Thread: Old house new wiring

This question, is okay for the electricians to run electrical circuit wires up
along side the water and vent pipes, that are box in, so he can access
the attic of an old house. From the attic the electrician was able to
run new electrical circuit wires into the house 2nd. floor rooms, by fishing
wires. Thanks to all that answer this thread.

Similar Threads:

• Vigorous chimney cleaning likely led to house fire - Flint Journal
• From the old board, Abandon Wiring
• From the old board, Knob and Tube Wiring
• House fire on Goulais Mission Road - SooToday.com
• I wanna be a home inspector - Upstate House

No. You may not "fish" wires, especially not K & T.
Platform or balloon construction? (you mentioned "old" ).

You mentioned "vent pipes" - there should be no "fishing" of wiring method within the enclosure protecting the fuel fired appliances' vent pipes or chimney from the habital spaces, or penetrations of the firestops between floors of said vent pipes or chimneys.

You may pull wires through conduit or other listed raceway(s); you may under certain circumstances (and distance limitations depending on the "type" and application) "fish" cable assemblies, but not alongside ductwork or plumbing system pipes and their penetrations, and not via plenum areas or wall cavities used as return air for a Forced Air system.

You still have to maintain distances between multiple cables (bundling issues) and separate enclosed spaces between plumbing, ducts/vents, and the electrical system immediately above and below (dedicated space equipment and system, electrical); consider conductive metallic cable sheaths, rough edges abraiding, damaging non-metallic cable assemblies, protect from nails, screws, and other penetrations future and projectiles now penetrating and within the "to be fished" cavities; and the temperatures (steam, hot water pipes, furnace ducts) and conditions in those enclosed spaces; protection/separation should one of those plumbing systems componants break, fail, leak, burst which is why for example, type NM is generally not "fished" through a closed stud cavity as previously installed and secured plumbing, where it cannot be secured within and may snag on riser supports, etc. or where liquids may travel the outside path of the plumbing and "run down" the cable sheath.

Most importantly, one still has to remediate penetration fire blocking and draft stopping between wall plates, floor/ceiling cavities, between floors, and the protecting the roof assembly via the ceiling/attic floor below.

You'd still have to consider not only added distance, but summer ambient temperatures in the attic and the conditions therein with the wiring method employed.

I think it is ok. I have done it many times as an electrician and seen it done many times. You usually look at the main waste line, the chimney or if a house has balloon framing. Sometimes you have to pipe up the outside of the house. Worst case is fishing the wall and making holes to get between floors, or conduit through a closet to the next floor. You do not have to secure wires fished in walls, physical damage should not be a problem, and I don't think a hot water pipe would hurt a romex cable unless it was wrapped tight around and it was really hot. How big is the box? If it was big enough he could have sleeved pvc down it. But if the rest of the job looks ok it should be fine.

Originally Posted by Gerry Bennett

I think it is ok. I have done it many times as an electrician and seen it done many times. You usually look at the main waste line, the chimney or if a house has balloon framing. Sometimes you have to pipe up the outside of the house. Worst case is fishing the wall and making holes to get between floors, or conduit through a closet to the next floor. You do not have to secure wires fished in walls, physical damage should not be a problem, and I don't think a hot water pipe would hurt a romex cable unless it was wrapped tight around and it was really hot. How big is the box? If it was big enough he could have sleeved pvc down it. But if the rest of the job looks ok it should be fine.

More common place for a roof leak is the DWV vent penetration through the roof.

Running electrical along side a manufactured chimney or a masonry chimney would be most unwise - and a clearance issue for either.
Taking electrical outside the thermal envelope "pipe up the outside of the house" would require wet location wiring methods, and added exposure temperature "issues" solar gain, temperatures summer, etc

More than just "electrical" code concerns with most all you claim, including the idea that it would ever be permissible to have uncontained unsecured "wires fished in walls"!

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

More than just "electrical" code concerns with most all you claim, including the idea that it would ever be permissible to have uncontained unsecured "wires fished in walls"!

So, you expect someone to beat open the walls to get wiring from 1 floor to the other?

It's quite permissable to fish wiring in the walls.

Old house with hollow lath and plaster walls? The local authorities here expect to see NMD fished up in the wall cavities. There will often be short runs of K&T left in, such as to ceiling lights between floors. Make sure all new splices are made in accessible junction boxes.

