I just got ask another couple of questions. This time about damp location sec 334.12(B)(4) states that you can't use NM wire in a damp location. So this EC calls me up and asks if he can use NM above a ceiling of an unheated garage which will not be insulated but it will have a roof over it. I ask him if he feels it will be a damp location and he said no. Does anyone else have a feeling about this location?

2ND question, he said that other AHJ's told him that if he uses a receptacle for a dishwasher and it is installed under the sink, it has to be GFI protection because that area is also considered a "damp" location.

Any thoughts on this one?

I am still trying to get a handle on what would be considered a damp location with this change. Does this mean I can no longer run NM thru the floor joists above a crawlspace?

As far as the cabnet being a damp area I don't see it that way. If it were damp i think the source of the leak needs to be found.

I am still trying to get a handle on what would be considered a damp location with this change. Does this mean I can no longer run NM thru the floor joists above a crawlspace?

As far as the cabnet being a damp area I don't see it that way. If it were damp i think the source of the leak needs to be found.

1) No way. The area is completely protected from the elements.

2) If you get that much water under a sink..... You need a plumber.

In fairness for #2- Is this a commercial or residential setting? Is it an open vanity or enclosed in a cabinet?

Jim,

I can see a crawl space with no floor as being a "damp" location. As for a crawl space that has a concrete floor would that be considered "Damp"?

Leland,

I agree with you, if under the sink is "Damp" then a plumber is needed! The cabinet in question was a normal kitchen household sink closed cabinet. The EC who asked me about "Damp" locations tells me today that he was failed on a job, because the Dishwasher recpt. needed to be GFI because the AHJ considered it a damp location.

Go figure that one out!

No need to.

Ask for the art.# with substantiation/definition.

for a $13 item,typically I won't tussle, But add them up. Now you are talking principal and overhead.

I'm sure you know the type: 'I'll push- and when I get resistance- (knowledgeable)- I know what I'm dealing with.'

Kind of an inspectors way of finding who they have to watch,and not.

Years ago, I used to cave, Then when I grew confident and knew how to read...

Those folks aren't so scary.

If your crawl space or basement is that "damp" I would be more concerned about black mold than damage to the RX.

If this is a commercial kitchen I would seriously consider it "wet".
I never thought about it until my wife started running a country club with 2 kitchens. They hose that place down every night with steaming hot water. All the appliances and work tables are on wheels so they can pull them out and hose behind them.
That is the thinking behind the universal requirement for GFCIs in kitchens I suppose.
If I was designing one from scratch I would use waterproof plugs like Russell Stoll or IEC309 hanging on SO cord.

Damp is where condensation is likely to form. No place inside of a residential structure should be damp except maybe areas associated with swimming pools or steam rooms.
If the crawl space is damp I would recommend added ventilation and or a heater set high enough to prevent condensation and mold.
The area under a kitchen counter is dry except under abnormal conditions. Abnormal conditions require a plumbing or appliance repair and is not what you wire for.
The commercial kitchen described is a wet location if it gets washed down.

Around here, we have used NM cable exposed in unfinished resi garages, crawl spaces and basements for many decades with no raft of life threatening incidents, so I don’t know why it has turned into such a big deal over nothing for the NEC, at least for the last couple of code cycles anyway.

As far as the GFCI under the sink for the receptacle for a dishwasher, in residential, if that’s a damp location, then I’m Brad Pitt.

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.

Guys,

Will someone please CITE the NEC section
dealing with this topic.

Are we discussing the AHJ opinion
or
NEC requirements ?

2008 NEC....334.12 (B)(4) for starters; then 100 (Definitions) for 'damp' 'wet'.

AHJ's interpertations (opinions) are covered in 90.4 (Enforcement)

I have never seen NM-c (has anyone here?) but I understand it uses a plastic packing instead of the kraft paper.

Greg, I couldn’t swear that it was NMC, but years ago I worked in several homes that were wired with some form of white-jacketed NM cable that had TW conductor insulation and plastic filler strands instead of paper. These homes were probably wired sometime in the mid to late 70’s or possible the very early 80’s.

I agree that the claims of wicking or capillary action of moisture through the paper filler is BS at best under most all circumstances.
I’m pretty sure we’ve all seen it happen before, but it was always due to some installation issue other than just having the NM stapled above a gazebo or covered porch, crawlspace or a similar, arguably damp location. That is, at least in the situations where I have encountered it.

I agree.
I've read elsewhere though, that some inspectors actually consider that type of area as a damp location and won't allow NM to be installed there. That is the type of installation conflict I would like to see eliminated by the NEC allowing NM to be used in both dry and damp locations, but I realize this is not likely to happen with the product driven code we have today.

Years ago (1975-1980) I saw NM wire that had blue coated plastic sheath, I think it might have been NM-B or NM-C. (It was many years back and I can't remember back that far!) I did think that it was strange to have colored wire, little did I know that it would become the norm.

