Code Question - Romex

[JamieK]

I was looking through our local building codes and found this...


Sec. 7-101. Adoption of local option rules.
The following local option rules adopted by the North Carolina Building Code Council in June, 1978, are hereby adopted; the rules are intended to apply to permanent buildings or structures covered by the National Electrical Code:
(a) All wiring on or in permanent buildings or structures located within a defined first (number one or primary) fire district shall utilize approved raceways or metal-jacketed cables such as MI or Type MC metal-clad (Type AC not allowed) as permitted by the National Electrical Code;

Granted, I know nothing about electrical codes, but the way I read this, Romex is prohibited in walls, etc. That can't be right though. I've never seen anything but Romex behind walls. How am I reading this wrong? Of course, another passage said I had to have a permit to replace any electrical device. Does this include switches and sockets???

 

[Mickey O]

I was looking through our local building codes and found this...


Sec. 7-101. Adoption of local option rules.
The following local option rules adopted by the North Carolina Building Code Council in June, 1978, are hereby adopted; the rules are intended to apply to permanent buildings or structures covered by the National Electrical Code:
(a) All wiring on or in permanent buildings or structures located within a defined first (number one or primary) fire district shall utilize approved raceways or metal-jacketed cables such as MI or Type MC metal-clad (Type AC not allowed) as permitted by the National Electrical Code;

Granted, I know nothing about electrical codes, but the way I read this, Romex is prohibited in walls, etc. That can't be right though. I've never seen anything but Romex behind walls. How am I reading this wrong? Of course, another passage said I had to have a permit to replace any electrical device. Does this include switches and sockets???

Could be right, around here, the Chicagoland area, Romex isn't allowed anywhere, it's prohibited but you can buy it at any Wal-Mart or Menards store. You can only use flexible BX/Greenfield for short runs only, everything else is in EMT or rigid, they do use PVC for main services but you can't use it for outdoor lights etc., but I do. I don't mind it because it's all I've ever known and there are some advantages but it can also be a pain.

 

[Stuart in MN]

Without seeing the rest of the code information it's hard to take this in context. Can you post a link?

My guess is they're talking about commercial, industrial and municipal buildings, not residential.

 

[geko29]

Could be right, around here, the Chicagoland area, Romex isn't allowed anywhere, it's prohibited but you can buy it at any Wal-Mart or Menards store.

That's actually not true. I know for 100% fact that use of Romex is not only acceptable, but standard practice in Joliet. It gives a friend of mine a **** fit any time he tries to do any electrical work in his house, because all the wiring is romex, stapled to the studs, and there is no rhyme or reason to wire color since the only options are white and black. No new wire can be pulled without ripping down the walls, because code requires all wiring to be stud-stapled, and of course the original wiring is, so it can't be used to fish even if he didn't care about that.

Romex is evil, and should never be used by anyone.

 

[Mickey O]

That's actually not true. I know for 100% fact that use of Romex is not only acceptable, but standard practice in Joliet. It gives a friend of mine a **** fit any time he tries to do any electrical work in his house, because all the wiring is romex, stapled to the studs, and there is no rhyme or reason to wire color since the only options are white and black. No new wire can be pulled without ripping down the walls, because code requires all wiring to be stud-stapled, and of course the original wiring is, so it can't be used to fish even if he didn't care about that.

Romex is evil, and should never be used by anyone.

When did Joliet become part of the Chicagoland area?

 

[geko29]

When did Joliet become part of the Chicagoland area?

1950 according to the government (1926 according to Robert McCormick, who coined the term), when the Chicagoland area came into existence as an official entity:

The Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was originally designated by the United States Census Bureau in 1950 and consisted of the Illinois counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, and Will along with Lake County in Indiana.

The US Office of Management and Budget actually calls it the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).

So basically it became part of the Chicagoland area on the same day that Chicago did.

 

[Mickey O]

1950 according to the government (1926 according to Robert McCormick, who coined the term), when the Chicagoland area came into existence as an official entity:



The US Office of Management and Budget actually calls it the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).

So basically it became part of the Chicagoland area on the same day that Chicago did.

I myself wouldn't consider Joliet a part of the Chicagoland area, I was referring to Cook county and most of Cook require metallic conduit even in residential.