"Make sure all new splices are made in accessible junction boxes."

How do you splice K&T in a J Box?

Fished cables in walls are specifically exempted from the requirement to be secured.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

"Make sure all new splices are made in accessible junction boxes."

How do you splice K&T in a J Box?

Many Many thanks to all that replied to my thread. I now have all the facts I need to finish my inspection report. I will add a foot note, that
any plumber hire by the new owner, be made aware of the present of
electrical wires near there plumbing pipes.

Alton
Thanks for the diagram. That makes sense.

Now if you could only work with the K&T without the insulation being so brittle it crumbles off the wire.

Sorry to cause a stir. Article 334.30(B)(1) in the NEC as far as securing cables in fished walls. What I envisioned by Mr Mattison's question was a couple of circuits to a second floor for a couple of rooms or ac units, ie: a12-3 or 14-3 romex.
#1. If the plumber fire stopped it, then I couldn't get down it and would have to look for another route.
#2. No one said anything at all about this being a plenum. It's a chase.
#3 If I went outside it would certainly be pvc and thhn or thwn, but actually you CAN pull romex through conduit-as a sleeve.
#4 "ambient temperatures in the attic?" so you can't run romex in the attic?
#5 ballon framing-drop a line down with a weight. If it goes you got a clear shot basement to attic. to the (I've done this in old 2 or 3 families) If someone wants to firestop they can do them all when I'm done.
Finally, let's try to give the homeowner, who's paying for this, a break. The main objective is safety. Myself, I don't see an issue with a line dropped cleanly down a chase ten or twenty feet and maybe bumping up against the hot water line or something like that. Anything in there hot enough to affect that romex is too hot to be in there.

Originally Posted by Rollie Meyers

So, you expect someone to beat open the walls to get wiring from 1 floor to the other?

It's quite permissable to fish wiring in the walls.

Ah yes, you've changed the word to "wiring", as in method i.e. cable.

But that's not what the OP stated for this old house. He said "wires"

Cable assemblies are not mere "wires" and they have their own distinct "wiring methods".

As for the CT "electrician" I suggest you re-read the first articles in Chapter 3, especially the exception your relying on.

A.D., not too impressed with your "connecting wire" diagram.

R.C. one "ties" one of a specified mechanically secure "knots" between the stripped conductors (wires), isolates, then solders, then insulates, then replaces the metallic box cover.

Here is the exception that allows cable that is fished to be unsecured in the chase.

(B) Unsupported Cables.

Nonmetallic-sheathed cable
shall be permitted to be unsupported where the cable:
(1) Is fished between access points through concealed
spaces in finished buildings or structures and supporting
is impracticable
(2) Is not more than 1.4 m (41⁄2 ft) from the last point of
cable support to the point of connection to a luminaire
(lighting fixture) or other piece of electrical equipment
and the cable and point of connection are within an

accessible ceiling.

I don't see why HG thinks this would not apply. You secure the cable just before it enters the fished part and it is again secured where it becomes accessible.

[quote=H.G. Watson, Sr.;166405]

A.D., not too impressed with your "connecting wire" diagram.

Mr. Watson
Sorry if the illustration that I provided did not impress you. I am sure that you have better, but this is the one that I use. I would be more than happy to use another, more appropriate diagram, if you have one that you would like to share with us.

J.P. thanks for sending us the N.E.C Ref. Art. number. Robert

Not only do I fish wires next to plumbing, I fish them THROUGH water lines, especially 3/4" supply lines. It's better if you cut off the main valve first, though. Less messy.

Care must be taken when fishing 'cables' through 'chases'. Nails, flashing edges and protruding nails just to name a few.

When K&T enters a metallic enclosure we know they are required by code to enter through separately bushed hole.
Do we know that a slot has to be cut between the holes? Do we know why? Food for thought, and fun (at least for me).

Originally Posted by bob smit

When K&T enters a metallic enclosure we know they are required by code to enter through separately bushed hole.
Do we know that a slot has to be cut between the holes? Do we know why? Food for thought, and fun (at least for me).

My cousin Eddy, part of the Current clan, knows ...

Message to H.G.

You seen to be a highly educated man.

But not everyone who reads this forum would think to call a shovel a spade.

Just as electrician call NM-B cable Romex.

When I was in college I to was a lot like you. But a teacher set me
straight.

