Romex

[GoldDigger]

...
2. My take is that the NEC used the concept of what the construction was permitted (allowed) to be to avoid having to individually list tens or hundreds of different specific occupancies which might also have to vary depending on the building code in force at the jurisdiction. ...

More ammunition:

Grammatically, the strict meaning relating to a building permit would require the wording "...permitted as...." or "...permitted for...." rather than "...permitted to be...."

 

[iwire]

The supermarket in current IBC code is a group M (mercantile) -- It is interesting to read 518.1 commentary (I know not specific code) in NEC2011 how it relates to mercantile Use. "The assembly occupancies shall include but not limited to", as 518.2 states does raise a question to your statement of non assembly. The table seen in the NEC is in the IBC as code not commentary. What I am would be confident of is that plan review should have been specific for the inspector to allow NM wiring methods back them.

Very common in this area, MA, CT, Ri to find large mercantile in NM. It was how it was done before 2002.

 

[eprice]

We will have to differ there, I guess.

1. mwm1752's quote above from the IBC makes no sense if the IBC is using the "strict" meaning of permitted as asserted. It shows clearly to me that in that quote permitted is synonymous with "allowed".

2. My take is that the NEC used the concept of what the construction was permitted (allowed) to be to avoid having to individually list tens or hundreds of different specific occupancies which might also have to vary depending on the building code in force at the jurisdiction.

3. There are literally hundreds of examples from the NEC that contradict the strict meaning of the word "permitted". Here are a few selections:

310.15(B)(7) (2011)


250.110(5) (2011):

In the last one, I think that the detail described is one that will not appear in the building permit or associated plans, but will rather be determined by the AHJ at inspection.

The opinion that counts ultimately will be that of the AHJ.

I must admit that the examples you have cited raise questions as to what the NEC considers the word "permitted" to mean. However, unless Annex E or NFPA 220 have been specifically adopted in a jurisdiction, the determination of what type of construction is permitted is determined by the building code. The IBC or a modified version of it is the most widely adopted building code in the US. The IBC is less ambiguous about what "permitted" means within the context of the IBC. A couple of quotes:

"PERMIT. An official document or certification issued by the authority having jurisdiction which authorizes performance of a specified activity."

"105.1 Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit."

The NEC, unless Annex E is adopted, does not have the language to permit any type of construction to be used. The IBC IMO doesn't permit any particular type of construction to be used to build a building unless a permit for that type of construction has been obtained.

 

[iwire]

I cannot believe this is even being discussed.

I think it is very clear that in this case 'permitted' means allowed and has nothing to do with a locally issued permit.

The NEC does not cover permits and may be adopted in areas that have no permit requirements.

 

[GoldDigger]

I must admit that the examples you have cited raise questions as to what the NEC considers the word "permitted" to mean. However, unless Annex E or NFPA 220 have been specifically adopted in a jurisdiction, the determination of what type of construction is permitted is determined by the building code. The IBC or a modified version of it is the most widely adopted building code in the US. The IBC is less ambiguous about what "permitted" means within the context of the IBC. A couple of quotes:

"PERMIT. An official document or certification issued by the authority having jurisdiction which authorizes performance of a specified activity."

"105.1 Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit."

The NEC, unless Annex E is adopted, does not have the language to permit any type of construction to be used. The IBC IMO doesn't permit any particular type of construction to be used to build a building unless a permit for that type of construction has been obtained.

I will call you out on this one. The definition defines the noun PERMIT. It does not say that the verb "permit" means only to issue a PERMIT.
The noun that goes with the common speech verb permit is "permission" not "permit."

Although I have seen people try to make the distinction in speech as follows:
To issue a permit for something is to PER-mit it, while to allow something to be done is to per-MIT it. Unfortunately in written language that distinction does not work.

Now let's look closely at one of the 2009 IBC sections quoted earlier:

602.2 Types I and II. Types I and II construction are those types of construction in which the building elements listed in Table 601 are of noncombustible materials, except as permitted in Section 603 and elsewhere in this code.

Do you think that this really means "that you have obtained a building permit for under Section 603 and elsewhere in this code" or that it means "allowed"?????

PS: I think iwire stated it much more concisely.

 

[eprice]

I cannot believe this is even being discussed.

I think it is very clear that in this case 'permitted' means allowed and has nothing to do with a locally issued permit.

The NEC does not cover permits and may be adopted in areas that have no permit requirements.

But the NEC also does not regulate what construction types can be used (unless Annex E has been adopted), so we need to go elsewhere for that determination. The informational note indicates as much. In many if not most jurisdictions, that would be the IBC or something based on it. In those areas without permit requirements, then the jurisdiction has left that determination up to someone else.

 

[eprice]

Do you think that this really means "that you have obtained a building permit for under Section 603 and elsewhere in this code" or that it means "allowed"?????

No, but I think the two sections that I quoted state that to build something you have to have a permit for that construction. If the permit says that the building is to be built using type II-B construction, then without a change in permit, you can't build it using type V-B construction. Hence, for that specific building, type V-B construction is not permitted. In our jurisdiction, the permits state the type of construction. Maybe all jurisdictions are not that way, but I suspect most are.

 

[GoldDigger]

No, but I think the two sections that I quoted state that to build something you have to have a permit for that construction. If the permit says that the building is to be built using type II-B construction, then without a change in permit, you can't build it using type V-B construction. Hence, for that specific building, type V-B construction is not permitted. In our jurisdiction, the permits state the type of construction. Maybe all jurisdictions are not that way, but I suspect most are.

