NM cable in an existing building (renovations)

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

olc

Senior Member
NM cable can be installed in a multi family that can be Type III, IV, or V construction.
How about for renovations and existing multifamily?
Building is 5-6 stories (75 feet) plus a community solarium on top. I don't know if NFPA is the same as IBC but I'm guess more or less and the building could not be built Type III, IV or V.
The existing wiring is all NM including SE cable feeders. Probably installed in the 70's.
 
I would check what type structure the building is classified. If it is one of the structure where nm is not allowed I suspect any new stuff will need to be to code.
 
The building is an 100 plus year old building. I'm not so sure it matters?
If a building could be built Type V but the developer elects to build it Type I, then they could use NM cable. Right?
 
olc said:
The building is an 100 plus year old building. I'm not so sure it matters?
If a building could be built Type V but the developer elects to build it Type I, then they could use NM cable. Right?
Click to expand...

That is how I read it, but other members take the opposite view, arguing that if the construction is Type I someone will eventually put it to a use that requires Type I, suddenly making the wiring non compliant.
The ever popular "What If?".

Tapatalk!
 
Agreed, but there has been at least one thread in the last year where senior members made that argument and were not successfully convinced otherwise. :)

Tapatalk!
 
GoldDigger said:
Agreed, but there has been at least one thread in the last year where senior members made that argument and were not successfully convinced otherwise. :)
Click to expand...

Those heretics must be put in the electric chair. :thumbsup:


I can't even begin to guess the number of steel and concrete buildings I have wired with NM.:)

Did not really stop until the code change regarding NM and suspended ceilings.
 
The argument sounds stronger when you have a large area of commercial buildings where the usual occupancy requires Type I and then a new tenant that does not justify Type I comes along and wants to remodel their space using NM.
(My part time job is Devil's Advocate.)

Tapatalk!
 
GoldDigger said:
The argument sounds stronger when you have a large area of commercial buildings where the usual occupancy requires Type I and then a new tenant that does not justify Type I comes along and wants to remodel their space using NM.
(My part time job is Devil's Advocate.)

Tapatalk!
Click to expand...


And since when are legitimate code decisions based on what if?


A friend of the Devil is a friend of mine.
devil%20dance.gif
 
Anything new must be wired to code. The age of the building means nothing.

Unless, I guess, the local historical society wants all old buildings to be the same fire traps they were back in the early 20th century.
 
And that makes sense because steel and concrete are less likely to go up in flames.

There are two major agendas in the NEC:

1. The safety of the people from being shocked.

2. The safety from property loss through fire.

Is there any other agenda that we should be following?
 
jaylectricity said:
And that makes sense because steel and concrete are less likely to go up in flames.

There are two major agendas in the NEC:

1. The safety of the people from being shocked.

2. The safety from property loss through fire.

Is there any other agenda that we should be following?
Click to expand...

Yes, the safety of people from loss of life through fire.
Even the fire codes have two separate goals which are sometimes handled by different mechanisms, for example:

1. Loss of life: fire rated walls, smoke detectors, exit lighting, panic bar hardware, etc. , residential sprinkler systems.
2. Loss of property: fire rated walls, heat detectors, warehouse sprinkler systems.

And going back to the original issue, if life safety could still be satisfied in a combustible wood building, the extra risk of burning melting NM would be small. But if life safety required concrete, the presence of NM could increase the hazard enough to matter.
 
Best I can tell my particular building can not be built Type III,IV,V so I can not use NM (which the owner will love because all the existing wiring is NM). I am going by the state code because I do not have a copy of NFPA definitions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top