But does seen as surprise to me, how many people who read my thread
understand what I am trying to express.

Many times I have written in my mind what I wish to write down in my
thread. But to many times, I notice latter that I have left out important
facts.

To all that read my threads, and reply, I just want to say thanks to all of you.

As I don't have a proof reader for posting threads.

But I do use a proof reader when writing my reports.

But last I hope that when I do post a thread on this site, it brings out
the best in people.

Robert,

Fish wires - no, not allowed.
Fish cables - Yes, where and how permitted.

You had cross referenced this discussion in your 'old house with Knob and Tube wiring" discussion which you had created about the same time. This one said nothing about changing the wiring method and you did reference "wires". Just wanted to be clear, "wires" are not to be fished. Lots of creativity in home repairs go on outside the major metro areas in N.E.

"Romex" isn't a wire, its a cable, Type NM is a wiring classification and wiring method. NM has had several generations, not always with a ground, and has not always had a full sized ground at that.

You brought up NM-B, and this concerns me, as you indicated old house pulling up along vents (still not clear this would be plumbing vents, metallic or plastic; or L-Vent, B-Vent, etc.) or along plumbing "pipes" metallic, plastic, potable, or hydronic or steam pipes. Presume reference to attic location, and that attic is not within the thermal envelope of the home, and not heated in the winter or cooled in the summer - thus wiring method up into attic and then down to conditioned space. NM-B not for areas prone to condensation, etc. NMC perhaps Keep it away from the roof deck.


Happy Spring.



Yes Bob S., I know.

K&T maintain proximity spacing too. C-Q.

HG - please post the article that prohibits fishing cables along side plumbing / duct work

Originally Posted by ken horak

HG - please post the article that prohibits fishing cables along side plumbing / duct work

The phrase was:

Originally Posted by me

you may under certain circumstances (and distance limitations depending on the "type" and application) "fish" cable assemblies, but not alongside ductwork or plumbing system pipes and their penetrations, and not via plenum areas or wall cavities used as return air for a Forced Air system.

If you're going to snip HALF of a qualifying phrase your myopia will get the better of you.

Go back and read the rest of post #2. If you are the least familiar with Chapter 1 of the NEC, the Building Codes, Residential Codes, Plumbing Codes, Mechanical Codes and Fire Codes, or the ANSI Standards for workmanship in existing buildings you just might recognize where and how it comes from and is applied in the proposed vertical fishing of "wires" for the old house discussed with K & T.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

The phrase was:

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

you may under certain circumstances (and distance limitations depending on the "type" and application) "fish" cable assemblies, but not alongside ductwork or plumbing system pipes and their penetrations, and not via plenum areas or wall cavities used as return air for a Forced Air system.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

If you're going to snip HALF of a qualifying phrase your myopia will get the better of you.

If you are going to chastise someone, make sure that YOU are correct ... and you were not - what YOU posted was this:

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

you may under certain circumstances (and distance limitations depending on the "type" and application) "fish" cable assemblies, but not alongside ductwork or plumbing system pipes and their penetrations, and not via plenum areas or wall cavities used as return air for a Forced Air system.

Being as you are now saying that you did not mean to say 'not along side ductwork or plumbing system pipes', I am going to presume that you *meant to say* 'but not alongside ductwork or plumbing system pipes THROUGH their penetrations'.

Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will) and then explain what you really meant to say if you say I am wrong.

Originally Posted by Gerry Bennett

...Worst case is fishing the wall and making holes to get between floors, or conduit through a closet to the next floor....

Gerry,

Just a question... When you ran a sleeve between floors did you firestop it when you were finished pulling cables through it?

Rich

JP

NOPE. I meant exactly what I said. You're OFF BASE.

NOT Just THROUGH.

NOT Just "AT"

not along side (" x ") or ( " y ") AND their (" x's " or " y's") penetrations.

I think popcorn will be passed around again. SNO-CAPS ANYONE!

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

JP

NOPE. I meant exactly what I said. You're OFF BASE.

NOT Just THROUGH.

NOT Just "AT"

not along side (" x ") or ( " y ")

Then, as asked before by someone else, show us where that IS NOT allowed.

Or is this another one of your 'make-a-statement-but-will-not-back-it-up' statements?

Games Games Peck.

You've falsely quoted.

