What wiring method; your take?

Status
Not open for further replies.
mdshunk

mdshunk

Senior Member
Location
Right here.
Question is regarding a 3-story wood framed building under renovation. Gut job. 4 apartments on the top floor, 4 apartments on the 2nd floor, and a large retail store on the ground floor.

I've inquired with the local inspection agency regarding the proposed wiring method. The entire building will have a suspended ceiling system. I proposed to use MC in above the dropped ceiling in the common area hallways on the 2nd and 3rd floors, MC above the dropped ceiling in the retail store, and romex above the dropped ceiling in each apartment unit. I think this squares pretty well with the code. The answer I got, in short, "Nope, the whole thing is a commercial building. No exposed romex above the suspended ceilings in the apartments".

Do you agree or disagree?
 
mixed use buildings are always funny business. I never understood all the fire separation issues, but its really up to the owners to fight city hall if they want to save a few bucks. If the fire marshalls decide that the romex is dangerous, well, they are the guys dragging charred bodies out of buildings so I try not to argue with them.
 
220/221 said:
I Agree.........
Click to expand...
On the basis that the opinion of the inspection agency is founded on the NEC doctrine, or just because it's a "good idea"?

I wish this thing had E sheets that went though plan review too, but that's not the case for some reason.
 
Personally, I would agree. It just makes sense to me to have all the same material on a job. Code wise, I guess it depends on the building classification. Is it a type III construction?
 
kpepin said:
Personally, I would agree. It just makes sense to me to have all the same material on a job.
Click to expand...
What makes sense to you and what makes sense with the budget are two very different things.
 
mdshunk said:
What makes sense to you and what makes sense with the budget are two very different things.
Click to expand...


I agree 100%. All I'm saying is if you want to save a few bucks and you know that the $$$ you save now will not cost you $$$$$$ later to fight the inspector to get him to allow the install may not be worth it. If you can get it in writing that the building construction type allows for romex and you don't mind butting heads with the inspector, go for it. as nakulak said, if the building owner wants to spend his time fighting the cause, let him. Otherwise, let him pay the added cost.
 
I suppose if everone is bidding it the same way, to the same spec (If any exist), you shouldn't have a problem. You have already done more than most would usually do by actually asking the inspector. From reading your posts over the past years, it doesn't sound like you cut corners.

It always seems like some fly-by-night operation gets the jobs with a tight budget and the owner finds out that "You get what you pay for". Good luck with the quote and I hope everything turns out alright.
 
I acutally do pretty good on getting these types of jobs, and if I do want to "cut a corner" I ask first. When you work in the same general area long enough, you sorta get a sense as to what will raise an inspector's eyebrow, even if it might be code compliant. I will admit, however, that is is really hard making a decent bid on a job that has no E sheets.
 
its downright crazy. and the really sucky part is when the owners finally show you what they want they look at you like you are crazy because you didn't include stuff that you couldn't possibly have known about, even if you could have read their minds. (even if you gave them an estimate that showed every single washer that was included)
 
nakulak said:
its downright crazy. and the really sucky part is when the owners finally show you what they want they look at you like you are crazy because you didn't include stuff that you couldn't possibly have known about, even if you could have read their minds. (even if you gave them an estimate that showed every single washer that was included)
Click to expand...
Eh, I'm a big boy. I'm wise enough to know that I need to compose a detailed scope when a contract is finally drafted. If they can't read, that's their problem.
 
On the basis that the opinion of the inspection agency is founded on the NEC doctrine, or just because it's a "good idea"?
Click to expand...

Like always, because it seems to ME like a good idea.

"Commercial" wiring seems safer....more safe... than romex.
 
mdshunk said:
The answer I got, in short, "Nope, the whole thing is a commercial building.
Click to expand...

Thats great, you can save a bundle on the job, you will not have to provide any of the items in 210.52 or 210.70(A). :wink:

Maybe see how the inspectors feel about that.
 
220/221 said:
"Commercial" wiring seems safer....more safe... than romex.
Click to expand...

As I've said many times we have thousands of commercial buildings (everything from supermarkets to hotels to apartment buildings) in this region wired with romex. They aren't burning down or having electrical problems because of it. ;)
 
What's funny is that the last new motel job I did was wired exactly as I proposed for this job. It had E sheets that went along with the plan review, however. Romex in the sleeping rooms, and metallic covered wiring methods in the halls and office.
 
peter d said:
Can anyone show me in the NEC a definition of a "commercial" building?
Click to expand...
I guess any non-dwelling occupancy? A mixed use occupancy always frustrates me from a code standpoint, particularly when the owners are permitted by the powers that be to cheap out on the planning and engineering.
 
mdshunk said:
A mixed use occupancy always frustrates me from a code standpoint.
Click to expand...

In that case I would guess that the appropriate code sections apply to each particular kind of occupancy within the overall building, but I'm just shooting from the hip here.
 
peter d said:
Can anyone show me in the NEC a definition of a "commercial" building?
Click to expand...

That is actually a very good point.

There are 'dwelling units' and there are other then dwelling units.

Clearly the apartments are dwelling units, the rest of the building is other then dwelling units.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top