ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Top Posters(30 Days)
dsk 13
Admin 8
doc 3
Recent Posts
Bathroom electrical
by doc. 08/19/17 06:53 AM
electircal ageing test on IPC
by SIAME. 08/15/17 02:43 AM
electrical aging test on IPC
by gfretwell. 08/15/17 12:27 AM
"Line level" audio on Cat 5?
by gfretwell. 08/08/17 10:39 PM
Fire alarm phone lines and color coding
by gfretwell. 08/08/17 10:26 PM
New in the Gallery:
Gallery Test
Popular Topics(Views)
239,992 Are you busy
175,587 Re: Forum
167,836 Need opinion
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 59 guests, and 9 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#194265 - 05/19/10 08:30 AM sec 300.9  
harold endean  Offline
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

#194266 - 05/19/10 09:34 AM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: harold endean]  
HotLine1  Offline


Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,858
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

#194267 - 05/19/10 10:19 AM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: HotLine1]  
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.


#194268 - 05/19/10 01:31 PM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: Jim M]  
harold endean  Offline
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.


#194303 - 05/22/10 09:53 AM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: harold endean]  
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.


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


Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,103
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

#194331 - 05/24/10 09:30 AM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: gfretwell]  
harold endean  Offline
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.


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


Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,858
Brick, NJ USA
Yes, Harold; what you describe above technically does not fly!


John

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


Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,103
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

#194347 - 05/24/10 07:30 PM Re: sec 300.9 [Re: gfretwell]  
HotLine1  Offline


Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,858
Brick, NJ USA
Greg:
Thanks! That's the debate I remember.


John

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Member Spotlight
akmaster
akmaster
alaska
Posts: 70
Joined: June 2012
Show All Member Profiles 
Featured:

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

 

Shout Box
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.022s Queries: 16 (0.003s) Memory: 0.8193 MB (Peak: 1.0014 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-08-20 17:35:07 UTC