I looked at Joliet's electrical code and it's quite a mess, it appears they require metallic conduit but there are exceptions:

Sec. 8-238. Classification of wiring methods and materials.
The type of wiring used in buildings of various types of construction and occupancy shall be as follows:
(a) In the installation of new electrical wiring and/or equipment, wire shall be installed in metal raceways of the type approved for the location. Flexible metal conduit shall be permissible only in short lengths where flexible connections are necessary or by special permission.
Exception No. 1. In a fire-resistant building, as defined in the National Building Code of 1973, containing three (3) or more apartments or condominiums, not exceeding three (3) floors above grade and where cable will pass through holes in metal framing members, Type NM, NMC cable of the grounded type or flexible metal conduit shall be permitted to be used in concealed locations. Type NM, NMC cable shall not be permitted to be used in air plenums or exposed areas.
Exception No. 2. In any residential building not exceeding three (3) floors above grade or twelve (12) units, apartments or condominiums, Type NM, NMC cable of the grounded type or flexible metal conduit shall be permitted to be used in concealed locations. Type NM, NMC cable shall not be permitted to be used in air plenums or exposed areas.
In multilevel one-and two-family dwellings an empty three-fourths-inch metal conduit shall be installed to the attic and crawl space.
In a single or two-level one-and two-family dwelling with a basement an empty three-fourths-inch metal conduit shall be installed to the attic.
In a single level one-and two-family dwelling without a basement an empty three-fourths-inch metal conduit shall be installed to the attic and crawl space.
(b) In the installation of cable through wood frame members:
(1) Bored holes. In concealed locations where a cable type wiring method is installed through bored holes in joists, rafters, studs or similar structural wood members, holes shall be bored at the approximate center of the member but not less than one and one-half (1 1/2) inches from the nearest edge or shall be protected from nails and screws by a steel plate one-sixteenth of an inch thick.
(2) Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary by conduit. Where passing through a floor the cable shall be enclosed in metal conduit extending six (6) inches above the floor.
(3) Cable shall be secured by straps so designed and installed as not to injure the cable. Straps shall be installed every five (5) feet and within twelve (12) inches of a box or cabinet.
(4) The installation of cable in accessible attics or roof spaces. If run across the top of the floor joists the cable shall be installed as close to the point where the roof meets with the attic floor joists as possible, or holes may be bored in the center of floor joists for the cable to pass through. Where cable runs parallel to the joists, the cable shall be secured to the side or face of the joists.
(c) In the installation of cable through metal framing members: In concealed locations where cable passes through slots or holes in metal framing members, the cable shall be protected by bushings or grommets, approved for the purpose, securely fastened in the opening. Where nails or screws are likely to penetrate the cable, a steel sleeve not less than one-sixteenth-inch in wall thickness shall be used to protect the cable.
(d) Remodeling of existing structures:
(1) In any building other than in fire-resistant buildings of the type listed above in Exception No. 1, and residential buildings as listed above in Exception No. 2, the wiring shall be installed in metal raceways of the type approved for the location. Flexible metal conduit may be run or fished in air veins of concrete masonry block or tile walls where such walls are not subject to dampness; flexible metal conduit may be run or fished in existing walls or partitions where it is not possible to install conduit; flexible metal conduit may run in existing floors or ceilings where it is not possible to install conduit; flexible metal conduit shall never be used in buildings or parts of buildings being remodeled where it would be subject to mechanical injury; flexible metal conduit may be used in existing partitions where it is fished through the partition; and flexible metal conduit shall not be used between outlets in new partitions where the exterior finish of the partition has been removed for remodeling.
(2) In a fire-resistant building(s) of the type listed above in Exception No. 1, and in residential buildings as listed in Exception No. 2, concealed wiring may be installed in metal rigid conduit, flexible metal conduit or nonmetallic sheathed cable of the grounded type where the conductor is concealed. Metal rigid conduit shall be required for all exposed wiring.
(Ord. No. 6554, § 8.3, 10-5-76; Ord. No. 7456, § 3(C), 1-6-81)

Sec. 8-239. Extensions.
Where a building, structure, area or enclosure has been previously wired in complete metallic wiring, no nonmetallic circuit extensions will be permitted, irrespective of class of wiring required by occupancy or location.
(Ord. No. 6554, § 8.4, 110-5-76; Ord. No. 7456, § 3(C), 1-6-81)

Out here where I live (DuPage) and my previous home (Cook) Romex is not allowed in any structure (I think some areas of DuPage, unincorporated, etc. they may allow it).

 

[boiler7904]

Romex (Non-metallic or NM Cable) is quite possibly not allowed by your local code. A lot has changed since the 1978 codes were issued. You'll have to see what edition of the NEC they have currently adopted and if they made any amendments at or after adoption. In my case, the town I live in has adopted the Indiana Electrical Code (NEC with Indiana amendments) and then struck NM cable as an approved wiring method.

