Compliant or not? You make the call

Status
Not open for further replies.
480sparky said:
Inside a raceway (above grade, like we're discussing in this thread), yes.
Click to expand...

No, not in my opinion, that was always a wet location, they just made that clear in 2008.

Can you tell me why a 'dry loaction' would be required to drain? Which has a been a requiment of outdoor raceways for a long time. So that makes it pretty clear the NFPA concidered a raceway in a wet location is also a wet location.



300.9 is new to the '08.
Click to expand...

It sure is.


3-63 Log #2234 NEC-P03​
​
​
​
Final Action: Reject
(300.9 (New) )​

____________________________________________________________​
Submitter:​
​
​
​
​
Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL​

Recommendation:​
​
​
​
​
Add new text to read as follows:
300.9 Raceways in Wet Locations. Cables and conductors installed in
underground raceways or raceways that are located in wet locations shall be
listed for use in wet locations.​

Substantiation:​
​
​
​
​
The interior of raceways installed in wet locations is a wet
location and the cables and conductors installed in such raceways should
be listed for that purpose. I have submitted a proposal to delete the similar
requirement for underground installations that is in 300.5(B). This new
requirement will cover all raceways installed in wet locations.​

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:​
​
​
​
​
The requirement for cables to be suitable for the location
in which they are to be installed is presently addressed in Section 310.8, and
Table 310.13 applicable locations. Article 310 covers the general requirements
for conductors such as insulation types, designations, and uses. To add the
proposed text to Article 300 would be inappropriate since 300 deals with
wiring methods in general. Repeating this requirement in Article 300 does not
add clarity to The Code. See panel action and statement for Proposal 3-43.​

Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results:​
​
​
​
​
Affirmative: 13​

____________________________________________________________
Click to expand...



3-52 Log #2257 NEC-P03​
​
​
​
Final Action: Accept in Principle
(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.
Click to expand...
 
Even if NM could be used in conduit, in this application it would need an insulated green EGC. Like said before outside in conduit use a wire rated with a W insulation. Most thhn now is rated with a W.
 
iwire said:
No, not in my opinion, that was always a wet location, they just made that clear in 2008.
Click to expand...

Your opinion. There are others who do not share it with you.

iwire said:
Can you tell me why a 'dry loaction' would be required to drain?
Click to expand...

Simple. Read the definition of a dry location.

Location, Dry. A location not normally subject to dampness or wetness. A location classified as dry may be temporarily subject to dampness or wetness, as in the case of a building under construction.
Click to expand...
 
Also the last few out side hot tubs I did at 50A I used #8THWN in PVC conduit. #6 would not fit under the lugs on the tub. #8 THWN is rated for 50A at 75 degree. #6 UF OR NM would not fit under the lugs on the tub and #8 NM or UF is not rated for 50A at 60 degree and the manufactures said to use #8. Ether way I would not use NM outside in conduit.
 
480sparky said:
Your opinion. There are others who do not share it with you.
Click to expand...

And that is why the CMP made the change.

The CMP felt NM was already prohibited in those locations but agreed with Don that it could be made clearer.

It's there in black and white in the ROP and ROC I posted, if you choose to to admit it or not makes no difference to me. :cool:
 
iwire said:
And that is why the CMP made the change.

The CMP felt NM was already prohibited in those locations but agreed with Don that it could be made clearer.

It's there in black and white in the ROP and ROC I posted, if you choose to to admit it or not makes no difference to me. :cool:
Click to expand...

Either way, I don't wire according to ROCs and ROPs as no one adopts them for enforcement.
 
The 08 was just a clarification on an existing rule as iwire has been stating. We have been under the 05 for the past 3 years and I have been failing NM outside and in conduit outside for 05 and 02.
 
480sparky said:
Either way, I don't wire according to ROCs and ROPs as no one adopts them for enforcement.
Click to expand...

But you do work under the NEC? And 310.8, and Table 310.13 have been in the NEC for quite sometime?

You know it would not kill you to just admit a mistake once in a while. :)

I have been eating a lot of crow lately and it really is not that bad with hot sauce. :cool:
 
iwire said:
But you do work under the NEC? And 310.8, and Table 310.13 have been in the NEC for quite sometime?

You know it would not kill you to just admit a mistake once in a while. :)

I have been eating a lot of crow lately and it really is not that bad with hot sauce. :cool:
Click to expand...

The only time I've ever installed NM in any type of raceway is using the raceway as a sleeve for physical protection. Things like sump pumps, furnaces, stuff in basement. I can't recall ever installing NM outside in a raceway. So I guess I haven't made that mistake.

All I know is there has been a lot of talk about the new 300.9 requirement. Makes no difference to me as it does not affect how I do my work.


I don't really care for hot sauce, however. Do you have something in a nice, mild marinera?
 
480sparky said:
The only time I've ever installed NM in any type of raceway is using the raceway as a sleeve for physical protection. Things like sump pumps, furnaces, stuff in basement. I can't recall ever installing NM outside in a raceway. So I guess I haven't made that mistake.

All I know is there has been a lot of talk about the new 300.9 requirement. Makes no difference to me as it does not affect how I do my work.


I don't really care for hot sauce, however. Do you have something in a nice, mild marinera?
Click to expand...

You don't do it but you were wrong to think that this is some sort of new rule. It's OK, it happens to all of us. We are never right 100% of the time and this is one of those times for you. I just had my turn and I will have another shot at being wrong again.

Say if Fonzarelli, I was wwwwrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooo........
 
OK, I read the original question and didn't really see anything terribly wrong with the install with out pulling out my book (I don't do a lot of pool inspections).

Towards the end here everyone was talking about NMC in a conduit, did I miss something in the original post? Because the way I read it was the NMC was run in the house and terminated in a properly installed disconnect. Now I don't think I would have any problem with a piece that was poked through the wall into the back of a disconnect.

I may go along that UF is not an allowed wiring method per 680.21.
 
Actually 680.42 tells us a little more than compliance with Part I and II, its goes on the state EXCEPT as permitted in (A) & (B),
680.42(A) does give you some wiring methods that are different from those in Part I & II
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top