 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to nunya
Re: Contractor Work said by nunya:If the K&T is feeding the new circuit, then no, it is not code compliant.
Presuming that local code just follows current NEC, why wouldn't this be covered by 394.10(1)? Or am I misunderstanding what "extension of existing installations" means?
quote:
394.10 Uses Permitted.
Concealed knob-and-tube wiring shall be permitted to be installed in the hollow spaces of walls and ceilings or in unfinished attics and roof spaces as provided in 394.23 only as follows:
(1) For extensions of existing installations
(2) Elsewhere by special permission
|
|
 nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8
 ·Charter
 ·surpasshosting
 ·voip.ms
| No. If you were extending an existing K&T installation with more K&T, then by this technicality it would be permitted. Most municipalities will not allow it anyway.
334.108 required NM cable to be manufactured with a EGC (the one we see flapping in the breeze in the OP's pic).
In multiple parts of art 250 (ex 250.120), the EGC must be utilized and functional on all new work.
If it's the other way around, where the romex is feeding K&T, then it's just a matter of the local municipalities rules. If that K&T was exposed and could have been replaced, then it should have been replaced. There's really no excuse for leaving it in place. As I mentioned before, in most places it's mandatory. While it's common sense that it should be replaced, some customers will squeeze a dime until it shits a quarter, if you know what I mean.
If that's just the tail end of undisturbed K&T being fed from new romex, then it's OK. It definitely should have been brought up in conversation with the GC and Owner: "Hey, do you want to go ahead and get this shit out of the building now while we are here..."
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't. |
|
|
|
 Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | said by nunya:No. If you were extending an existing K&T installation with more K&T, then by this technicality it would be permitted. Most municipalities will not allow it anyway.
334.108 required NM cable to be manufactured with a EGC (the one we see flapping in the breeze in the OP's pic).
In multiple parts of art 250 (ex 250.120), the EGC must be utilized and functional on all new work.
If it's the other way around, where the romex is feeding K&T, then it's just a matter of the local municipalities rules. If that K&T was exposed and could have been replaced, then it should have been replaced. There's really no excuse for leaving it in place. As I mentioned before, in most places it's mandatory. While it's common sense that it should be replaced, some customers will squeeze a dime until it shits a quarter, if you know what I mean.
If that's just the tail end of undisturbed K&T being fed from new romex, then it's OK. It definitely should have been brought up in conversation with the GC and Owner: "Hey, do you want to go ahead and get this shit out of the building now while we are here..."
Agree. The K & T should be removed in a renovation. |
|
| I wanted to thank everyone for the feedback, I know I definitely got a little bit better understanding of some of the code. Funny story we did talk to the GC and they were to pull the wiring since the walls were open. So this should get very entertaining. Right now we're having an independent electrician come out to at least see if what's there is in spec or not. If not sounds like the GC is going to have some fun work ahead of him. Either way this job just got a lot cheaper for me.
--
»vinfotech.blogspot.com |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by rsaturns:Either way this job just got a lot cheaper for me. How did the job get cheaper? If it wasn't done to spec, it should be done to spec at the contractor's own expense. But you should still be stuck with paying what it was originally going to cost if it had been done right.
I'd also keep an eye on the labor if it's a time and materials contract just to make sure that additional cost doesn't make it's way back in there mysteriously. |
|
