# NM cable in a 13 story condo



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Article 334.10(2) states that NM is permitted in multifamily dwelling buildings of types III, IV, and V. 



> 334.10 Uses Permitted.Type NM, Type NMC, and TypeNMS cables shall be permitted to be used in the following:
> ...
> 
> (2) Multifamily dwellings permitted to be of Types III, IV,and V construction except as prohibited in 334.12.


It can be difficult or impossible to look at a building and determine which type it is, but Annex E, table E.2 shows the maximum number of floors for buildings of types III, IV, and V, and in no case is it more than 5 floors. 

Therefore, any building over 5 floors is either type I or II, and either way, NM is not permitted, QED.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

Section 334

Depends on type of construction, but 13 floors pretty much gives it away.


Not bad for a Canuck, eh ! :biggrin:


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

splatz said:


> Therefore, any building over 5 floors is either type I or II, and either way, NM is not permitted, QED.



I demand you to delete your post :vs_mad:

I wanted to be first :biggrin:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Shawn23 said:


> The entire 13 story condo building is in conduit and flex conduit.
> Home owner/handyman got caught doing the work and now needs a permit.
> Their GC calls me in to pull permit and make it right.
> Home owner/handyman ran all romex and plastic boxes.
> ...


That 3 story business went away many code cycles ago. The best clue is what the building is wired with to begin with....


----------



## Shawn23 (Jan 5, 2011)

Thanks to you all for the info. We always stick to the original wiring method.


----------



## Signal1 (Feb 10, 2016)

Shawn23 said:


> Thanks to you all for the info. We always stick to the original wiring method.


Nothing wrong with that, but it's not necessarily required. Raising the standard can be a good thing, unless it puts you out of businesses. 

334.10 was changed to allow NM in buildings over three stories in 2002. (That's 18 years ago).

But even before that, the rule was that it COULD be used as long as it didn't pass between floors. (This may have been a Massachusetts amendment)

All I'm saying is that if the competition keeps pricing you out (legally/ code compliant) you may want to re-think that strategy. Things might get lean and mean real soon.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I was called in to change a few light fixtures in apartment # 3406 of a high-rise last week. There were also a couple of fans to replace that were run off the switched receptacle for the room using wire mold. Whoever put them in did a nice job with the wire mold, except he pulled 14-2 stinking romex thru the wiremold and attached that to the existing #12 tw conductors in the outlets, protected by 20 amp circuit breakers. I, being a fairly lazy fellow, changed the breakers to 15 's rather than try to pull that crap out of the wire mold and pull new wire in. And it was the cheaper fix , but it remains a code violation due to the fact that romex has no business being inside wire mold #500 up on the thirty fourth floor. Dangerous? maybe not. Wrong? yep.


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Shawn23 said:


> GC not happy with price and wants to know why we removed it all and started over.


What does your signed contract say?

You did have them sign a contract right? 

With a homeowner too cheap originally to hire professionals?

Also, lemme guess.......there's no plans either.

Plans would specify a wiring method......


----------



## Quickservice (Apr 23, 2020)

In the future, before you jump into a redo like this, you might consider a meeting with the owner and GC and explain your plan of attack. Nailing it down with a phone call to the local EI wouldn't hurt either.


----------