In this particular case, your argument (which I disagree with) does not matter, since the section in question is in the NEC.
The NEC language refers to what you could have gotten the permit for, not what you actually choose to get.

PS: And on that note, I withdraw from the fray.

 

[mgookin]

I'll eat crow on use of the word "permit" or "permitted" as used in the respective article. But I strongly suggest you run this issue of using romex in a building for which a permit was issued under Type I or Type II Construction by the primary designer (architect), the building official, etc. If it's Type I or Type II, it's a substantial building. It's not up to an EC to determine what construction type it "could have been". Get someting in writing, get the construction documents changed, and CYA. Or it will bite you bad.

 

[mwm1752]

No, but I think the two sections that I quoted state that to build something you have to have a permit for that construction. If the permit says that the building is to be built using type II-B construction, then without a change in permit, you can't build it using type V-B construction. Hence, for that specific building, type V-B construction is not permitted. In our jurisdiction, the permits state the type of construction. Maybe all jurisdictions are not that way, but I suspect most are.

You cannot change a permit to a different type of construction without altering the building elements & design -- there are rare cases that a building may be reclassified prior to remodel due to updated code. If you have no building dept & are determining your wiring methods to suit your bid IMO you are asking for trouble.

 

[eprice]

You cannot change a permit to a different type of construction without altering the building elements & design -- there are rare cases that a building may be reclassified prior to remodel due to updated code. If you have no building dept & are determining your wiring methods to suit your bid IMO you are asking for trouble.

That depends on what the original type was and what type you want to change to. If, for example, the permit originally stated type II-B, it may be possible to change to type V-B without changing any building elements (as long as occupancy group, building area, etc. are compatible with type V-B). There is no building material allowed under type II-B that is not also allowed under type V-B. If, on the other hand, the proposal was to change from II-B to III-B for example, then a number of building elements would need to be changed, probably enough to make it impractical.

But the proper procedure needs to be followed. First the designer (after consultation with the owner) needs to determine that the change is desirable. Then, the building department needs to determine that the change would not cause the building to be in violation of code rules.

 

[mwm1752]

Generally, the buildings type of construction is set to less restrictive. If I had a group M VB this would limit construction to 1 story & 9000 sq ft, the same Group M in type IIB limits 2 stories & 12,500 sq ft. Obvious we cannot convert TypeIIB to VB construction. But if for some unknown reason the VB was permitted @ IIB your statements hold true. The only IIB's group that could possibly change due to group classification would be the Group A & U to VB groups B,E,F1,H5,I4.M,S1 & S2. and they are limited within the bracket. So it is clear that the only way to change any TypeII2B to a Type VB without structural changes is to change it's group classification which is limited.

 

[eprice]

What you say is correct, which as why I add the caveat "as long as occupancy group, building area, etc. are compatible with type V-B" to my earlier post, but an architect might prepare plans for your 9000 sq. ft. group M building as a type II-B construction with the idea in mind that there may be a desire in the future to add 3000 sq. ft. This is the type of scenario that generates a discussion like we are having here about using romex as a wiring method. Someone could look at this building and say "well, this could have been built as a type V-B building, so romex is allowed". But using romex would overlook the architects reason for specifying type II-B construction. If the electrical contractor wants to use romex because "the building could have been built as a type V-B", the idea should be presented to the architect. The architect and owner would weight the likely hood that there will be a future addition vs. cost savings from the use of romex. If the architect's determination is that type V-B construction is desirable, then the request is given to the building department. In this case, since the building area fits within the 9000 sq. ft. area allowance for type V-B, and if there are no other problems that we have not considered, the building department should grant the change to type V-B construction type.

 

[mwm1752]

I get your point as the physical building fits into the VB construction in which NM is a reconized wiring method. Your conumdrum is the code permits the use but the building dept has not catagories the building as VB. If the general notes do not specify wiring methods you would assume that responsibility.
The life safety factor may not be the problem if this went to court, without a change from the building dept you would be on an island if legal issue arose IMHO. Good luck.

 

[eprice]

To add to this, consider this scenario: Assume a 9000 sq. ft strip mall is built with the tenants to be retail stores, but the architect wants to allow for the possibility that future tenants may be other than retail stores, so he prepares the plans as type II-B construction. During the construction, the electrical contractor decides to use romex because the building could have been built as type V-B. All is well until a few years down the road a small restaurant (group A2) wants to move into one of the tenant spaces. When the tenant remodel plans are submitted, the building department looks at the previous permit with the classification of II-B construction which allows 9,500 sq. ft for a group A2 occupancy and issues the permit. During the remodel it is discovered that romex was used in the original building. With a group A2 occupancy, type V-B construction would not be allowed, since group A2, type V-B only allows 6000 sq. ft. Fixing the problem will not be inexpensive. Possible solutions would be to rewire the whole building including the spaces who's tenants have not moved, or more likely a fire wall to separate the A2 occupancy from its neighbors. This will affect the neighbor on the other side of the fire wall. Who eats the cost of this fix?

What if the romex is not discovered during the remodel or at least does not come to the attention of the AHJ, but there is a fire in the building and the romex is discovered during the fire investigation?

 

[mtnelect]

R0MEX - Should be outlawed !

R0MEX - Should be outlawed !

"Romex" was authorized to cut cost for the Federal Government Housing ! ... What big mistake !! ... Now "AFCI" requirements are causing problems, because of staples pinching conductors !!! ... So how much is that causing consumers ? ...