NM terminating in exterior box (here we go again)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok so the panel has rejected this stating that it basically already addressed.

So the technical answer is no, it is not accepted?

I still think that it is acceptable because it is inside a rated enclosure and at no point is it ever exposed to the exterior.

If you can put it inside the air voids of masonry which it extremely damp then why not terminated inside a box rated for use outside?

This is why I think the panels sometimes don't quite understand why we need clarification on routine items like this.
 
ivsenroute said:
Ok so the panel has rejected this stating that it basically already addressed.

So the technical answer is no, it is not accepted?

I still think that it is acceptable because it is inside a rated enclosure and at no point is it ever exposed to the exterior.

If you can put it inside the air voids of masonry which it extremely damp then why not terminated inside a box rated for use outside?

This is why I think the panels sometimes don't quite understand why we need clarification on routine items like this.
Click to expand...

IMO the way it was presented was poor. I believe that this might fly presented in a more exact fashion ?
 
I don't know if the WAC(WA Adminstrative Code) has a exception for this but EVERY house in Eastern WA has NM stubbed into cut in boxes on the outside walls for lights. I've never seen a install fail because of NM stubbed into a bell box either.
 
wawireguy said:
I don't know if the WAC(WA Adminstrative Code) has a exception for this but EVERY house in Eastern WA has NM stubbed into cut in boxes on the outside walls for lights. I've never seen a install fail because of NM stubbed into a bell box either.
Click to expand...

That is because it is not a violation. The box insides are not subject to being wet.
 
maloo said:
I'm Iowa the inspectors said that they would allow NM to go from the interior to an exterior outlet or light that is flush to the siding. They did on the other hand say that the soffit of a house is a damp location and an fixtures in the soffit have to be in UF.
Click to expand...

That makes absolutly no sense at all. If it is in a vertical wall it has more chance of water running down the wall and getting in the outlet. Up rain is very uncommon and it would have no chance of accumulating in a box in the soffit. Change the laws of physics and this could "maybe" apply. CMP's don't have that power. Been putting nm cable in outside walls and accepting in outside walls for 45 years. Have not seen a failure yet. I don't approve but have seen nm used as direct burial and is still in service after 20+ years. A garage with a door is dry;without a door is wet/damp. Give me a break!!!!!!
 
Seems to me that it's obvious that NM in the 1/4" gap of a surface mount is forbidden, since the NM isn't rated for moisture and could break down over time, but it seems to me that the easy solution is to feed the NM to the exterior box through a nipple from inside the building or wall. That's allowable as "physical protection" according to the spirit of 334.15(B), yes?

Otherwise, I would agree that you'd need UF for at least that 1/4". I expect that's one reason that flush-mount exterior boxes have become so popular around here, since you don't have the 1/4" gap problem.
 
esobocinski said:
Seems to me that it's obvious that NM in the 1/4" gap of a surface mount is forbidden, since the NM isn't rated for moisture and could break down over time, but it seems to me that the easy solution is to feed the NM to the exterior box through a nipple from inside the building or wall. That's allowable as "physical protection" according to the spirit of 334.15(B), yes?

Otherwise, I would agree that you'd need UF for at least that 1/4". I expect that's one reason that flush-mount exterior boxes have become so popular around here, since you don't have the 1/4" gap problem.
Click to expand...

The problem with you solution of using a conduit nipple is that installing a cable in a conduit does not change the fact that the cable is in a wet location. No it is just a cable in a conduit in a wet location and must still be listed for use in a wet location.

300.9 (New to the 2008 NEC) Clarifies this.

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

Chris
 
raider1 said:
The problem with you solution of using a conduit nipple is that installing a cable in a conduit does not change the fact that the cable is in a wet location. No it is just a cable in a conduit in a wet location and must still be listed for use in a wet location.

300.9 (New to the 2008 NEC) Clarifies this.



Chris
Click to expand...

It does not need to be in wet location. Silicon behind it keeps it from being wet or even damp. If your suggesting the inside of the box is wet then we have issues. If inside is wet then why bother with inuse covers ? Properly installed there is no reason for the romex to get wet.
 
Is this really a safety issue? Is there a body count or some known injuries that have resulted from this extremely common practice? :confused:
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
It does not need to be in wet location. Silicon behind it keeps it from being wet or even damp. If your suggesting the inside of the box is wet then we have issues. If inside is wet then why bother with inuse covers ? Properly installed there is no reason for the romex to get wet.
Click to expand...

Re-read my post, I was indicating that installing NM cable in a conduit does not change the location from being a wet location.

I was not stating that the inside of a box is a wet location.

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top