Can anyone explain something to me?

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really disagree with the posters who have stated it is a violation to run NM in any raceway in a wet location.

I read the post which states the inside of a raceway is not a location. I think this is total BS. How can any contained area be a location by those terms. Does it have to be encased in wood and sheetrock to be a location? The inside of a raceway is much less likely if properly installed to ever become wet than say a modern residential basement.

Just my $.02. I will see how I interpret the 2008 code when I see it in the book but for now I don't think any of the code references stating this is a violation hold water. Pun intended!

Thanks for reading,
Travis
 
DLTravis said:
The inside of a raceway is much less likely if properly installed to ever become wet than say a modern residential basement.
Click to expand...

Well if a "properly installed" raceway is not likely to be wet or have moisture in it why is 225.22 even in the NEC?

Roger
 
DLTravis said:
Thanks for the link but I'll wait for the book:roll:
Click to expand...

Do you not have a code book?

If not you should take Tallguy up on the link before trying to argue a point.

Roger
 
Before the 2005 code cycle you were not allowed to run nm in conduit except as a sleeve. I had an inspector turn me down shortly after the ahj here adopted the 2005 code. I had my new changes book with me and showed him the change. He passed the job
 
DLTravis said:
Thanks for the link but I'll wait for the book:roll:
Click to expand...

Well when your 2008 code book comes in you will be able to see that the inside of raceways located in wet locations are also wet locations.
 
jwjrw said:
Before the 2005 code cycle you were not allowed to run nm in conduit except as a sleeve. I had an inspector turn me down shortly after the ahj here adopted the 2005 code. I had my new changes book with me and showed him the change. He passed the job
Click to expand...

It was only in the 2002 NEC that this was an issue, prior to the 2002 NM was allowed in raceways due to a change in some wording....it was a mistake that was repaired in the 2005.
 
Im sure you are correct iwire, you usally are. Here the inspectors even before the 02 code would not allow it. Im not sure why but I have always been told it was never allowed. Thats why Im on here to learn a thing or two. Knowledge is power!
 
(300.9 (New) )
____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Comment on Proposal No: 3-63

Recommendation: This proposal should be accepted.
Substantiation: I understand that panel?s point that conductors must be
selected so that they are suitable for the locations where they are being
installed. The point of this proposal is to make it clear that the interior of any
raceway installed in a wet location is a wet location. That is not a completely
accepted idea in the field. A section was added, 300.5(B) in a previous code
to make it clear that the interior of all underground raceways is a wet location.
This is the same issue with raceways that are installed in wet locations. The
interior of the raceway will be a wet location and conductors or cables installed
in these raceways must be listed as suitable for use in wet locations. If the
interior of raceways in outside or wet locations is not also a wet location, why
do sections 225.22 and 230.53 require that ?raceways on exteriors of buildings
or other structures shall be arranged to drain?? Note: This proposal covers
underground raceways and raceways in wet locations and if accepted, you
should also accept Proposal 3-43.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise recommended text for 300.9 to read:

300.9 Raceways in Wet Locations Above Grade. Where raceways are installed
in wet locations above grade, the interior of these raceways shall be considered
to be a wet location. Insulated conductors and cables installed in raceways in
wet locations above grade shall comply with 310.8(C).

Panel Statement: The panel accepts the recommendation to create a new
300.9 for aboveground wet locations and has chosen to place the underground
installation requirements in 300.5(B). The text was not deleted in 300.5(B)
since this entire Section 300.5 applies to underground installations. Providing
additional underground requirements in a new 300.9 could be missed by the
user of the Code. The requirement for using wet location listed conductors
in the proposal was changed to ?complying with 310.8(C)? because there are
three different methods to comply with insulated conductors and cables used in
wet locations. They must be:
(1) Moisture-impervious metal-sheathed;
(2) Types MTW, RHW, RHW-2, TW, THW, THW-2, THHW, THHW-2,
THWN, THWN-2, XHHW, XHHW-2, ZW; or
(3) Of a type listed for use in wet locations.
See the panel action and statement on Comment 3-20a (Log #CC300).

Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
Comment on Affirmative:
CASPARRO, P.: See my explanation of vote on Comment 3-20a.
 
roger said:
Do you not have a code book?

If not you should take Tallguy up on the link before trying to argue a point.

Roger
Click to expand...

A code book I should get me one of those :smile:. Yes I have one it's a pretty red color and it says 2005 on it and until the 2008 code is adopted in my state (MN) I will continue to reference my trusty and tattered 'ol red.

I?m sure there are many posters here who do not know the first thing about the code. I don?t think I am that person and I do have a couple licenses showing the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry agrees. That?s not to say I know everything Roger but I do know a good deal about safe electron flow. I come here occasionally because I find it tunes, enhances, and often challenges my knowledge of the code.

