110.28 Added Text (3R interior)

Status
Not open for further replies.

fmtjfw

Senior Member
Section/Paragraph: 110.28 Added Text

Added Text

110.28 Enclosure Types.
....
Table 110.28 shall be used for selecting these enclosures for use in specific locations other than hazardous (classified) locations. The enclosures are not intended to protect against conditions such as condensation, icing, corrosion, or contamination that may occur within the enclosure or enter via the conduit or unsealed openings.

[version 1]If a 3R enclosure is in a wet location, the entire interior of the enclosure shall be considered a damp location and any interior space below the top of knockouts or field-made holes for conductors shall be considered a wet location.


[version 2]If a 3R enclosure is in a wet location, the entire interior of the enclosure shall be considered a damp location.

[version 3]If a 3R enclosure is in a wet location, the entire interior of the enclosure shall be considered a bone dry location.

Substantiation:

There are periodic discussions about whether or not the interior of a 3R enclosure (in a wet location) is to be considered damp or wet. This almost always stems from the question of the suitability of NM cable connections to 3R. It is appropriate for the NEC to resolve this question. The new text perhaps should also refer to one or more of "3", "3S", "3X', "3RX", and "3SX".

Substantiation for [version 1]:

3R enclosures are not designed to exclude water under the UL50 testing regime. They are designed to prevent water from contacting the device(s), if any, installed in them and to prevent water from rising in the enclosure high enough to cover connections to devices. The high-water mark is, as I understand it, a line below any devices or connections to devices installed in the enclosure and a line above to top of any penetration of the enclosure for conductors.

Thus I believe any cable or conductor entering the enclosure (other than ones entering through a "3R-rated" hub fitting) to be exposed to water. In addition, because metallic enclosures mounted in wet locations must be spaced a minimum of 6 mm. (? in.) between the exterior back of the enclosure and the surface it is mounted on, that cable sheaths are exposed to the wet location when coming from a surface which is the boundary for a dry location. Even if the cable is enclosed in a raceway, the interior of the raceway is considered wet in this instance.

I further believe that any conductor or cable exposed to water must be rated for wet locations.

Substantiation for [version 2]

3R enclosures are not designed to exclude water under the UL50 testing regime. They are designed to prevent water from contacting the device(s), if any, installed in them and to prevent water from rising in the enclosure high enough to cover connections to devices. In this case the high-water mark is, as I understand it, a line below any devices or connections to devices installed in the enclosure and a line below the bottom of any penetration of the enclosure for conductors. Thus any conductor would not be exposed directly to water unless it contacted the interior wall or base of the enclosure. I understand that water is allowed to "sheet" down the interior walls under the UL50 testing regime. Thus the location is not a wet location, but an enclosure containing water is surely a damp location.

Substantiation for [version 3]

3R enclosures are not designed to exclude water under the UL50 testing regime. They are designed to prevent water from contacting the device(s), if any, installed in them and to prevent water from rising in the enclosure high enough to cover connections to devices. From numerous anecdotal instances from the field, there has "never" been a problem using conductors not rated for wet or damp locations. Thus the interior of a 3R enclosure should be considered bone dry.

Added Deleted
 
So where do I buy damp location fuses and breakers?

You're on your own for the fuses, although ceramic or glass body fuses should serve the purpose.

As to circuit breakers, any of the major manufacturers, especially the ones who produce NEMA 3R panels or combo meter packages. Their standard lines appear to meet the requirement, else they wouldn't list them for use in 3R enclosures.
 
You're on your own for the fuses, although ceramic or glass body fuses should serve the purpose.

As to circuit breakers, any of the major manufacturers, especially the ones who produce NEMA 3R panels or combo meter packages. Their standard lines appear to meet the requirement, else they wouldn't list them for use in 3R enclosures.

There is no such thing as damp or wet location fuses or breakers. This is exactly why they are prohibited from dwelling unit bathrooms.

My suggestion is don't rock the boat, you are trying to fix an issue that is not a problem.

Many areas of the US install outdoor panels on the exterior of homes and bring NM into those very panels, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of bell boxes for outlets and disconnects for HVAC equipment. The overwellming success of those installations tells us it is not a problem.

Trying to change code for the sake of changing code is not commendable, it is just wrong.

I look forward to reading the CMPs slap your proposals down.
 
There is no such thing as damp or wet location fuses or breakers. This is exactly why they are prohibited from dwelling unit bathrooms.

My suggestion is don't rock the boat, you are trying to fix an issue that is not a problem.

Many areas of the US install outdoor panels on the exterior of homes and bring NM into those very panels, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of bell boxes for outlets and disconnects for HVAC equipment. The overwellming success of those installations tells us it is not a problem.

Trying to change code for the sake of changing code is not commendable, it is just wrong.

I look forward to reading the CMPs slap your proposals down.

You may have not noted, but my proposal has three alternatives, damp-wet, damp, and dry. There are good arguments for all three. My intent is not so much as to rock the boat, rather to resolve the controversy.

If your position is the appropriate one, then [version 3] is the answer we should expect.

However if you read the specifications for 3R testing and apply the rules for conductors (and devices) in wet/damp locations, the Code leads me to believe that [version 1] is what is currently codified.

The CMPs did not accept all of my proposals for 2104. I don't expect them to accept all for 2017. No skin off my nose.:happysad:
 
In my opinion this proposal is outside the scope of the NEC. The enclosure standards are NEMA and under their control.
 
Your opinion is very narrow and not based on the content of the NEC. I'm not about to get into a flame war, but if you came up with more facts and fewer opinions, I'd be happier.
It is my opinion, if you don't like it, it doesn't matter to me. It is no different from all of your proposals that are your opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top