That's actually not true. I know for 100% fact that use of Romex is not only acceptable, but standard practice in Joliet. It gives a friend of mine a **** fit any time he tries to do any electrical work in his house, because all the wiring is romex, stapled to the studs, and there is no rhyme or reason to wire color since the only options are white and black. No new wire can be pulled without ripping down the walls, because code requires all wiring to be stud-stapled, and of course the original wiring is, so it can't be used to fish even if he didn't care about that.

Romex is evil, and should never be used by anyone.

When was his house built? When I was doing a new housing development tour of a subdivision on the west side of Joliet / south side of Plainfield for my construction management degree in 2003, everything was EMT. Almost all of the union electricians in Will County will run EMT in every house they wire. They hate NM as much as anyone else.

 

[geko29]

I myself wouldn't consider Joliet a part of the Chicagoland area, I was referring to Cook county and most of Cook require metallic conduit even in residential.

Though most people have varying opinions on the size of "Chicagoland" and I can see where Joliet could be a valid point of debate, I personally think limiting it to just Cook county is vast over-restriction. Some definitions include Kankakee, which I think most would agree is overbroad. But we digress.

Cook definitely does require conduit, and the city proper is even more strict to the point of stupidity, thanks to the unions essentially rewriting the law to create more business for themselves. Basically if it's made out of copper or aluminum and it doesn't carry water, it has to go inside conduit. Data cable, coax, telephone wire, whatever. Even if it only carries 4W, it has to be encased in steel.

I looked at Joliet's electrical code and it's quite a mess, it appears they require metallic conduit but there are exceptions

You are right sir, it's a complete disaster. If my friend lived ~1 mile north or west and was in Plainfield, they have a very clear electrical code that actually has a line item stating 100% conduit is required for all electrical service, period. But since he doesn't, he has to deal with travesties like 14 wires being attached to a single switch, comprised of three colors total.

Out here where I live (DuPage) and my previous home (Cook) Romex is not allowed in any structure (I think some areas of DuPage, unincorporated, etc. they may allow it).

I've lived in Dupage (Woodridge, Naperville), Will (Naperville), and Cook (Arlington Heights, Schaumburg, Morton Grove), and definitely haven't been unlucky enough to be somewhere that conduit wasn't required. I'd probably have gone nuts if I had to deal with Romex everywhere.

 

[geko29]

When was his house built? When I was doing a new housing development tour of a subdivision on the west side of Joliet / south side of Plainfield for my construction management degree in 2003, everything was EMT. Almost all of the union electricians in Will County will run EMT in every house they wire. They hate NM as much as anyone else.

Probably around 2000. He's the second owner (Townhouse) and moved in in 2004 or 2005. He's at I-55 and Black Road, behind the Dominick's on Rt. 59. If he was on the other side of 59, it'd be 100% conduit. I suspect the subdivision you toured was incorporated into Plainfield, which is both strict and clear about their requirements regarding conduit.

 

[Mickey O]

Though most people have varying opinions on the size of "Chicagoland" and I can see where Joliet could be a valid point of debate, I personally think limiting it to just Cook county is vast over-restriction. Some definitions include Kankakee, which I think most would agree is overbroad. But we digress.

Cook definitely does require conduit, and the city proper is even more strict to the point of stupidity, thanks to the unions essentially rewriting the law to create more business for themselves. Basically if it's made out of copper or aluminum and it doesn't carry water, it has to go inside conduit. Data cable, coax, telephone wire, whatever. Even if it only carries 4W, it has to be encased in steel.


You are right sir, it's a complete disaster. If my friend lived ~1 mile north or west and was in Plainfield, they have a very clear electrical code that actually has a line item stating 100% conduit is required for all electrical service, period. But since he doesn't, he has to deal with travesties like 14 wires being attached to a single switch, comprised of three colors total.



I've lived in Dupage (Woodridge, Naperville), Will (Naperville), and Cook (Arlington Heights, Schaumburg, Morton Grove), and definitely haven't been unlucky enough to be somewhere that conduit wasn't required. I'd probably have gone nuts if I had to deal with Romex everywhere.

I lived in right next door in Skokie for many years, still have a place there.

Another great point about Illinois is all the different codes we have, every town has their own, I'd like to see a statewide code with local amendments.