Now that that?s out of the way:

Reading the last post ( from Don who apparently was the submitter of the change)I am forced to concede. It looks as if another (in my opinion) silly change will be occurring in the 2008 version. I don?t see how one could consider the inside of a raceway the equivalent to the outside but there you go. If the raceway is strictly there for physical (i.e. damage) protection I?m not sure why article 225.22 calls for the raceway to be ?raintight in wet locations?. In my infinite ignorance I had taken ?shall be arranged to drain? as meaning not into the structure. I was told by the first Master I worked for that only plumbers should have water in their pipes and I still think this is true! That?s not to say I?ve never come across water in an electrical pipe but it has always been due to some sort of problem not the cause thereof.

I still don't agree but I guess when the new code is adopted I will have to assimilate.

225.22 is an article I will admit to not taking to close of a look at until now. What does that even mean ?shall be arranged to drain?? Out of what? How can you have a raintight raceway that drains!! Do I have to run all out door raceways off level and add weep holes on the low side (that?s a joke)? Someone help me out here.

Thanks,
Travis
 
Thanks, it's good to know you have a code book.

As far as 225.22, even if an exterior raceway is properly installed and is raintight, it can and most likely will have moisture in it, even enough to be considered wet, think condensation.

Of course a properly installed piece of FMC (which is a raceway) on the exterior will not be raintight. :wink:

Roger
 
roger said:
Thanks, it's good to know you have a code book.

As far as 225.22, even if an exterior raceway is properly installed and is raintight, it can and most likely will have moisture in it, even enough to be considered wet, think condensation.

Of course a properly installed piece of FMC (which is a raceway) on the exterior will not be raintight. :wink:

Roger
Click to expand...

I get it. I run my pipes at a slope and put a drip loop of FMC before it enters the structure that way the water can rust out the lowest part of the FMC and have a great way to drain. ;)

I'm not sure I'll adopt this practice.:-?

This is more of a in case type of argument for me as I rarely run NM and I can only recall a handful of times where it needed to be in a raceway. But it has been an educational topic for me I'm glad I entered the discussion.

As far as condensation goes I see this more when a raceway penetrates into a structure which is climate controlled. The way I usually deal with this is to put a little duct seal inside the pipe and around the conductors as near the point of entry as possible. I have had good success with this, so far.
 
DLTravis said:
225.22 is an article I will admit to not taking to close of a look at until now. What does that even mean “shall be arranged to drain”? Out of what? How can you have a raintight raceway that drains!! Do I have to run all out door raceways off level and add weep holes on the low side (that’s a joke)?
Click to expand...
Plenty of others -- including the most respected ones on this forum -- do just that. No joke...

Keep in mind that "raintight" refers to protection from a "beating rain", not immersion. Since any weep hole would be on the bottom, it's not a problem. As one member here memorably pointed out: "unless it rains up in your jursidiction..."
 
DLTravis said:
Out of what? How can you have a raintight raceway that drains!!
Click to expand...

Because rain-tight is not watertight.

Really, no kidding around, the requirements for rain-tight are far less then the requirements for watertight.

Look at any Rain-tight electrical equipment, like a meter socket, if water gets in it can drain out the bottom.

Do I have to run all out door raceways off level and add weep holes on the low side (that’s a joke)?
Click to expand...

Thats what it implies, I stick with level and put weep holes in low spots like boxes and conduit bodies.

You can actually buy a fitting for this.

In any WP box I install I leave some way for water to drain out the bottom if it finds a way in.

Right now I am involved in a Lowes fire alarm system, in the outdoor garden center we used RMC and WP boxes for the horn strobes and pull stations, all these WP boxes have had 1/8" holes drilled into the bottom side.

By the way this brings up another point. RMC couplings are not rain-tight or watertight.

DLTravis said:
I don’t see how one could consider the inside of a raceway the equivalent to the outside but there you go.
Click to expand...

Only PVC and properly installed EMT are even rain-tight.

IMC and RMC are neither rain tight or water tight unless someone uses an approved sealing compound at the couplings.

But rain-tight is not watertight, water gets in, it makes sense to expect that and provide a way for it to get out.
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
Thats what it implies, I stick with level and put weep holes in low spots like boxes and conduit bodies.
Click to expand...

How does this not violate the UL rating of the equipment (boxes, bodies)?
 
DLTravis said:
How does this not violate the UL rating of the equipment (boxes, bodies)?
Click to expand...

Why do you feel violates the listing?

Is there any listing or labeling that says I can not make a drain hole?

I buy pull cans / junction boxes without any KOs is it a UL violation to make a KO?
 
If you really do not feel you can drill a hole you can buy a drain.

Install a conduit T with one direction facing down and install this fitting in the downward position.

This one is for use in classified locations, it's explosion proof but less expensive ones exist.

ECD.jpg


Conduit and Panel Drain
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top