ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Shout Box
Recent Posts
Extension cords
by LongRunner. 05/25/18 12:19 PM
Fire source!
by LongRunner. 05/25/18 01:49 AM
Alternative income sources
by gfretwell. 05/24/18 10:07 PM
Furnace igniter leaking noise to stereo
by geoff in UK. 05/23/18 01:18 PM
Opinions Please
by Keith_Mc. 05/23/18 09:22 AM
New in the Gallery:
Plug terminals
Housebilding DIY wiring
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (ampherder, geoff in UK), 29 guests, and 12 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
sec 300.9 #194265
05/19/10 08:30 AM
05/19/10 08:30 AM
H
harold endean  Offline OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
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?

2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
Re: sec 300.9 [Re: harold endean] #194266
05/19/10 09:34 AM
05/19/10 09:34 AM
HotLine1  Offline

Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,967
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
Re: sec 300.9 [Re: HotLine1] #194267
05/19/10 10:19 AM
05/19/10 10:19 AM
J
Jim M  Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 457
Chestertown, MD, USA
Harold, I addressed this with CT, and he is going to publish a clarification.

Re: sec 300.9 [Re: Jim M] #194268
05/19/10 01:31 PM
05/19/10 01:31 PM
H
harold endean  Offline OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
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.

Re: sec 300.9 [Re: harold endean] #194303
05/22/10 09:53 AM
05/22/10 09:53 AM
renosteinke  Offline
Cat Servant
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,316
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.

Re: sec 300.9 [Re: renosteinke] #194319
05/23/10 03:25 PM
05/23/10 03:25 PM
G
gfretwell  Offline

Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,225
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
Re: sec 300.9 [Re: gfretwell] #194331
05/24/10 09:30 AM
05/24/10 09:30 AM
H
harold endean  Offline OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
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.

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

Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,967
Brick, NJ USA
Yes, Harold; what you describe above technically does not fly!


John
Re: sec 300.9 [Re: HotLine1] #194340
05/24/10 02:58 PM
05/24/10 02:58 PM
G
gfretwell  Offline

Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,225
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
Re: sec 300.9 [Re: gfretwell] #194347
05/24/10 07:30 PM
05/24/10 07:30 PM
HotLine1  Offline

Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,967
Brick, NJ USA
Greg:
Thanks! That's the debate I remember.


John
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Featured:

2017 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2017 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
JoeKP
JoeKP
Berkley, MA
Posts: 144
Joined: March 2008
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
twh 12
Popular Topics(Views)
246,909 Are you busy
184,276 Re: Forum
173,508 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1
(Release build 20180101)
Page Time: 0.037s Queries: 16 (0.005s) Memory: 1.0253 MB (Peak: 1.2089 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-05-25 18:33:11 UTC