ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Damp Location

Harold:
NM is OK in the garage you describe, no questions, no hassle.

The DW recept as a GFI?.....IF it's a dedicated DW recept it should be a single recept.

The GFI debate came up at a recent NJEIA meeting, the opinion was IF it's a duplex, then GFI based on the opinion tha it could be 'used' for something on the counter. All I see are singles for DW and GDs, and the occasional split 20 amp duplex.

I am not sure how you could say it was serving the countertop if it did not meet the 210.52 requirement but I suppose it is the AHJ's call.

I didn't know Brad Pitt is/was an electrician.

Greg:
The debate had a loud difference of opinions. I'll say by code, as it is within the cabinet, GFI is not a requirement, but a choice by design.

The 'pro GFI' side was argued on safety, but the NEC does not prohibit stupidity, on the part of the end user.

As I mentioned above the common install is single receptacles for the 'fixed' appliances, with an occasional 'split' 15/20 amp duplex. (I omitted 15 in my above post) I'm refering to DWs, GDs, microwaves (in place), compactors, wine coolers, warmer drawers, etc.

I agree you can't regulate stupid but we are a country of laws. If the receptacle was in a wall, 18" below the counter, you could certainly plug in a blender with a 6' cord and sit it on the counter top but the receptacle still can't be said to "serve" the counter top in a 210.12 sense.
If we really want all the receptacles in a kitchen to be GFCI, change the code.

There is a similar situation going on about GFCIs on pool pumps here. The Florida Building Commission went out of their way to exempt hardwired pool pumps from the new NEC rule (god knows why) but inspectors are twisting the code around to try to enforce it anyway. (usually 110.3(B) but some manufacturers do not really say that you "shall" use GFCI)
My take on it is, if you are just going to make up your own rules as you go along, there are no rules.

IMO, the silly thing about NM cable not being permitted damp locations is that if manufactures would just disclose outright that the conductor insulation is in fact THHN, as we all suspect it is, the argument for keeping this restriction in the NEC loses it's validity, since THHN is listed for both dry and damp locations at the full 90-degree C in Table 310.13A.
Updating the UL listing to acknowledge this shouldn’t be a problem, since the feared insulation degradation due to moisture obviously wouldn’t be a problem when used in damp locations, even if the paper filler strip becomes dampened.
I think this would go a long way toward curbing ridiculous installation conflicts similar to what was described in the OP.
I know, I know... dream on, right?

Ultimately, we're back to the schitzoid position the NEC takes on the safety of NM. Is it safe, or not?

Increased allowed uses of NM suggest that it has proven itself to be safe.

Increased limitations - no damp locations, AFCI required - suggests that it has proven to be unsafe.

Which is it?

Ditto for all the engineering wonks who ponder the possibility that the paper in NM might get wet. So what if it does? The paper is around the GROUND wire. All moisture would do is improve the chances of everything having a good bond.

Inspectors twisting the code to enforce their own design biases is nothing new - and it seems to be more of a problem the less accountable or knowledgeable the inspector is. This problem will only worsen as ever more rules are extended to the legal parts of the industry. The hacks will, perversly, gain an advantage.

Closer on point, I think it's time to do away with the very concept of a 'damp' location.

The way I understand in, the paper could wick water and deposit it in the box. Far fetched, well so are a lot of things that NFPA says.
My question is whether we will start seeing NM-c now.

K.Jay

I don't see a problem with NM in a garage, except maybe if people hang there garden tools over the wire. If the NM is down low, maybe the wire should be protected from physical damage. Otherwise, no problem.

Greg,

If they remove that piece of paper from the NM, then there wouldn't be an issue with moisture.

The reason I started this thread was because an EC told me that he failed because the AHJ stated that the DW was in a damp location. To me, that just shows how this AHJ is using the NEC incorrectly.