# Vague Home Inspector



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Home Inspector for a Refi says: "There is bare wire in the utility room and needs to be corrected."

I did strap the wires that were a little loose, but I really don't see the need to disconnect and sleeve all of those old romexes. It is a small utility room, not used for storage, containing only the panel and water heater. I think that if these wires were "subject to physical damage" as in 334.15, they would have been damaged by now. What do you think?



















I did add a cover for that receptacle.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Up north, we would have no problem with that. But other areas of the country seem to think that romex is subject to damage below a certain height.


----------



## Service Call (Jul 9, 2011)

Normally that would fly here if the wiring was contained within the cavity of the wall studs. 


Sent from my house using 2 cans and a string!


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

MTW said:


> Up north, we would have no problem with that. But other areas of the country seem to think that romex is subject to damage below a certain height.



That's what I was thinking about. I've seen a lot of basement panel pics with the panel surface mounted and unsleeved Romex coming out of all sides. 


Sent from my iPhone using electriciantalk.com


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

I can't believe the home inspector subjected himself to such a hazard... all those "bare" wires. Oh, the humanity..

What runs through their minds?:blink:

Pete


----------



## pjholguin (May 16, 2014)

I thought he was talking about the GEC...I don't see any bare wires. And being with in the wall there appears to be no hazard.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Without commenting on the ''exposed'' romex part of this discussion, at very least get a strap on that FMC leaving the top of the panel.


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

> Home Inspector for a Refi says: "There is bare wire in the utility room and needs to be corrected."


Like others have said, I see no bare wires here. 

The jackalope also missed the only real (minor) issue of the missing cover for the recept, which the OP already fixed. 

That said, the only real other issue (again minor) would be the bundle of NM on the top left tied to the face of the stud:












I would rather see that bundle relocated or sleeved, but other than that, I see nothing that is a big deal.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

MTW said:


> Up north, we would have no problem with that. But other areas of the country seem to think that romex is subject to damage below a certain height.


Yeah, around here it is 8'......

Sucks to add stuff to a basement.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Barjack said:


> That's what I was thinking about. I've seen a lot of basement panel pics with the panel surface mounted and unsleeved Romex coming out of all sides.


Yeah, it always strikes me as odd why someone would have an issue with it. There's literally millions of basement panels like that. No reports of spontaneous combustion yet.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Switched said:


> Yeah, around here it is 8'......
> 
> Sucks to add stuff to a basement.


I've said it before and I will say it again - the 8' rule is one of the dumbest electrical codes I have ever heard of in my life.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

looks like maybe originally it was planned to be covered, but never-the-less i think i see old cloth or whatever covered wire that most likely isnt grounded, maybe more of a concern in damp areas.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

not to mention that 'vague' is part of the HI creed, especially if hired by the realtor:whistling2:


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

MTW said:


> I've said it before and I will say it again - the 8' rule is one of the dumbest electrical codes I have ever heard of in my life.


I would agree...


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

MTW said:


> I've said it before and I will say it again - the 8' rule is one of the dumbest electrical codes I have ever heard of in my life.



It's also not in the NEC. 

That being said, around here, as a general rule, anything over 7' is considered "not subject to physical damage" by the city AHJ. Those romexes that cross over the stud are at about 7' 5". 


Sent from my iPhone using electriciantalk.com


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

A little off topic.... I remember an article in EC&M about 10 to 12 years ago that was about "Subject to Damage" I remember the author showing a picture of some, if I remember correctly, EMT conduit installed on a concrete retaining wall. Someone backed into the EMT causing damage to it. He was called in as the "Expert". His opinion was that Rigid conduit and parking barriers should have been used.

I hate the "Subject to Damage" crap.....


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Switched said:


> A little off topic.... I remember an article in EC&M about 10 to 12 years ago that was about "Subject to Damage" I remember the author showing a picture of some, if I remember correctly, EMT conduit installed on a concrete retaining wall. Someone backed into the EMT causing damage to it. He was called in as the "Expert". His opinion was that Rigid conduit and parking barriers should have been used.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate the "Subject to Damage" crap.....



Someone here on ET or on MH described "subject to damage" as an immediate situation, not what would happen should an earthquake, hurricane, meteor, or zombie attack hit the installation. 

Some inspectors think unsleeved romex is somehow combustible.


Sent from my iPhone using electriciantalk.com


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

I get it sometimes. We replaced some surface mounted NM in a garage today with conduit. It was about 18" off the ground right below where the guy hung all his yard working equipment and tools. The cable had clear nicks and signs of damage. 

That to me is obvious.

Some of the other stuff they come up with is ridiculous.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

The only height/physical damage ref i can find is in fire alarms>



> *760.53 Multiconductor NPLFA Cables.*
> Multiconductor
> non-power-Iimited fire alarm cables that meet the require-
> ments of 760.176 shall be permitted to be used on fire
> ...


~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Tell the HI to go blow your


----------

