Have a 1800's home which HO installed sheetrock over plaster walls prior to electrical upgrades. Original wiring is bx umbrella circuits, with pull chain fixtures in all rooms. Our company ran nm to new swithes/new home runs/ interconnect smokes. Called for inspection prior to device install. Inspector wants all areas with new wiring to be exposed for inspection: Electrical permit specified old work on existing stucture with no service change, but inspector states that our wiring is new and must be exposed for inspection as such. My question is what is the the clasification between old and new install.

You might consider asking the AHJ what he/she wants to see or is expecting to see.

In the NM article, it states that NM need not be supported when it is "fished" into a wall. I am assuming this is the case with your installation. Beyond support, what is your inspector trying to see that cannot be seen from within the box?

Raven, the new sheetrock maybe the downfall here.

I agree that if the permitt was for an "old work" (retrofit) installation to keep from disturbing a historical finish, NEC article 334.30(B)(1) could be used.

By covering over the old finish, the inspector could argue that preservation was not an issue in the project.

Hopefully some others will jump in here and prove me off base.

Roger

Hey Ryan, I had my post window open for awhile while I took a phone call and didn't see your post untill I submitted mine.

Roger

Thanks for replys, AHJ maintains that new sheetrock on walls creates the stucture as new and wiring must be inspected for support. But why fail electrical, should be fail on building permit inspection not on electrical inspection:again, the electrician is the messenger of bad news to customer.

I do a lot of work in old dwellings in the inner city of Minneapolis, St. Paul. The destinction of what is old work vs. new work is fairly well described here.

On a room by room basis, if 50% of the wall surface is removed exposing the framing then the room is considered as new construction and is wired to the most current NEC in effect. (since the NEC is adopted on the state level, here, that is the 2002 statewide. . .it may be different in your location)

Applying a new covering over the existing covering is not exposing the framing. . .no economy of effort is introduced. . .especially if the new wall surface is intact (taped and sanded) before I'm allowed to start my wiring.

Arguably, if the electrician can get in before the drywall (panelling, wood, whatever) goes on, then the electrician can hack or beat large holes and not have to finesse as much, but a large part of the run is still fished. It is bad planning on the part of the Home Owner if I can't wire until after the walls are finished. . .the HO has to spend a lot more on my labor to fish the wires in.

If the inspector is arguing that s/he should see the support, as if it were not fished, on the new wire installed because of the new drywall present, then all the wiring should be to new construction standard. . .that is, outlets within 6' of the start of a wall and every 12' after, etc.

Now, since this is plaster (on lathe?), if the plaster is skinned off the lathe before the rock goes on. . .its a little harder to argue. Then it is a matter of showing the inspector proof that the Home Owner was done with the rock before the electrical was started. Who's to say that the plaster was off at the 50% or higher level at any one time. The HO could have done one wall at a time over a long span of time.

The lynch pin is that the wiring did not start until the rock was finished.

The inspector is being just a little unreasonable. If the sheetrock had been installed with a permit, or the electrical had been installed prior to the new rock, the installation would still meet NEC. Sure, make the HO pull a permit for the GWB, but inspect the NM for supports where none are required???????? He should inspect what he can, maybe ask for a couple of boxes to be opened and check for grounds.

IMO the inspector is asking way too much. NM cable is allowed to be fished in without supports. I do not think any code official can demand that access holes be made for cable support in old walls. Sounds to me like the owner simply covered the existing plaster walls with new wallboard. Is there a rule that this cannot be done? I don't think so.
Is it possible that the owner & code officials have a history? That could explain the torture the owner is being put thru.
Bottom line, fishing of NM is permitted.
Rick

Roger: I'm glad we were on the same page. Nothing worse than when someone with more knowledge of the code is answering the same question at the same time as me.

This one is really bothering me. It is perfectly legal to fish romex. That is unquestionable. The building was not gutted therefore the only way to rewire is to fish. The electrical inspector has no authority to burden a homeowner with the incredible added expense of demolition, disposal etc. There is no justification for what he is asking whatsoever. I would make this clear to the inspector. If this is not possible then it is an issue between him and the homeowner. At which point the homeowner should go way above this guy to whomever he can.

Did I mention this one really bothers me? Here you have people doing the right thing. Updating wiring, adding safety and value to their property. And you have a bureaucratic authority busting your b***. This is why people try to avoid permits. And really can you blame them.

my guess is you've run across a "multiple inspector" who knows just enough code to get themselves into trouble. I would call the head electrical inspector and discuss it with him/her.

Rizer: First off, welcome to the site.

Secondly...I hope that that is not your feeling about all multi-licensed inspectors. I happen to hold 7 different certifications form ICBO/ICC, and I am also the head electrical inspector for my city.

