member deleted

How would ever know which one your are inspecting is the "one in a couple of thousand?" Unless you are a licensed Plumber, I would write up every one. Let the Plumber make the determination on whether or not the Trap needs to be replaced or reconfigured. Kevin

never mind...answered my own question

That is the requirement for new construction. I wouldn't write it up as a repair issue. However, I usually make a comment on verification of permits and suggest one be installed. Remember, your inspection is not code compliant. Although installing a new hot water heater requires a building permit, not many home owners, or contractors for that matter obtain one. Again, I usually make a comment about checking and verifying that building permits were obtained and that the water heater installation does not meet current and established building practices. Yes, they are required. Plywood is acceptable. Kevin

I always write them up regardless of the age of the property. It doesn't really matter to me if the S-Trap is original or some knucklehead re-configured the trap to be a S-Trap. It still is a potential heath concern with the possibility of sewer gases entering the residence. So, I call for a Plumber to repair them.

I use a Protimeter http://www.inspectortools.com/neaqbypr.html Works very well Kevin

I would also like to see a report posted that was written by either Les, Jim, or Mike. Or, all three. Show us how it supposed to be done! Kevin

The advise given so far is sound. However, my suggestion is to hire a professional inspector to evaluate the property. Kevin

Kyle, Relax! Put this particular situation aside and read what you have written. Why would you be frightened to hear an HI use the term "alarmist?" There are many HI's out there that over state issues and call for "further evaluation" on a lot of things that are minor or just about everything they write up. That is a sad fact!! There is a difference between a RE using the term to describe an inspector who is thorough and someone (RE or inspector) using the term to describe someone who has over exaggerated an issue. I don't pander to RE's either, and I resent your insinuation that I do. Kevin

It's also a requirement for UF cable. "340.12 (10) Type UF cable shall not be used as follows . . . Where subject to physical damage." The requirement for physical protection has moved around in the code over the years, but it's been a continuous requirement since at least the 1947 edition (my oldest one). "3003.b Mechanical Injury. If subject to mechanical injury, conductors shall be adequately protected." True. Clearly, the code intends that, in certain circumstances, it's ok to run UV-resistant UF cable, unprotected, on the outside of a building. But there are limitations on how it can be done and where it can be done. They can't be installed where they're subject to physical damage. The cables in your pictures -- as far as I could see -- looked pretty well protected. They were behind the AC cabinets and it looked like it'd be pretty hard for someone to accidentally whack them. (I'll ignore, for now, the inadequate work space in front of the disconnect boxes.) On the other hand, the picture that John posted showed the UF cable sitting out there with its metaphorical butt on the bumper. Any weed whacker could physically damage it. Given the wording of the code, I think it's reasonable for those guys to allow exposed cables in some circumstances. That doesn't mean that it should be allowed in every circumstance. - Jim Katen, Oregon After John posted his third image of this circumstance, I can see why he would have a concern about the protection of the cable. However, his original question was whether or not the cable clamped to the wall needed to be in conduit. The answer is "NO" Kevin

OK....a few more comments. The two people in the thread who have quoted code both have stated that it is "subjective" and "open to interpretation." I'm no code thumper, but the general rules for UF cable are exposed cables should closely follow bldg surface. The "protect exposed cable from physical damage" is a requirement for NM cable (dry locations). Underground feeder cable (UF) that is emerging from the ground is required to be protected from 18 in below grade to 8 ft above grade. However, the cable running from the disconnect to the condensing unit is not buried cable. If you inspect in an area where builders and the AHJ treat this cable the same a buried cable and require it to be in conduit, then great. That is not the case in my area. Therefore, I stand behind my comments and say that this is acceptable and that all of the national builder, all of the AHJ's for each jurisdiction in MD, DC, and VA, and all other electricians or HVAC specialists are NOT wrong. But, what the hell do I know.....I'm just an inspector. Kevin ps...Mike, I don't think you are a wind bag. It's just envy I always have a lot to say, but can't type worth a crap! I guess people might call me long winded if I made the effort to learn how to type with more than two fingers.

Chris, I believe you are talking in general terms, but I agree! When it comes to electrical issues that need "correction", I write them up and recommend a licensed electrician fix whatever it is that needs to be fixed. What I was referring to in my previous post to John is that I didn't see an issue with the cable (lack of conduit). It didn't need correction. However, if the cable run from the disconnect to the condensing unit was long, and he felt that there could be a concern for possible accidental damage, I would make a recommendation to "improve" the cable by providing additional protection. That recommendation would be classified as a maintenance item, which I define as the following: MAINTENANCE ISSUE (MI): The item, component, or system while perhaps functioning as intended is in need of minor service or maintenance; is showing signs of wear or deterioration that could result in an adverse condition at some point in the future; or considerations should be made in upgrading the item, component, or system to enhance the function, efficiency, safety, and/or more closely align with current construction standards. Items falling into this category can frequently be addressed by a homeowner or handyman and are considered to be routine homeowner maintenance or recommended upgrades. However, it is recommended that all work be completed by qualified individuals or companies. If you are inspecting a home built prior to 2000, would you write up the lack of AFCI protection as a "repair" item or a recommended safety upgrade? Kevin

You didn't directly answer my question from the previous post. You have made a long winded argument on "drip edge" flashing, which is a recommendation from Roofing Associations. While I agree with you on that issue, it doesn't relate to the conduit issue. What we are talking about is weather conduit is required by code in my area (MD, DC, VA). So, I will ask the question again. Are you saying that every builder, every AHJ in my area, every electrician, and every HVAC tech who has installed cable that is not in conduit from the disconnect to the condensing unit is wrong? Kevin

Reading that, I'd say that cable should be protected in conduit on the wall where it's exposed. If I'd done the inspection, I would have written it up that way and quoted Hansen, since he's the best independent authority on the subject that I know of, and I would have recommended that they have it corrected by a licensed electrician who follows the electricians' own rules - not the one who installed the wiring incorrectly in the first place. I would have used exactly the phrase that I've underlined in the previous sentence. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike I can't comment on your area, but from what I gather from your post, I would have to write up this issue on EVERY home constructed in the state of Maryland, Washington, DC, and Virginia. Because, every home that I have ever inspected (new or old) does not have conduit installed. So, are you saying that every builder, every electrician, and every HVAC tech who has installed cable that is not in conduit from the disconnect to the condensing unit is wrong? I feel bad for John, because he's going to read some of these posts on this thread and think that it's OK to write this up. That is unfortunate. Kevin

Different issue, but I would not write that up as a repair issue either. All three photos are for existing homes, not new construction. Kev

I disagree. A qualified, quality concious tech will mutter, shake his/her head and then get to work cleaning that crap up. The wiring is unprotected, exposed to mechanical damage and presents a clear danger to anyone using just about any tool in the yard or patio area. The insulation on the suction line has been rendered essentially non existent by the water. Well, that's about the most ridiculous statement I heard in a long time, no offense. A little over the top don't you think? Like someone is going to do damage that cable by using "any tool" in close proximity to the it. I don't think so! How does it present "clear danger"? That statement is unnecessarily alarmist. I hardly ever see the cable from the A/C disconnect to the condensing unit in a conduit, except on commercial applications. Of course, I can only speak for my area (MD, DC, VA). Any "qualified" electrician will go out and say "there ain't nothing wrong with this." Here are a few examples.....I guess you'll have to write these up as well....the cables are not in conduit. Again, everyone will have a different view and method of reporting, but this should not have been classified as a repair issue. Kevin Image Insert: 238.5 KB Image Insert: 241.64 KB Image Insert: 239.86 KB