Snipped off the last word didn't you.

How clever trying to change the meaning of what was said.

Sort of like the snip to a eunich.

The word you selectively deleated from your false "quote" was:

"penetrations"

You removed (snipped) the last word.

Snip Snip Snip.

Wave the Usher over, shine that flashlight on the Peck fraud.

Along side .... and their PENETRATIONS.

If the cables can be run in the same stud bay with piping and ductwork in new construction, what would be the difference when the cables were run in existing construction?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

JP

NOPE. I meant exactly what I said. You're OFF BASE.

NOT Just THROUGH.

NOT Just "AT"

not along side (" x ") or ( " y ") AND their (" x's " or " y's") penetrations.

What is it
about the words:
"AND their penetrations"
that is so
threatening
to you?


What is it about the word: AND
that scares you so much?

You first tried to substitute the word "through" for "and"

Now you pretend and eliminate the conjunctive conditional phrase.

How very sad.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Games Games Peck.

You've falsely quoted.

Snipped off the last word didn't you.

How clever trying to change the meaning of what was said.

Watson,

Quite incorrect, but then I expected nothing less than you NOT answering the question.

*YOU* said "AND*, which means that Part A ... *AND* ... Part B must hold true.

I am FIRST asking you to back up Part A ... but, of course, you are not, and will not, provide supporting documentation to back what you said.

If Part A does not hold true, then, you, sir, are incorrect in your statement.

Again, I expected nothing less from you and you delivered.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

What is it
about the words:
"AND their penetrations"
that is so
threatening
to you?


What is it about the word: AND
that scares you so much?

You first tried to substitute the word "through" for "and"

Now you pretend and eliminate the conjunctive conditional phrase.

How very sad.

Watson,

Read my post above, you are the one avoiding backing up the "AND" statement.

Yes, truly, "How very sad."

But then, I expected nothing less, and you did not fail me.

You again fail at minimum comprehension of conditional statements.

The freaking topic of this discussion is NEW MODIFICATION work in Existing Home.

Pulling or fishing wires or cables up from (basement, crawlspace or first floor) two stories up to attic to be dropped down to the second story elsewhere in an OLD home which as described by the OP still contained discovered and not disclaimed concealed K & T which was claimed by the seller to have all been removed and replaced with other wiring methods, plan was to remediate and add more circuits and outlets on the 2nd floor. There have been more than one topic discussion by the OP on the same topic home.

This is NOT maintenance, not mere replacement of existing with a different wiring method. This is NEW wiring routing in a different place and path which is presently DEDICATED to other systems namely and ambiguously "VENTS" and "PIPES" in an enclosed space which communicates from the lowest level up to the attic.

When A(along side) AND B(penetration) = not allowed.

I'll make it simplier for you:

WHEN "a" (along side) + ("plus" AND) "b" (penetration) = not allowed!

DUH.

Not allowed to run alongside X or Y and their penetrations.

Cannot SHARE the penetration. Separate spaces, separate systems, separate equipment, separate penetrations, separate finishing, blocking, stopping. Separate supporting, Different materials.

Sheesh are you really this ignorant or just pretending in some warped PECK WORLD where you carry on with off-topic bull chit trying to make yourself look good to those who can't comprehend or just skim, thinking it wins you some kind of "game points"?

Its on YOU little Pecker.

You prove you can piggy pack any wiring method along side these elements when penetrating vertically between floors, ceilings, etc. multi-story to attic.

You show me where a cable is allowed to share a penetration with a fuel vent, a plumbing vent, a plumbing pipe, etc. running along SIDE same before, at, and after the penetration.

You seem so dead set on it, PROVE IT, in the proscriptive I-codes, Uniform Codes, NFPA Codes and Standards, ANSI Standards, and UL Standards.

Show me where you are allowed to create a new violation today, that isn't allowed today and wasn't allowed then and create a defect where there wasn't one previously.

Put up or shut up. You won't because you can't, you baiting, word-twisting, small-minded, egomanical Pecker.

You are worse than chickens in a chicken yard. Always PECKING at something until you think you taste blood then you go into a frenzy and PECK it to DEATH.

Problem is there ain't no blood - 'cept your own blood lust.

Quote Peck "you obviously can't read or comprehend what is written".

What are the dedicated space requirements for a plumbing vent line? Does a 1/2" water line require the whole bay width?

