The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
230 or 345 kV transmission lines?
by Vlado
Yesterday at 09:33 AM
breaker meltdown
by crselectric
Yesterday at 12:42 AM
Electrical mast flashing product
by ThomasWinfrey
09/22/16 12:14 AM
What estimating software do you recommend?
by sparky
09/21/16 07:20 PM
"Dry Run" Inspection goes awry
by HotLine1
09/20/16 07:39 PM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
HotLine1 17
sparky 9
gfretwell 9
sparky66wv 8
Vlado 6
Who's Online
0 registered (), 254 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#194265 - 05/19/10 05:30 AM sec 300.9
harold endean Offline
Member

Registered: 02/16/02
Posts: 2248
Loc: Boonton, NJ
In section 300.9 the NEC states that you have to use wire suitable for wet/damp locations when used in a raceway or enclosure above grade.
OK in one of the latest trade magazines, the author of a column stated that you can't use NM to feed an outside light or outside weatherproof receptacle.

I guess my question would be, is that really the intent of the code? I mean is the inside of an old work box inside the wall cavity really a damp/wet location?

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#194266 - 05/19/10 06:34 AM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: harold endean]
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6785
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
Harold:

Greg & you can debate this till you know what freezes over.

IMHO, no issues with NMC to the box for an exterior outlet/device.
_________________________
John

Top
#194267 - 05/19/10 07:19 AM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: HotLine1]
Jim M Offline
Member

Registered: 08/10/01
Posts: 453
Loc: Chestertown, MD, USA
Harold, I addressed this with CT, and he is going to publish a clarification.

Top
#194268 - 05/19/10 10:31 AM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: Jim M]
harold endean Offline
Member

Registered: 02/16/02
Posts: 2248
Loc: Boonton, NJ
John,


The EC who questioned me with this one, called Suzanne and she feels the way that I do. If you see wires hanging outside and getting wet, then you can fail for NM getting wet. However if they keep the NM inside of the building and only installing it in the box, then I don't believe the area would be considered damp/wet location.

Top
#194303 - 05/22/10 06:53 AM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: harold endean]
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member

Registered: 01/22/05
Posts: 5299
Loc: Blue Collar Country
One of the thingd I 'love' about new code editions is all the little surprises that seem to get implemented without anyone being aware of them .... until the new code comes out, and the 'seminar riders' suddenly start off on a new crusade.

In the 08 cycle, this ban on NM in 'damp' locations was one such surprise. Romex in the crawl space? Violation! Romex through the wall into the back of an outdoor weather-tight box? Violation.

Hell, I had one clown assert that ordinary switches, place conventionally in a bathroom, were a violation, as was NM in the walls, because condensation made the area 'damp.'

I'm just as sore at the NM makers. There is absolutely no reason for conventional NM to not be rated / listed / approved for the wettest applications - even under water. Just my opinion - but I suspect that they either haven't even tried, or that there was a management decision to avoid the application.

Top
#194319 - 05/23/10 12:25 PM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: renosteinke]
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9012
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
They could fix the water problem with NM by removing the kraft paper but I assume there is a business reason not to. It certainly isn't a technical reason. My bet ... UF costs about the same to manufacture but they can sell it for more.
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#194331 - 05/24/10 06:30 AM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: gfretwell]
harold endean Offline
Member

Registered: 02/16/02
Posts: 2248
Loc: Boonton, NJ
Greg,

Actually I think I found out one reason where 300.9 might apply, where the EC runs NM out of the house and sleeves the NM in a flex tubing then into a HVAC disconnect.

Top
#194335 - 05/24/10 07:48 AM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: harold endean]
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6785
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
Yes, Harold; what you describe above technically does not fly!
_________________________
John

Top
#194340 - 05/24/10 11:58 AM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: HotLine1]
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9012
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
When I had this conversation at Fl IAEI the consensus was if the exterior box was inside the wall it was OK to use the NM, it got a little more questionable if it was a surface mounted pancake but if there was any raceway involved NM was a tag.
The real gray area was a surface mounted bell box served from the back, but again the answer was usually no. It got into questions about if the back of the box was caulked into the wall and how the box was served.
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#194347 - 05/24/10 04:30 PM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: gfretwell]
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6785
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
Greg:
Thanks! That's the debate I remember.
_________________________
John

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals