Romex above ceiling

[augie47]

A fellow inspector and I have been discussing this photo:

http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx37/augie47/HolidayInn021.jpg

(for this thread ignore bundling and strapping)
The romex you see is above a sheet rock ceiling. The sheet rock ceiling extends and becomes an acoustical tile suspended ceiling (these pictures were taken from being in (above) the lay in tile.
The romex is not directly above the suspended ceiling but is above the sheet rock ceiling so it would not seem to be a violation of 334.12(A)(2).
If the ceiling tile has a 15 min rating it seems it would comply with 334.10(3).

Would you consider this install a violation ?

 

[drive1968]

The first violation I saw was the connector going into the first recessed light. It seems to not been secured to the junction box.

 

[drive1968]

It also looks like the FMC directly above the Romex isn't secured every 4.5 feet.

 

[augie47]

We have a list of violations. The questionable area is the use of NM in this situation.

 

[chris kennedy]

That is a very interesting question indeed.

 

[cadpoint]

Here let me be the idiot! What is the type of construction of the structure, and is there mixed usage in the structure? (it seems that where your going) If there is no vertical fire seperation between area's, and other than your list of violation (and what we can see as violations) and the clarification the romex of not being in violation, where are we going with this?

If it is mixed usuages within the building and no physical seperation of areas then it might well be that the romex should never been installed? The major classification of a structure will be maintained until a seperation of the approicate type is installed per the usage of an area. (Hopefully the correct layman words - of my understanding of it!)

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I do not see that as a violation. Is that any different then a ceiling being hung below an attic where there is sheetrock on the existing ceiling.

I have no idea why NM is not allowed above a hung ceiling but I don't see this as an issue. Perhaps knowing the reason would help.

 

[jumper]

That is a very interesting question indeed.

Yep, especially since the installer used AC or MC to the lights and then NM for other circuits. Kinda weird IMO.

 

[hurk27]

Technically if the NM is above the drywall portion of the ceiling its not a violation, but if this can be called a place of assembly, then it would be? the other issues of support and bundling is an issue, but photos can't show the whole picture.

I can remember many discussions about having NM above drop ceilings, and how it was shoved into the code, it was kind of a trade off for the NM manufactures so it was allowed in dwellings but not commercial, personally I never could understand the reason, because if it was dangerous why would you allow it in a dwelling where people would be sleeping, but not in commercial where it would only be occupied by people that is awake? (we hope):roll:

 

[infinity]

Looks like the electrician left all of the old NM cable above the ceiling that was used for temporary light and power during construction. :roll:

 

[1793]

Here let me be the idiot! What is the type of construction of the structure, and is there mixed usage in the structure? ...The major classification of a structure will be maintained until a seperation of the approicate type is installed per the usage of an area. (Hopefully the correct layman words - of my understanding of it!)

Look at the file heading when you open the photo link. It appears to be a Holiday Inn.

I'm leaning towards a violation, no real good support for my answer other than it looks like there is no separation between the lay in and the drywall sections.

 

[augie47]

Here let me be the idiot! What is the type of construction of the structure, and is there mixed usage in the structure? (it seems that where your going) If there is no vertical fire seperation between area's, and other than your list of violation (and what we can see as violations) and the clarification the romex of not being in violation, where are we going with this?

If it is mixed usuages within the building and no physical seperation of areas then it might well be that the romex should never been installed? The major classification of a structure will be maintained until a seperation of the approicate type is installed per the usage of an area. (Hopefully the correct layman words - of my understanding of it!)

Technically if the NM is above the drywall portion of the ceiling its not a violation, but if this can be called a place of assembly, then it would be? the other issues of support and bundling is an issue, but photos can't show the whole picture.

I can remember many discussions about having NM above drop ceilings, and how it was shoved into the code, it was kind of a trade off for the NM manufactures so it was allowed in dwellings but not commercial, personally I never could understand the reason, because if it was dangerous why would you allow it in a dwelling where people would be sleeping, but not in commercial where it would only be occupied by people that is awake? (we hope):roll:

The other inspector has the details and he may add to this thread later, but the building is a motel/hotel, not a Place of Assembly and for the purpose of this conversation let us assume Class III,IV or V construction.
The fact that the NM is not directly above the suspended-lay-in ceiling but adjacent to it makes us think it is not a violation of 334.12(A)(2).
The primary question concerns 334.10(3):
Other structures permitted to be of Types III, IV, and V construction except as prohibited in 334.12. Cables shall be concealed within walls, floors, or ceilings that provide a thermal barrier of material that has at least a 15-minute finish rating as identified in listings of fire-rated assemblies.
The NM is above the sheetrock (>15 min rating), and questionably meets the NEC definition of "concealed" (rendered inaccesible by the structure), but in that the NM area is open to the area above the suspended ceiling, is it "concealed within ceilings that provide a 15 min barrier" ? Would the lay-in ceiling have to be fire-rated for the install to be legal ? If the tiles have a 15 min + rating is that sufficient ? Those are the items we are questioning.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The other inspector has the details and he may add to this thread later, but the building is a motel/hotel, not a Place of Assembly and for the purpose of this conversation let us assume Class III,IV or V construction.
The fact that the NM is not directly above the suspended-lay-in ceiling but adjacent to it makes us think it is not a violation of 334.12(A)(2)

I agree. How is it exposed in a dropped ceiling. If I open the ceiling the NM is not exposed so I don't see how it violates 334.12(A)(2)

334.12 Uses Not Permitted.
(A) Types NM, NMC, and NMS. Types NM, NMC, and
NMS cables shall not be permitted as follows:
(2) Exposed in dropped or suspended ceilings in other
than one- and two-family and multifamily dwellings

 

[chris kennedy]

If I open the ceiling the NM is not exposed so I don't see how it violates 334.12(A)(2)

But the NM is exposed here. You have to get a ladder to see it but still exposed.

 

[roger]

Would you consider this install a violation ?

I wouldn't.

Roger

 

[Dennis Alwon]

But the NM is exposed here. You have to get a ladder to see it but still exposed.

It is not exposed over the dropped ceiling, but yes it is exposed. IMO not an issue. The NEC states exposed in a dropped ceiling or suspended ceiling.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I guess one could argue that even a dropped sheetrock ceiling is not compliant. If the issue is with fire racing thru the space then it would not be compliant. It would be nice to know the intent--

 

[augie47]

Yes. I guess I'm a bit concerned about "Cables shall be concealed within walls, floors, or ceilings that provide a thermal barrier of material that has at least a 15-minute finish rating as identified in listings of fire-rated assemblies."
If there was a sheetrock closure on the end where it changes to lay-in I would not be as concerned. I have a hard time saying that Romex meets the quoted section.

 

[chris kennedy]

I have a hard time saying that Romex meets the quoted section.

And I'm glad I don't have to make that call. Great thread Gus.

 

[Little Bill]

I can't say this for sure, but I was told the reason NM isn't allowed above a suspended/drop ceiling in other than a dwelling is because sometimes the area above the dropped ceiling is used for air return. NM can cause fumes if in a fire.