300.5(D)(5)

[don_resqcapt19]

Delete section 300.5(D)(5) and replace it with a new section 300.x to read as follows.

"Cables and insulated conductors installed in enclosures or raceways in wet or underground locations shall be listed for use in wet locations."

The interior of all raceways that are installed in wet or underground locations will become wet and the installed conductors or cables will be exposed to water. Conductors and cables installed in these locations should be listed for wet locations.

Don

 

[peter d]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Don,

Good idea, but I don't like this part:

in enclosures

"In enclosures" could be interpreted to mean that we would no longer be able to stub out NM or MC cable for outdoor light fixtures, A/C disconnects, signs, etc. since NM and MC cable do not have conductors identified for wet location use. We would have to transition to wet rated conductors first in some type of raceway.

Is that what you had in mind? I would support the change if an exception was made for the above applications.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Peter,
If the wire is in a wet location, then it should be listed for wet locations. I think that interior of a 3R disconnect is a wet location. The NEMA standard for 3R only says the water must not get on the exposed live parts, but water does get into the enclosure. That is why 3R enclosures have drain holes. Maybe there could be an exception for fixtures attached directly to the exterior surface of the building.
Don

 

[peter d]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Don,

I agree, conductors inside of a 3R enclosure do get wet, but they aren't subject to continuous saturation the way conductors in underground raceways are.

I still think surface mounted enclosures should be exempted where a transition from an indoor to outdoor wiring method is made.

 

[charlie]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

In the 2005 NEC, 300.5(B) now reads, "Listing. Cables and insulated conductors installed in enclosures or raceways in underground installations shall be listed for use in wet locations." 300.5(D)(5) has been removed from the 2005 NEC.

Don, I don't think I like your proposal, what is the underlying reason for it? Have cables or conductors been falling apart from rot or has someone gotten hurt because of a damp or wet cable? What is the substantiation, what problem are you trying to fix?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Charlie,
In my opinion the interior of raceways that are installed in wet locations is also a wet location. I want the CMP to address this.
Don

 

[charlie]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Why, have cables or conductors been falling apart from rot or has someone gotten hurt because of a damp or wet cable?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Charlie,
NM will last a long time in the wet locations, but we can't use it for those application because it is not listed for use in wet locations. The code needs to be clear as to what a wet location is and if the interior of raceways is a wet location then wet location wire is required. In my opinion, the interior is a wet location, and the use of conductors with a "W" in the type is required by 310.8. All my porposal does is state in the code that the interior of raceways in wet locations is a wet location.
If there is no problem using any cable or conductor that we like in a wet location, why do we have insulations with a "W" in the type? Why is 300.5(B)in the 2005 code?
Don

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Don's Proposal:
Delete section 300.5(D)(5) and replace it with a new section 300.x to read as follows.

"Cables and insulated conductors installed in enclosures or raceways in wet or underground locations shall be listed for use in wet locations."

NEC-2005 300.5(B)
Listing. Cables and insulated conductors installed in enclosures or raceways in underground installations shall be listed for use in wet locations.

I think it kinda closes debate for this, as it has been adopted into 2005 code almost exactly as you have written it out. (Doesn't anyone see how bizarre that is? You're not messing with us, are you Don? )

Maybe there could be an exception for fixtures attached directly to the exterior surface of the building

And as I interpret this, a bell box screwed to the wall of a building would not be considered an underground installation, as it is not literally underground. The pipe below grade is, but the pipe and box above grade are not.

[ December 25, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[iwire]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

George, I am certain Don knows of that requirement, it went into the 2002 NEC.

I believe Don is talking about wet locations not underground.

Lets say you wire a car wash with PVC raceway, would you need to use wet location conductors inside the raceway?

Currently IMO it would not be required, Don's proposal would change that.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Hey, you know, that makes this discussion a little more relevant.

Carry on...

 

[iwire]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Delete section 300.5(D)(5) and replace it with a new section 300.x to read as follows.

"Cables and insulated conductors installed in enclosures or raceways in wet or underground locations shall be listed for use in wet locations."

Don I see that your proposal only directly address conductors installed in enclosures or raceways.

I agree with what you are trying to do.

I do wonder how the inclusion of enclosures would play out.

To say NEMA 3R or NEMA 4 enclosures require type W conductors opens the door to questions about everything in the enclosure.

Wire nuts, fuses, breakers, etc. why would these items not be damaged by the same moisture as the conductors?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Bob,
Maybe my proposal should be reworded. The inside of a NEMA 4 enclosure should not be a wet location based on the NEMA standards, but parts of the inside of a NEMA 3R can be wet per the same standards. I wasn't even thinking about enclosures when I made my post. I just took the '02 rule and added the words "wet or" in front of "underground".
Don

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Since 300.5 only applies to underground installations, doesn't it make sense to modify 300.6(D)?

Maybe change the outline thusly:

300.6(D) Wet Locations. Installations in wet locations shall comply with 300.6(D)(1) or 300.6(D)(2).
300.6(D)(1) Indoor Wet Locations. (no change)
300.6(D)(2) Outdoor Wet Locations. Cables and insulated conductors installed in enclosures or raceways in wet locations shall be listed for use in wet locations.

Or add "300.6(E) Other Wet Locations" to get what you want across?

 

[charlie]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

If you are going to do this proposal, get the original numbers and wording correct.

In the 2005 NEC, 300.5(B) now reads, "Listing. Cables and insulated conductors installed in enclosures or raceways in underground installations shall be listed for use in wet locations." 300.5(D)(5) has been removed from the 2005 NEC.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

Originally posted by charlie:
If you are going to do this proposal, get the original numbers and wording correct.

Doesn't it make sense to leave 300.5 alone, because it deals exclusively with underground installations?

Hence my suggestion to modify 300.6. I don't have a single typo in my last response, I said what I meant to say. I'm not 100% sure what Don's grand scheme is, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't want it to apply exclusively to underground locations. Putting it in 300.5 would essentially have that effect.

Another approach that might involve less text:

NEC-2005 300.6 states:
Protection Against Corrosion and Deterioration. Raceways, cable trays, cablebus, auxiliary gutters, cable armor, boxes, cable sheathing, cabinets, elbows, couplings, fittings, and support hardware shall be of materials suitable for the environment for which they are to be installed.

Amend this code to add the following text:

... shall be of materials suitable for the environment for which they are to be installed. Cables and insulated conductors installed in enclosures or raceways in wet locations shall be listed for use in wet locations.

Like that better?

[ December 26, 2004, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[jimport]

Re: 300.5(D)(5)

I have heard about some inspectors allowing NM-B to be used outside in PVC conduit. They use the justification that the prohibition about exterior use says' outside and unprotected locations'. The say the pipe protects the NM-B. I feel that this circumvents the intent about use of NM-B outside.

I disagree that once the building envelope is broken that NM-B should not be used. I do not have a problem with a NM-B into the back of a disco for AC and changing to UF or sealtite to the unit.