Harold, I remember that cable. It was standard NM and was made by Phelps-Dodge. What was equally unusual about it was that it often had a brown wire instead of black in it.

Cadillac Cable also made a version that had either green or brown jackets. No particular reason; they just felt like being different I suppose. I would hate the fact that you never knew what color it was going to be until you opened the box.

Sorry for the side track.

Harold:
You're jogging my memory...blue jacket NM, I believe it may have been Southwire or Colonial. I have a Colonial facility (THHN Only) in town....Tues/Wed of next week I'll ask the plant mgr IF he remembers...he came to town from the NM plant in NY.

The 'green' that Ed mentions sure would raise a few eyebrows with some inspectors I know!!

BTW, I like the colors!

Remember the 'good old days,' when 'yellow romex' was a mis-used extension cord?

I have an assortment of different colors of NM here. Some is silver asphalt/paper. The rest is white, brown, blue, black and the yellow PVC. I have pulled most of the blue, black and brown out because that was the previous owner's work and pretty dodgy. I am sorry I didn't save a piece of each one with the writing on it. I think it was the blue that had the color coded conductor metal. The black wire had copper colored conductor and the white was more of a silver color.
I may have only have 20 - 30 feet of the black. It looked like he bought a small piece to run one circuit.

Greg,

I remember that old silver asphalt wire from years ago. They use to use it all around this area in the 60's. I believe it also had a smaller grounding wire in it too.

When they use to make AL wires, they use to have black insulation on that wire.

Lastly, once when I first started in business, I found a job where the HO did all of his own wiring. I think I saw every kind of wire connecting everything together, Black wire, asphalt, zip cord, AC, extension cord wiring, etc. Plus that was just in one room behind the dry wall! I told the GC of the job that I couldn't guarantee any wiring unless the drywall was removed. So he had to remove most of it in order to be sure that the wiring was safe.

sadly, that's been my existence for 1/4 century Harold

imho, Rod Sterling could have written an episode on it...


the strange phenomenon of a garden varity electrician, trapped in a mobius logic strip of vintage wiring, unable to escape the daily explanations of it.........

~S~

~s~:

"priceless"!!!!

My childhood home (brand-new in 1967) was wired with that silver-asphalt "Romex" from top to bottom in Fayetteville, NC. Although I was only seven years old, I remember it well. Even the 6/3 for the range had this same form of jacket (no ground wire of course). I was just a very inquisitive kid, what can I say?

My parent's house in Virginia that was built in 1974 still had some 4/3 SEU cable feeding the furnace that had a similar jacket. The second 4/3 circuit was "that modern stuff". Wow, two 70 amp copper circuits feeding a straight-electric forced air furnace. Can you imagine that these days?

YMMV with ground wires in the paper Romex. This house (SW Fl) has the smaller ground (1963) and the house I grew up in (DC area) had the same reduced ground in paper RX built in 1953. It was only connected to the box. NEMA 1-15 receptacles throughout.
If you plugged in the 5-15 adapter and hooked up the ground wire you did have a ground.

that makes me wonder, is there any sort of 'history of wire' (for lack of better terminology) that would forward details .....?

~S~

Sounds like something Mike Holt may have.

Greg,


I found this like:

http://www.codecheck.com/cc/wiring_history.htm#nmnoground


I didn't read it yet, when I am done here I will go back to it. And as we all know, if it is on the Internet! It must be true! Everything with a grain of salt.

They even have Joe's "original NEC" on that page.
It looks reasonable. I know they were using grounded RX in DC in 54 as the article says.

Talk about a trip down memory lane...Joe T...Dave S (aka 'Davie' and a few other handles. Only place I read Dave S is his monthly resi articles in EC Mag.

Joe T., where are you??

Last time I heard from Joe he was on his way to Iraq to work on the electrocuted GI problem.

If that's where he his, I wish him Gods speed on his return.

Joe T can be found on Facebook cause I have seen him there and he is still big with the IAEI org., he e-mails me every now and then.

P.S. Joe was in Iraq and he did show me some pictures he took of the electrical mess that was over there.

I haven't heard anything about GIs getting electrocuted in the shower lately so maybe he did some good. Joe can whiz people off but he is a good teacher and at the end of the day he does promote safety.

I can't see what this has to do with "wet locations" You guys really know how to get off subject.

Hey a shower is a wet location. I was pulling it back on topic

Your a funny guy Greg. You knew I was just jerking your chain a little bit. But you are correct a shower is a wet location. But, since we are on the subject, an inspector friend of mine asked me if a drinking fountain located in a shower room (big locker room) needed to have GFCI protection and I said no, but then I went and looked it up and it does need GFCI protection under the '08 code. Had to call him back with my tail between my legs and tell him I was wrong. I hate when that happens.

Yep 422.52 is new to 2008.