Ryan respectfully I have to say you are obviously quite knowledgeable in many fields BUT no matter how many certifications a person may have field experience is generally as or more valuable than bookwork. There is no way I can beleive that a carpenter turned building inspector can be a good electrical, plumbing or any other kind of inspector with out years of experience in that particular trade.

Scott: Thats a fair statement.

I did my time in electrical, and that is my strong point.

One important thing though, and maybe this confirms Rizer's stance, is that the NEC is BY FAR the most difficult code/trade to learn. With that in mind, I understand why Rizer would say what he said. I'm sure you will both understand why I said what I said as well.

The nice thing about the other trades is that the plumbing and mechanical codes are about 100 pages each and can be nearly memorized. The building code is 800(?) or so, but there is no experience that can really help, other tahn architecture. Most of a building code is memorizing concepts and details.

Ryan,

For what it's worth I have heard rumors that Building Inspectors (Town Employees) in our area now have to be ICC certified and some (many/most?) were not able to pass the exams.

(Give yourself a pat on the back)


Bill

Thanks Bill, I appreciate it.

Scott, Ryan has shown he isn't normal when it comes to this general rule.

Ryan, don't take that as I meant you are abnormal.

Keep up the good work buddy.

Roger

Roger, agreed. 100%

I agree with ElecticAl's interpretation, as would most AHJ's in our area. Since the framing wasn't exposed, it still constitutes Old Work. A technicality, given the fact that you've bypassed the old Home Runs I suppose.

Did you tie into the existing circuits, or run all new behind the existing finish?

Was this ever resolved?
--
Tom H

I'm like Tom and would like to know too.

I hope I was wrong.

Roger

Ravin hasn't posted since then.

I sent him an email. I'll let you know if he replies. I was curious too.

Hey fellows, Update regarding old/new work. Prior to my involvement,it seems AHJ told HO at time of his permit that if any existing partitions are exposed, that wiring should be installed as new work. When I looked at job to estimate, all the walls were covered with new rock, and HO did not tell me about AHJ instruction and nether did AHJ untill time of inspection. Worse than that for HO, he insulated all exterior walls with out inspection. Ispector was peaved at HO, wanted all rock removed, but since AHJ knows of my workmanship and overall quality of other installations, he only made HO expose areas where I installed new openings, meaning only open that bay, not expose entire wall. What an ordeal, all due to not being informed by HO. Thanks for your interest. Ravin.

So the walls were open then? Before or after you did your wiring? If they were closed before you did your wiring I have no problem with you fishing it in. This is still a legal wiriing method. I am not sure there is any code that specifies at what stage of construction you have to install wiring.

Actually there is....


Edited for typo's

[This message has been edited by Ryan_J (edited 04-18-2004).]

Ravin,

What a can of worms. So, is your AHJ a "combination inspector" that is looking at more than one trade's work? Or, do I understand you to say that the HO pulled his own electrical permit?

Had the HO done any wiring under his permit? Or, was all the new wiring done by you?

[This message has been edited by ElectricAL (edited 04-18-2004).]

Ryan, to me that tells me when the systems must be inspected not when they must be installed. If the wiring was not yet installed there is nothing to inspect. This may be pushing it but what if a homeowner decides to gut, insulate and board a room. Then they realize the should have had the wiring updated. At this point they have an electrical contractor fish in all new wiring. While not ideal to me it is legal.

What I am getting at is what code tells me that if a wall is gutted it must be rewired to current code. And if it must be rewired, must it be rebuilt, replumbed and so on?

A can of worms is correct. As i see it the HO Knew of the requiirement to have any electrical work done as new work and failed to inform the EC of the inspectors' direction to the HO. I hope the HO got an expensive lesson in normal construction practices. The EC probably saved the HO some money because of his good work reputation.

I do not know of any code that requires new wiring,plumbing,etc just because a wall is opened up and replaced.

[This message has been edited by nesparky (edited 04-18-2004).]

Down (up?) here, the only requirement for "new" code compliance in existing structures is if the whole building is being redone - that is, greater than 51% reconstructed / remodeled (to studs), or add ons, if the new part is bigger than the old one (51%+). Obviously, the new addition needs to be done to current Code, but the existing can be left alone if the project size meets the req's.

After the on site inspection, I spoke with AHJ off site(towns general building insp.) to find out whats up; The HO was instucted that if any walls were exposed and any mech/elec/insullation were needed, such areas shall be treated as new work,this was the condition for his permit, but HO did not comply and insullated/sheetrocked then called me. This was not conveyed to me. I was aware of the 51% demo code and was leary when I quoted job seeing all this new rock and mentioned to HO it would have been easier to wire prior to rock install. I intentionally wrote on elec permit application old work without service upgrade knowing more elaborate elec would be neccessary. Did not release estimate to HO until I recieved my permit via mail. The HO was trying to do renovations without permit, because I looked at his permit date at town hall and it was after mine, obviously the AHJ knew it too. Thanks for the interest fellow contractors. Ravin