210.25(A)

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, Al. I can see a possible issue with the duplex you described. But tell me, how do you run a new circuit from the upper tenant's panel in the basement to an outlet in the upper tenant's unit? Snake a run of NM through the outer wall? Tear a hole in the lower tenant's wall, in order to run a new conduit to the upper unit? The way my proposal is worded, these would both be violations, and the only remaining option would be to run a raceway along the outside surface of the wall.

So what alternative routing methods would you suggest? If there is an easy method to run that new circuit, perhaps I can find a way to reword my proposal to make that method allowable.
 
charlie b said:
. . . how do you run a new circuit from the upper tenant's panel in the basement to an outlet in the upper tenant's unit? Snake a run of NM through the outer wall? Tear a hole in the lower tenant's wall, in order to run a new conduit to the upper unit?
Click to expand...
I prefer a tried and true method developed by the original wiremen that first installed the K&T in that occupancy. That is, an extend-able drill bit that starts in the basement and goes up through the inside of a stacked interior set of walls. No wall surface is disturbed. Either that or dropping a chain down the plumbing stack, although the insulation "tightening" of existing structures, here, during the last decades has made this harder.
charlie b said:
The way my proposal is worded, these would both be violations, and the only remaining option would be to run a raceway along the outside surface of the wall.
Click to expand...
Correct. I agree. This is the problem with the whole idea that 210.25 "intends" (in the language as written) to prevent branch circuit cables and/or raceways of one dwelling from being in any of the walls of another dwelling.
charlie b said:
So what alternative routing methods would you suggest? If there is an easy method to run that new circuit, perhaps I can find a way to reword my proposal to make that method allowable.
Click to expand...
The "easy method" is to use a "convenient" un-insulated interior wall to fish the wiring method through.

Exterior wall surface mount is, at a minimum, going to run afoul of Historic Preservation Guidelines, where enforced, and is going to look like crap.
 
Frankly, I side with your original take, Charlie, on 210.25, back in the other thread. The point is not about the cable or raceway route. The point is about the loads.

And, the point is not about where the branch circuit OCPD is.
 
Last edited:
al hildenbrand said:
As I am understanding this conversation, the restrictive branch circuit routing that Bob (IWire) describes causes new wiring additions in existing multidwelling occupancies to be exponentially more difficult, and expensive, for no other reason than the turn of phrase in 210.25.
Click to expand...

We could say that about any requirement.

In other words because we may not see the need for a requirement we can just dismiss it as silly and of no value.
 
iwire said:
Of course that is not what the section says but I guess we will not let that sway us.:p
Click to expand...
Well, it might be ajudicated as saying what you have explained it to say, but, IMO that's a real stretch. I do hear your certainty. I just don't share it.

If the State AHJ enforced 210.25 as you're calling it, Bob, it would profoundly alter the wiring I do, and very beautiful buildings would have a lot of raceways hanging on their exteriors. Somewhere between your stance, and the stance of the MN State AHJ, lies the truth of the passage, eh?

I'm a little short on time at the moment, and am wondering what a historic regression of this rule would yield. I suspect it has changed very little, for a long time.

Ken (480), have you had the opportunity to do anything with this rule (210.25)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top