I'm in a questioning mood today. A friend who lives near Chicago tells me that code in his county requires conduit everywhere in his house. Code where I live now, and everwhere that I've lived before, allows NM-B. Putting the code aside for a moment, how much extra risk is there from using NM-B versus conduit? Either Chicago is being overcautious, or code where I live is not being cautious enough. Which is it? If NM-B is dangerous in Chicago, then it surely must be dangerous here as well. Why the variation in requirements?
COMMUNITY FORUM
- Forum >
- Electrical & Lighting >
- Conduit versus NM-B
If you check historically you'll find that Chicago has many rules, especially electrical, that are the result of too-powerful trade unions forcing the public to keep too many of their members employed.
The reason that they call Chicago the "Second City" is because the first one burned down. For this reason, Chicago has some code requirements that aren't usually seen elsewhere. One of them is that if two houses aren't far enough apart, the exterior walls must be fire rated.
Perhaps we'll get a visit from a Chicago sparky who can illuminate this subject a little better.
Tom
[This message has been edited by Tom O (edited November 04, 2002).]