 

[boiler7904]

Probably around 2000. He's the second owner (Townhouse) and moved in in 2004 or 2005. He's at I-55 and Black Road, behind the Dominick's on Rt. 59. If he was on the other side of 59, it'd be 100% conduit. I suspect the subdivision you toured was incorporated into Plainfield, which is both strict and clear about their requirements regarding conduit.

Are you talking about the 5 and 6 unit buildings across from Troy Jr. High? Pretty sure that's Shorewood. I think Joliet's boundary is a couple of streets east at Bronk Rd. Shorewood usually has their act together more so than Joliet as far as codes and inspections go.

Honestly, as quickly as houses and townhomes were thrown up in that area in the last 8-10 years I'm not surprised about any of the issues your friend has with wiring. Too much construction and nowhere near enough competent inspectors watching things. It's going to come back to bite a lot of people in the *** down the road if it hasn't already. Look at the half built messes of subdivisions left behind by the defunct builders like Neumann north of Shorewood off of Ridge and County Line roads.

 

[JamieK]

Heres a link to the code...

http://library1.municode.com/default-test/home.htm?infobase=10707&doc_action=whatsnew

Section 7-101

The house I'm currently living in built in 1983 is all Romex, the modular home I just bought was built in 2001 and its all Romex. Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot all have it on the shelf. Just a little confused. But on the positive side, I did find out that unless theres electrical or new plumbing involved, I don't need a permit for anything under $5000. And as long as its my own home, I can get the electrical and plumbing permits myself.

 

[Mickey O]

Heres a link to the code...

http://library1.municode.com/default-test/home.htm?infobase=10707&doc_action=whatsnew

Section 7-101

The house I'm currently living in built in 1983 is all Romex, the modular home I just bought was built in 2001 and its all Romex. Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot all have it on the shelf. Just a little confused. But on the positive side, I did find out that unless theres electrical or new plumbing involved, I don't need a permit for anything under $5000. And as long as its my own home, I can get the electrical and plumbing permits myself.

I don't see anything prohibiting romex in residential (not sure what they mean by "within a defined first (number one or primary) fire district".

Sec. 7-101. Adoption of local option rules.
The following local option rules adopted by the North Carolina Building Code Council in June, 1978, are hereby adopted; the rules are intended to apply to permanent buildings or structures covered by the National Electrical Code:
(a) All wiring on or in permanent buildings or structures located within a defined first (number one or primary) fire district shall utilize approved raceways or metal-jacketed cables such as MI or Type MC metal-clad (Type AC not allowed) as permitted by the National Electrical Code;
(b) All permanent buildings, wherever situated, which are required to have an emergency system power source by the state building code shall have the service conductors enclosed in approved raceway; and in addition to the above, all portions of the required emergency lighting system for the entire building shall be wired in metal raceway, nonmetallic raceways encased in not less than two (2) inches of concrete, mineral-insulated, metal-sheathed cable, or Type MC cable as permitted by the state electrical code. The total area of any specific place of assembly shall include the area of balconies and the area of connecting rooms with moveable partitions.

 

[Stuart in MN]

Yeah, that defined first fire district doesn't make sense to me. I looked back up the page in section 7.1 (Definitions) but it doesn't define what it means there either. It does say in that section they go by the 1984 edition of the National Electric Code, which is pretty amazing.

Probably the best thing to do is call the local inspector and ask him.

 

[geko29]

Are you talking about the 5 and 6 unit buildings across from Troy Jr. High? Pretty sure that's Shorewood. I think Joliet's boundary is a couple of streets east at Bronk Rd. Shorewood usually has their act together more so than Joliet as far as codes and inspections go.

No, this is at least 3 miles north of Shorewood. I misspoke earlier, it's Caton Farm Road, not Black. Oak Tree Lane is the specific road, and they're 4-unit 2-story townhouses.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I do believe that North Carolina has adopted the 2008 NEC state wide.
The newsletter for the city of Winston-Salem's electrical dept. has been stating since January 2009 ,that I can find, that they are in the 2008 NEC
Here's a link

http://www.cityofws.org/Assets/City... NEWSLETTERS/ELECTRICAL NEWSLETTER_1-1-09.pdf.

 

[Charles (in GA)]

A little Googling yields me one example, here is a map of the primary fire district for Siler City, NC. It encompasses only a few blocks of the downtown district.

http://www.silercity.org/vertical/S...ds/{E112FB76-84C6-46DA-9CFB-B45048A16A7D}.PDF

And here is the Siler City web page describing what is and is not allowed in the Primary fire district.

http://www.silercity.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={500FF91C-37EF-4E29-9706-356713EA414A}

Here is, from the North Carolina General Statues, section 160A-435, which ordains the establishment of fire limits (districts), specifically PRIMARY districts.............

