Is Romex CL2 or equivialent fire rated? Why is Canadian Romex diffrent from USA Romex

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is USA Romex CL2 or equivialent fire rated?
Click to expand...

Since NM-B is a chapter 3 wiring method it trumps CL3 and CL2 in the table of hierarchy. Chapter 3 wiring methods are Class 1. Class 1 wiring can be substituted for CL3 or CL2. I'm not sure what you mean by fire rated. NM-B is not plenum listed and neither is straight CL2 and CL3 wiring. You would use a cable with a CL3P or a CL2P listing. Likewise instead of NM-B you would use type AC, MC or conduit in a plenum space.

-Hal
 
Syoung1 said:
Then is Canadian Romex have a higher Safety factor than US ? Cus it seems so.
Click to expand...
NEC has 334 part III construction specifications. I have no clue if CEC has similar specifications, but am guessing either CEC or CSA does have different construction requirements then NEC and/or UL, though finished product is fairly similar.

One obvious difference is the 300 vs 600 volt rating.

I would not be surprised if the two are nearly identical but need to be marked differently because of differences in construction requirements.
 
Canadian NM cable has a reduced ground wire, so it wouldn't comply with the NEC. It's also constructed similar to our UF cable, with no paper fillers.
 
hbiss said:
Since NM-B is a chapter 3 wiring method it trumps CL3 and CL2 in the table of hierarchy. Chapter 3 wiring methods are Class 1. Class 1 wiring can be substituted for CL3 or CL2. I'm not sure what you mean by fire rated. NM-B is not plenum listed and neither is straight CL2 and CL3 wiring. You would use a cable with a CL3P or a CL2P listing. Likewise instead of NM-B you would use type AC, MC or conduit in a plenum space.

-Hal
Click to expand...
NM cable is not acceptable for fire alarms for a couple of reasons:
  1. 760.176 Non–power-limited fire alarm cables installed as wiring within buildings shall be listed in accordance with 760.176(A) and (B) and as being resistant to the spread of fire ...
  2. 760.176(E) Type NPLF non–power-limited fire alarm cable shall be listed as being suitable for general-purpose fire alarm use, ... and shall also be listed as being resistant to the spread of fire.
  3. 760.179 Type FPL cables installed as wiring within buildings shall be listed as being resistant to the spread of fire and other criteria ...
  4. 760.176(B) Insulated conductors shall be suitable for 600 volts. Insulated conductors 14 AWG and larger shall be one of the types listed in Table 310.13(A) or one that is identified for this use. ...
1, 2 & 3. Is there a NM cable listed as being resistant to the spread of fire? I don't know of one.
4. Conductors in NM cable do not meet this requirement.

I'm not understanding parts of the statement, so help me out here.
1. Where is the "Chapter 3 wiring method → CL2 → CL3" table of hierarchy. 760.3 says "Only those sections of Article 300 referenced in this article shall apply to fire alarm systems. ..."
2. Equating of 725 and 760. FPN-1 states that circuits powered by and controlled by the fire alarm system, are part of the fire alarm system. While only explanatory, it seems that qualifying Article 725 circuits (elevator recall/shutdown, door release, air handler shutdown, etc) become subject to the more restrictive Article 760. Article 725 doesn't even mention 760.
 
peter d said:
Canadian NM cable has a reduced ground wire, so it wouldn't comply with the NEC. It's also constructed similar to our UF cable, with no paper fillers.
Click to expand...

And I believe that due to such construction they are able to use their "standard" nm in damp areas.

Personally, I'm happy with the jacket we have- imagine stripping that thick jacket all the time.:happyno:

Wonder which is cheaper, how much cost the lack of the paper/extra plastic adds.
 
Last edited:
user 100 said:
And I believe that due to such construction they are able to use their "standard" nm in damp areas.

Personally, I'm happy with the jacket we have- imagine stripping that thick jacket all the time.:happyno:

Wonder which is cheaper, how much cost the lack of the paper/extra plastic adds.
Click to expand...

Our standard romex jacket isn't thick at all. Our outdoor/wet romex (nmwu) does have a thick jacket, but still very easy to strip.
 
controlled said:
Our standard romex jacket isn't thick at all. Our outdoor/wet romex (nmwu) does have a thick jacket, but still very easy to strip
Location: Bowmanville, Canada
Click to expand...
What about the size of the grounding conductor? I've used Canadian cable (I live just nine miles north of the border) and didn't notice that.
 
GrayHair said:
NM cable is not acceptable for fire alarms for a couple of reasons:
  1. 760.176 Non–power-limited fire alarm cables installed as wiring within buildings shall be listed in accordance with 760.176(A) and (B) and as being resistant to the spread of fire ...
  2. 760.176(E) Type NPLF non–power-limited fire alarm cable shall be listed as being suitable for general-purpose fire alarm use, ... and shall also be listed as being resistant to the spread of fire.
  3. 760.179 Type FPL cables installed as wiring within buildings shall be listed as being resistant to the spread of fire and other criteria ...
  4. 760.176(B) Insulated conductors shall be suitable for 600 volts. Insulated conductors 14 AWG and larger shall be one of the types listed in Table 310.13(A) or one that is identified for this use. ...
1, 2 & 3. Is there a NM cable listed as being resistant to the spread of fire? I don't know of one.
4. Conductors in NM cable do not meet this requirement.

I'm not understanding parts of the statement, so help me out here.
1. Where is the "Chapter 3 wiring method → CL2 → CL3" table of hierarchy. 760.3 says "Only those sections of Article 300 referenced in this article shall apply to fire alarm systems. ..."
2. Equating of 725 and 760. FPN-1 states that circuits powered by and controlled by the fire alarm system, are part of the fire alarm system. While only explanatory, it seems that qualifying Article 725 circuits (elevator recall/shutdown, door release, air handler shutdown, etc) become subject to the more restrictive Article 760. Article 725 doesn't even mention 760.
Click to expand...

The OP wasn't talking about FPL, as far as I know. But as long as you bring it up you are correct.

-Hal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top