That old Romex question again.

[garywayne2u]

Hello all. Got a question. I am wiring an office building for a family member's used car lot. The building was a two story split level residential home with a basement that is being converted to an office.
My question is, can I use romex in this building?
The NEC is a little confusing saying that it's permitted in type 3,4,5 buildings (Other structures permitted to be of Types III, IV, and V construction except as prohibited in 334.12.) but 334.12 states :
(A) Types NM and NMC. Types NM and NMC cables shall not be used as follows:

(1) In any dwelling or structure not specifically permitted in 334.10(1), (2), (3), and (5).

(2) Exposed within a dropped or suspended ceiling cavity in other than one- and two-family and multifamily dwellings.

(3) As service-entrance cable.

(4) In commercial garages having hazardous (classified) locations as defined in 511.3.

(5) In theaters and similar locations, except where permitted in 518.4(B).

(6) In motion picture studios.

(7) In storage battery rooms.

(8) In hoistways or on elevators or escalators.

(9) Embedded in poured cement, concrete, or aggregate.

(10) In hazardous (classified) locations, except where specifically permitted by other articles in this Code.

(11) In hotels, motels, commercial, mercantile, industrial, institutional, and public buildings.

(B) Type NM. Type NM cable shall not be used as follows:

(1) Where exposed to corrosive fumes or vapors.

(2) Where embedded in masonry, concrete, adobe, fill, or plaster.

(3) In a shallow chase in masonry, concrete, or adobe and covered with plaster, adobe, or similar finish.

(4) In wet or damp locations.

It looks to me like Romex is NOT permitted in this building CAN SOMEONE VERIFY THIS??
THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HELP IN ADVANCE.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Isn't the entire home already done in nm cable?

 

[garywayne2u]

Isn't the entire home already done in nm cable?

Yup, kinda the reason behind the question. Seems to me romex would be ok , BUT with them converting to a commercial use building would that also mean I'd have to go with bx?
I'm sure I am overthinking this.

 

[infinity]

334.12 states :
(A) Types NM and NMC. Types NM and NMC cables shall not be used as follows:

(1) In any dwelling or structure not specifically permitted in 334.10(1), (2), (3), and (5).

(2) Exposed within a dropped or suspended ceiling cavity in other than one- and two-family and multifamily dwellings.

(3) As service-entrance cable.

(4) In commercial garages having hazardous (classified) locations as defined in 511.3.

(5) In theaters and similar locations, except where permitted in 518.4(B).

(6) In motion picture studios.

(7) In storage battery rooms.

(8) In hoistways or on elevators or escalators.

(9) Embedded in poured cement, concrete, or aggregate.

(10) In hazardous (classified) locations, except where specifically permitted by other articles in this Code.

(11) In hotels, motels, commercial, mercantile, industrial, institutional, and public buildings.

What code cycle is this from?

 

[garywayne2u]

What code cycle is this from?

Not 100% certain, pulled it off a code forum on another site.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Not 100% certain, pulled it off a code forum on another site.

That appears to be a local amendment as 334.12 has never had more than 10 items.

 

[infinity]

That appears to be a local amendment as 334.12 has never had more than 10 items.

The reason I asked.

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

The highlighted portion in your post is not familiar to me. But we are still on the 2017 in California.

In the few commercial building I’ve wired, mostly bars, restaurant, offices and such, I can use romex where it is contained in a 30 minute firewall.

So underneath in the crawl space it was BX. In the ceiling assembly it was BX. When I dropped down a wall that had drywall on both sides, or masonry on one and drywall on the other, I could switch to NM if I wanted.

 

[garywayne2u]

Yes, not local to me, but seems to be from South Dakota. Long way from me.
So does the latest iteration of 334.12 state (11) In hotels, motels, commercial, mercantile, industrial, institutional, and public buildings.
or something similar?

 

[garywayne2u]

The highlighted portion in your post is not familiar to me. But we are still on the 2017 in California.

In the few commercial building I’ve wired, mostly bars, restaurant, offices and such, I can use romex where it is contained in a 30 minute firewall.

So underneath in the crawl space it was BX. In the ceiling assembly it was BX. When I dropped down a wall that had drywall on both sides, or masonry on one and drywall on the other, I could switch to NM if I wanted.

Thanks. Much appreciated

 

[electrofelon]

That appears to be a local amendment as 334.12 has never had more than 10 items.

The reason I asked.

Yeah I just looked at 2017 and didn't see it, I don't have a 2020....was like whoa, that is a giant change....!

 

[garywayne2u]

Yeah I just looked at 2017 and didn't see it, I don't have a 2020....was like whoa, that is a giant change....!

Exactly. That's why I was curious. Thanks. Appreciate all the help from everyone.

 

[roger]

The only code cycle to worry about is what Georgia is using now.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yes, not local to me, but seems to be from South Dakota. Long way from me.
So does the latest iteration of 334.12 state (11) In hotels, motels, commercial, mercantile, industrial, institutional, and public buildings.
or something similar?

There is not, nor has there never been an (11) in section 334.12 of the NEC.

 

[tortuga]

Local amendments to 334.12 and or article 518 that basically expand article 518 to all commercial work used to be pretty common.
Some cities like L.A. and Chicago used to just delete article 334 all together (I think Chicago still might).
Also engineers frequently specify MC in plans for commercial spaces that code would not require it.

 

[readydave8]

Athens GA has or had amendment similar to #11

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Local amendments to 334.12 and or article 518 that basically expand article 518 to all commercial work used to be pretty common.
Some cities like L.A. and Chicago used to just delete article 334 all together (I think Chicago still might).
Also engineers frequently specify MC in plans for commercial spaces that code would not require it.

Chicago's 2018 electrical code which is a highly modified version of the 2017 NEC still has Article 334, but they have amended the uses permitted.

“Uses Permitted. Type NM and Type NMC cables shall be permitted to be used in the following:
(1) Temporary wiring for branch circuits as permitted in 590.4(C)
(2) Temporary wiring as permitted for feeders as permitted in 590.4(B)
(3) Limited extensions to knob-and-tube lighting or appliance branch circuits in existing dwelling units in buildings not exceeding three stories in height.”

 

[electrofelon]

Seattle eliminates the "exposed work" provisions for NM, however running thru bored holes in framing is not considered exposed, even if there is no covering on the framing.

 

[norcal]

According to the host of this forum GA is on the infamous 2020.

Mike Holt Enterprises - NEC

Mike Holt worked his way up through the electrical trade from apprentice electrician through electrical contractor, to become one of the most recognized experts in the world as it relates to electrical power installations. He was a Journeyman Electrician, Master Electrician, and Electrical...

www.mikeholt.com

 

[garywayne2u]

According to the host of this forum GA is on the infamous 2020.

Mike Holt Enterprises - NEC

Mike Holt worked his way up through the electrical trade from apprentice electrician through electrical contractor, to become one of the most recognized experts in the world as it relates to electrical power installations. He was a Journeyman Electrician, Master Electrician, and Electrical...

www.mikeholt.com

Infamous 2020?