Call to Action / Potential Statewide Precedent re: NEC 334.10 & "Normally Dry"

[StevenLeuck]

Call to Action / Potential Statewide Precedent re: NEC 334.10 & "Normally Dry"

To all,

Last week I posted a question under the "General Issues" section of this forum regarding the installation of Type NM-B before the building is "dried in". I received lots of great responses there and appreciate them all. From them and other information I had on hand I wrote an opinion email and request to the local inspectors and permitting authorities to permit us to rough-in with our Type NM-B cable before the roof of our 7 story project was on. On it's face it was denied. However, a follow up email to the chief code analyst resulted in them leaving the door open to our proposal provided we answer a few more questions about it. Their concern is that anything they decide here could become a precedent that will take root throughout the entire state of Oregon. They want to make sure they have good solid answers to their questions and concerns before authorizing us to proceed. They also suggested that it may be possible to authorize this one project as a limited observational test project to see how it goes.

I have attached a single PDF here with this post with the following documents (Note: This forum has a maximum size of PDF so had to break these all down into 1 page per file -- they are in numbered order -- apparently only 8 files max so will follow up with response to my own post with the remaining files):
1. My original email to the chief electrical inspector for the city.
2. A follow up email to the chief code analyst.
3. An article from the International Association of Electrical Inspectors citing a UL article.
4. A catalog submittal sheet from Southwire noting "Moisture Resistant" PVC sheathing.
5. A brochure from Underwriters Laboratory about storm damaged electrical work.

The Chief Code Analyst would like me to further submit the following information:
1. Something in writing from a manufacturer (preferably Southwire) that states that their Type NM-B cable is not affected by limited or incidental moisture such as might be had during the construction of a project but prior to a dry roof being installed (Note: The plywood decking of the floor above WILL be installed prior to our rough-in).
2. Evidence that other states or municipalities are allowing the installation of Type NM-B prior to the building being dried in.
3. Evidence that there are no chemicals in use during normal construction that when running together with the rain water could possibly leak onto the cable that would compromise it's integrity.

I am getting MSDS sheets from the general contractor's safety officer about potentially harmful products on site to answer #3 (we can't think of any really). What I am REALLY looking for and hoping you all can help me with is to get answers to the first two items on the analyst's list..... something from a manufacturer about Type NM-B's moisture resistance and a list of states or other municipalities that allow Type NM-B to be installed prior to drying in.

Unfortunately I'm on a tight timeline here. We're getting ready to start rough-in and a decision of this magnitude is going to take some time on the part of the inspectors to approve. If there is any information out there that you can contribute I would really appreciate getting it today if at all possible.

Thank you!

Steven Leuck
Owner
Contractors Electric, LLC
Eugene, Oregon

 

[StevenLeuck]

Follow up with remaining PDF's

Follow up with remaining PDF's

Here are the other PDF files that should have been with the post.

SL

 

[petersonra]

I see no reason to seal the ends. Normal electrical tape would work as well for the short time it will be exposed to occasional splashing.

It seems quite clear that it was always intended that NM be allowed to be installed during construction based on the wording in the code.

If the rest of the building can take the water the NM can.

 

[StevenLeuck]

I see no reason to seal the ends. Normal electrical tape would work as well for the short time it will be exposed to occasional splashing.

It seems quite clear that it was always intended that NM be allowed to be installed during construction based on the wording in the code.

If the rest of the building can take the water the NM can.

Does your jurisdiction allow for NM-B to be installed in this manner before the building is dried in? If so,... can you tell me which jurisdiction it is? Would like to refer our AHJ to as many jurisdictions that allow it as possible.
Thanks,
SL

 

[kwired]

Just how much "dry-in" will be done before installing any wiring?

Most of the time framers are not really ready for any wiring before the roof or at least the next floor above and exterior sheathing are installed anyway. By then the chances of it getting much moisture exposure is pretty reduced anyway. Another thing that needs consideration is security of the site. Before it is enclosed you probably have a higher risk of copper theft.

I have probably installed wiring before a building or at least an area of a building was "dry-in" constructed before, but never had issues with any inspectors. But at same time inspector likely has never seen it while at this stage, they are usually only called in when the total rough in is complete or near complete, and by that time the building is probably "dried-in", as the insulators and drywallers are usually next and often waiting for my inspection to commence their work and will not start their work if it will not be dry.

 

[iwire]

Their concern is that anything they decide here could become a precedent that will take root throughout the entire state of Oregon.

If they allow you to do this they darn well let it become a precedent or they are giving you a huge unfair advantage to the other contractors that bid on this project and all other projects going forward.

In my opinion they should make you wait just as they apparently have been making others wait before.

 

[infinity]

Wasn't this question already answered?

 

[StevenLeuck]

Wasn't this question already answered?

Not to my knowledge.

 

[Fishspark]

I really didnt see a problem with what you are proposing to do, it seems that if the floor above you is installed your basically covered.
I see rough ins around here where the windows are open, roof generally on but no felt. snowing, raining I wouldnt have thought to ask for permission to start by us
since you put forth all the work, I see this as your Fair advantage and see nothing Un fair at all. Good for you ! I hope you get what your after.

 

[kwired]

I really didnt see a problem with what you are proposing to do, it seems that if the floor above you is installed your basically covered.
I see rough ins around here where the windows are open, roof generally on but no felt. snowing, raining I wouldnt have thought to ask for permission to start by us
since you put forth all the work, I see this as your Fair advantage and see nothing Un fair at all. Good for you ! I hope you get what your after.

Though I may think his AHJ is taking the wrong approach at what kind of moisture exposure may be safe or acceptable, I don't think it is fair for all to make such exceptions to their current rules. They either need to re-evaluate and change the rules or be consistent in enforcing them.

If the rule is that it needs to be dry and he wants to install wiring while still exposed to the weather, then he can certainly provide some kind of temporary protection to keep it dry also, just as everyone else can do the same when in that situation.