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_160A/GS_160A-435.pdf

§ 160A‑435. Establishment of fire limits.

The city council of every incorporated city shall pass one or more ordinances establishing and defining fire limits, which shall include the principal business portions of the city and which shall be known as primary fire limits. In addition, the council may, in its dicretion, establish and define one or more separate areas within the city as secondary fire limits. (1905, c. 506, s. 7; Rev., s. 2985; 1917, c. 136, subch. 8, s. 2; C.S., ss. 2746, 2802; 1961, c. 240; 1969, c. 1065, s. 1; 1971, c. 698, s. 1.)

Here is the link to section 160A (Cities and Towns) of the North Carolina General Statues. Scroll down to find section 435, which I have linked to and quoted, above.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0160A

Google is your friend.

Charles

 

[belvedere]

Romex is evil, and should never be used by anyone.

wow...

 

[djjsr]

It's amazing to see how many variations there are to the codes. How can a code that's ok for one town be inadequate for another town? I thought the NEC was the best and safest way to do things. Apparently it's not. I think it should be changed to reflect whatever is best and everyone adheres to that code, no more, no less. Am I missing something?

 

[JamieK]

Hmm, maybe romex is just prohibited in downtown areas. If I ever need to do any electrical, I'll contact the inspector, but I was just curious for now. BTW, here is a link to some pictures in the Inspection Dept newsletter. Nothing is said about the use of Romex, although that may be a minor problem here.

http://www.cityofws.org/Assets/City...AL NEWSLETTERS/Electrical Newsletter_1-10.pdf

 

[Jack Davenport]

DJJSR-

The National Electrical Code( NEC) is written by many groups of people from many backgrounds dealing with electric. These groups are referred to as the "Code Making Panels" CMP for short. Each CMP deals with one or two code articles only. Anyone can propose a change to the NEC. Just fill out the form and submit it. The cmp's review every request and the current edition.
They discuss them and vote on them. Then there is a period for comments.
When everything is done and said the NEC is compiled and put into print and offered for sale. This entire process is overseen by the National Fire Protection Agency ( NFPA). The NFPA owns the rights to the NEC ( and many other building codes). There is NO Law that dictates that each jurisdiction or state must use the NEC.
The NEC is the only regularly updated and published "code " every three years.
The NEC becomes Law when it is presented and voted into law by the local jurisdiction or state. Each Jurisdiction or state has the ability to add to it or take away from it. Some adopt it as written and others feel the need to muck things up by adding / deleting items.
This is why some places have their own code, others use the NEC as written and yet others add to it. Some places are using the 2002 NEC others use the 2005 NEC and most are now on the 2008 NEC. The jurisdiction I work for never adopted the 2005. We went from the 2002 straight to the 2008.
This is just some of the fun involved when it comes to electrical contracting.

Oh yeah for the record - There's nothing wrong with Non-Metallic Cable ( romex) some places have hangups with but most do not.

 

[djjsr]

There is NO Law that dictates that each jurisdiction or state must use the NEC.

Thanks for the info Jack. I live in a small town out in the cornfields and this explains why I've never heard of any electrical inspections ever being done. I asked an electrical contractor about inspections and he just laughed.

 

[Charles (in GA)]

I thought the NEC was the best and safest way to do things. Apparently it's not. I think it should be changed to reflect whatever is best and everyone adheres to that code, no more, no less. Am I missing something?

The NEC is supposed to be a MINIMUM STANDARD in the eyes of the authors. As such, some locales or states establish standards above the minimum, and in some cases, they realize that the NEC goes overboard on some issues, and they make exceptions to parts of it.

Attempting to establish a no more, no less, code would downright tick some folks off, and really doesn't make much sense.

Charles

 

[ddawg16]

Considering this is IL.....it makes me wonder of a good guy has a business selling metalic cable......

 

[djjsr]

Attempting to establish a no more, no less, code would downright tick some folks off, and really doesn't make much sense.

I don't disagree, I guess I'm being unrealistic, but it seems like the code should establish the best way to do something (considering safety & economics). No more than that is necessary and no less is accepted. The problem would probably be getting the experts that write the code to all agree on what is the best way. There is apparently disagreement now or we wouldn't have the variations.