Could someone please post an actual code article that would backup any of HG's assertions?

Originally Posted by Jim Port

What are the dedicated space requirements for a plumbing vent line? Does a 1/2" water line require the whole bay width?

Could someone please post an actual code article that would backup any of HG's assertions?

Jim,

That is what I keep asking Watson to do ... but (naturally) he refuses to provided backup and support for his statements - then he gets mad when called on this lack of backup and tries to blame it on those who dare question him.

He never has provided backup for his statement that receptacles are not allowed in cabinets, or any of the other multitude of statements he makes and then ignores requests for backup documentation to support his statements ... makes one wonder if Watson can be believed at all, even for the simplest of things - Watson could declare that it is daylight out and we would have to look out the window to find out for ourselves, and when we dispute him on it he would simply point out something like 'well, I didn't say where it was daylight, it is daylight SOMEWHERE' ... sheesh

Jerry,
I am sure that HG will. Even Obama finally found this Birth Cert, only took 2 years, must have been in one of the moving boxes that was not unpacked from the move to the W.H.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Jerry,
I am sure that HG will. Even Obama finally found this Birth Cert, only took 2 years, must have been in one of the moving boxes that was not unpacked from the move to the W.H.

Trouble is I was hoping to see the proof before 2012 when the world ends.

I guess I should be thankful I did not just read a 400 page mystery with the last 3 pages torn out waiting to find out the answer. I like a story with an ending.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Jerry,
I am sure that HG will. Even Obama finally found this Birth Cert, only took 2 years, must have been in one of the moving boxes that was not unpacked from the move to the W.H.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Trouble is I was hoping to see the proof before 2012 when the world ends.

What amazes me is that NO ONE has ever asked to see a president's birth certificate before ...

And what amazes me even more is that when the first proof was offered some people still could not accept the FACT that Obama is a real live born in America American ...

And what is even more amazing is that this release of his birth certificate will like STILL NOT BE ACCEPTED by those who also refuse to accept that the EARTH IS, IN FACT, *ROUND* AND *NOT FLAT*.

I lost my original birth certificate during one of my moves, so I had to write to the State of New York and obtain a Certified Certificate of Birth (I think that is what it says), but ... being as apparently a certification from State of Hawaii is not acceptable ... apparently my certification from the State of New York must not be acceptable either ...



Garry, I doubt Watson will provide the documentation to back up what he says, he has a history of making statements which are false then ignoring requests for supporting documentation. Watson has created that monster all by himself - and he has repeated that lack of documentation MANY TIMES, so there is no reason to expect Watson to do any differently this time.

Damn all I asked for was what code and what code article.
I did not "snip" anything from HG's post , Sheesh, I didn't even quote him!

That was what 17 post ago ?

My original question has now resulted in name calling, debating if Obama was born in the USA, an offer of sno-caps, more "message board yelling" ( using caps,underlining, and bold type), and a few more questions of the code and article.

I will ask again, more clearly and slowly:

HG,
What code did you base your replies on ?

Please post the code and article numbers / letters so others here can reference them for them selves.

I'm sorry Ken would you prefer "Goobers" instead

Originally Posted by ken horak

Damn all I asked for was what code and what code article.
I did not "snip" anything from HG's post , Sheesh, I didn't even quote him!

That was what 17 post ago ?

My original question has now resulted in name calling, debating if Obama was born in the USA, an offer of sno-caps, more "message board yelling" ( using caps,underlining, and bold type), and a few more questions of the code and article.

I will ask again, more clearly and slowly:

HG,
What code did you base your replies on ?

Please post the code and article numbers / letters so others here can reference them for them selves.

I answered you already and immediately in post #23.

Originally Posted by ken horak

Damn all I asked for was what code and what code article.

I will ask again, more clearly and slowly:

HG,
What code did you base your replies on ?

Please post the code and article numbers / letters so others here can reference them for them selves.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

I answered you already and immediately in post #23.

There is no mention of which code or article within that code is being alluded to in post #2.

Seems someone got it right.

Quote Peck "you obviously can't read or comprehend what is written".

I thought someone posted in this thread to "put up or shut up". I am not seeing either.

Again the guessing game must continue.

Thank You Jim .
Couldn't have worded it better.

I'm not surpirised by the response either.
I've requested the same from the same in other threads and never get a answer.

....