I had an argument with the "Pro" at sell-all supply house. I maintain that if conduit is installed in a wet location, the interior or that conduit is a wet location, and wiring should be rated accordingly. He looked at me like I was from Mars, and insisted that the PVC conduit made it a dry location. Then he told me that he should know, because he is an electrician. (Don't ask me questions bud, just give me my UF)!! BTW, Also there may be other issues about complete raceway systems.
Re: Romex in pipe#79245 12/11/0106:13 PM12/11/0106:13 PM
Its common practice in my area to see the following. “Appropriately” sized PVC buried to supply a separate building with the PVC stubbed into the basement with a fitting “male adapter” and sometimes a bushing and the same at the other end. Then to have SER cable pulled in and run to the panel and sub-panel in the out building. I think that this is ok, one reason is that the conductors in the SER are XHHW rated for wet locations. What do the rest of you think?
Re: Romex in pipe#79246 12/11/0107:45 PM12/11/0107:45 PM
Redsy, The new code makes it very clear that you can't use NM in an underground conduit. "300.5(D)(5) Listing. Cables and insulated conductors installed in enclosures or raceways in underground locations shall be listed for use in wet locations." Don(resqcapt19)
Re: Romex in pipe#79247 12/12/0101:44 AM12/12/0101:44 AM
Don, My application was actually above ground, outdoors. I still say the interior is a wet location. I don't think the previous code was as clear on this. I often see NM run in PVC up the side of a house to get circuits in the attic for distribution throughout the second floor. I believe UF would be acceptable.
rkukl, I would say that SER is not approved for underground use. Even in conduit. It may be debatable, especially now with the wording of 300.5 (D)(5), but I believe USE would have been be the proper method. See 338.2
[This message has been edited by Redsy (edited 12-12-2001).]
Re: Romex in pipe#79250 12/12/0109:38 AM12/12/0109:38 AM