Re: NEC 2002 Article 334 -- IAEI-Michigan

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:27 06/02/05 Thu
Author: Phil Clark
Subject: Re: NEC 2002 Article 334
In reply to: Brian Kiley 's message, "NEC 2002 Article 334" on 07:19 06/02/05 Thu

I think that the language and the intent of the Code both allow for the installation of NM cable in buildings of Types I thru V. It seems that the building in question is "mixed-use" and so would fall under the "other sructures" portion of the Article. Article 334.10(3) specifically mentions "...other structures permitted to be of Types III,IV,V except as prohibited in 334.12..."

My understanding is that the Code allows for the installation of NM cable in these "other structures" of these Types because of the added requirement of a "fifteen minute finish rating" which is applied in other instances in the Code when dealing with installation of a non-metallic product. To adopt a position that NM cable cannot be installed in a building which is of a Type considered non-combustible/fire-resistive seems to miss what the rule is intended to do: lessen the risks of spread of products of combustion. When the fact that the building in question is fully sprinklered is added to the equation, it seems like an unnecessary restriction.

>There seems to be a lot of confusion about article 334
>Nonmetallic-sheathed Cable. Specifically Article
>334.10 uses permitted, and article 334.12 uses not
>permitted.
>After several conversations about this subject, it
>appears that there are different interpretations of
>the intent of the code. As I read the code it appears
>as though romex can be put in multifamily dwellings in
>the following types I,II,III,IV, and V. There are
>inspectors that disagree with this statment. It is my
>understanding that the intent of the code for uses
>permitted, is not all inclusive. When it states uses
>not permitted it is all inclusive. That being said,
>there is no place in the code that excludes me from
>using Nonmetallic-sheathed cable in type I, and type
>II buildings. When NFPA was asked to provide an
>official interpretation, the statement was made the
>the intent is very clear. Nonmetallic-sheathed cable
>is not restricted from being used in type I, and type
>II buildings.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]