existing noncomforing work brought into spec. Perhaps if you had given him the "Sieg Heil!", he would have let you off without changing all the home runs.
 
Re: When does "existing" matter?

I know of nowhere in the code it says that NM conductors are not allowed to be ran lower than 8' in a studded wall?
And 334.15(B) has the requirment That only requires us to protect NM to a point of 6" where ran up out of a floor? So if NM can be ran out of the middle of a floor then how can it be concidered subject to damage if the NM is ran between studs? I just don't get it. :confused:

Sorry for the rant but I think the statment "where subject to physical damage"
Is one of the most abused requirments in the NEC!

Everything in a building can be subject to physical damage, Just turn loose some kids on it.

[ May 22, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
 
Re: When does "existing" matter?

Originally posted by hurk27:


Sorry for the rant but I think the statment "where subject to physical damage"
Is one of the most abused requirments in the NEC!
Click to expand...
I agree. Unfortunately, here in San Francisco, they have adopted wording specifing that "subject to damage" includes any exposed work below 8 feet" To make things even more exciting, they don't allow flex below 8' either. That's right, FMC stapled to the top plate at the floor joists is deemed to be unsafe. Even for a heater you must run EMT down the wall and use the shortest flex line practical.

It's very annoying.
 
Re: When does "existing" matter?

"they have adopted wording specifing that "subject to damage" includes any exposed work below 8 feet"

I would be curious as to how they have come to this conclusion.

334.10(A)
(1) For both exposed and concealed work...

334.15 Exposed Work.
(A) To Follow Surface.
(B) Protection from Physical Damage. Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary ...

300.4(A)(1)Bored Holes. In both exposed and concealed locations, ...


Having been involved in construction for all my life (my father was a contractor), I have seen a lot of different locations.
There are many locations where I have seen NM cable installed without sheetrock or some other form of wall covering that has lasted for decades without damage of any kind.
Yes judgement is important, but not poor judgement. If there is any chance for damage due to the particular situation at hand, protect it. Or just move on to more important items. I cannot see how being installed in an area of less than 8 feet would automatically make it subject to physical damage.
 
Re: When does "existing" matter?

Originally posted by pierre:

I would be curious as to how they have come to this conclusion.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there is a *rational* reason, but for the record, here is the article:

San Francisco Electrical Code 300-4g

(g) Subject to Physical Damage. Premises wiring systems installed less than 8 feet (2.44m) above a walking surface or finished floor are considered subject to physical damage.
As I stated before, the one that really makes no sense is that the exact same rules apply for MC or FMC. Apparently they feel 1/2 sheetrock is better protection than steel.
 
Re: When does "existing" matter?

sfav8r,

Check out post"Code Question", if you haven't already. Similar situation to your's.

frank
 
Re: When does "existing" matter?

I would like to help but my head just exploded. :mad: The inspector is overstepping his "authority"

[ May 22, 2005, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: electricmanscott ]
 
Re: When does "existing" matter?

BY Scott: The inspector is overstepping his "authority"
Click to expand...
Ok Scott get it together.
He's not overstepping if there is a local adopted code? I agree that a code like this was adopted in a questionable manner but if it there he can enforce it. :mad:
 
Re: When does "existing" matter?

stav8r,
First, the service. When you pull a permit for the changing the service that is all that the inspector should be looking at. The service does include, however, the entrance, meter equipment service disconnect, and/or service panel. All of these should be in compliance with current code, which does not allow a 60A service. 230.79(C)minimum 100A.

Second, the inspector should not be concerned with the existing installation of the branch circuits unless he/she physically sees a dangerous or potentially dangerous situation. How does the inspector know what code the installation was under. Most States and Municipalities did not formally adopt codes until the 60's or 70's. What if that installation was installed before that time wouldn't it then be legally in existance?

It is easy to say all this but maybe if I saw the install I would have made the same call. Who knows?
Jerimi M
Electrical Inspector
 
Re: When does "existing" matter?

Originally posted by hurk27:
BY Scott: The inspector is overstepping his "authority"
Click to expand...
Ok Scott get it together.
He's not overstepping if there is a local adopted code? I agree that a code like this was adopted in a questionable manner but if it there he can enforce it. :mad:
Click to expand...
So then you agree with inspectors enforcing codes on existing work in which you had nothing to do with?
 
Re: When does "existing" matter?

By Scott: So then you agree with inspectors enforcing codes on existing work in which you had nothing to do with?
Click to expand...
No. Your right on that point, I was thinking that you were against the inspector red tagging for the NM below the 8' level. :D

I agree that if it was existing then it should be between the home owner and the inspector, not the EC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top