romex got rained on

[haole]

Ok, first post. :bye:
New two story residence, living area upstairs, ground floor is open concrete slab. Ground floor is constructed with shear wall corners and 6' to 8' long stud wall sections with open spaces between, (to be used for a shop/parking,etc.) GC had one sided the interior of the lower floor stud walls with plywood siding. I roughed in the entire structure, inspector failed it today because the romex running to and from the outlets and switches on the ground floor had gotten wet due to wind blown rain. House is completely roofed/dried in with 3' eaves, windows and all doors, moisture only came from wind blown rain. I know romex is for dry locations but can't a dry location be wet or damp during construction?

Thank you

 

[roger]

Ok, first post. :bye:
I know romex is for dry locations but can't a dry location be wet or damp during construction?

Thank you

Yes it can, the definition of Location Dry is

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.

Roger

 

[GoldDigger]

But the question remains as to whether or not the NM was damaged in any way by the exposure to wind driven rain.
Installing it before the building was tight was not in itself a violation, but the installer has to accept the risk of weather damage.
I would not be concerned if only the outside of the sheath got wet, but if the water go into the exposed ends and soaked the paper filler I can see the inspector being concerned whether it is a real hazard or not.

PS: I can easily see wind driven rain being very wet sometimes.

 

[JFletcher]

Welcome to the forum. Roger pointed out what a dry location is. I'd strip back the jacket/casing of the NM to see if the paper got wet - I doubt it did unless the ends of the cables were in puddles of water.

What code section(s) did the inspector cite?

"House is completely roofed/dried in with 3' eaves, windows and all doors, moisture only came from wind blown rain."

Then it's not completely dried in.

 

[ActionDave]

Right now there are families in houses where an electrician had a roll of romex in the back of his truck that was rained on and he used it in the house. Nobody knew! Oh no! Even worse the roof wasn't finished and some windows were not installed during the rough in and it rained!!

The house is finished now and the family has moved in!! What do we do?

Evacuate the children first, then the pets. Come back for valuables and keepsakes only if they mean more to you than your life.

 

[JFletcher]

Right now there are families in houses where an electrician had a roll of romex in the back of his truck that was rained on and he used it in the house. Nobody knew! Oh no! Even worse the roof wasn't finished and some windows were not installed during the rough in and it rained!!

The house is finished now and the family has moved in!! What do we do?

Evacuate the children first, then the pets. Come back for valuables and keepsakes only if they mean more to you than your life.

Tactical nuclear strike. Call the CDC, DHS, FEMA, have the EPA declare it a SuperFund site. Pets and children go to level 4 quarantine centers

Wet Romex is serious business... never can be too careful. :lol:

on a serious note, Ive never seen wire damaged by water when the building is that far along. Now, I do remember one hotel, which was dried it (roof on it) but no windows... torrential sideways rain buckled every shear wall in the place. Was just glad I wasnt a carpenter then.

Is the inspector right or wrong for failing the OPs' install?

 

[ptonsparky]

Right now there are families in houses where an electrician had a roll of romex in the back of his truck that was rained on and he used it in the house. Nobody knew! Oh no! Even worse the roof wasn't finished and some windows were not installed during the rough in and it rained!!

The house is finished now and the family has moved in!! What do we do?

Evacuate the children first, then the pets. Come back for valuables and keepsakes only if they mean more to you than your life.

I do remember carrying a partial roll of 12 or 14 in the back of my truck for quite some time. Several rainstorms and maybe a snowstorm or two. Yea, we do a lot of residential:roll:. Finally needed a chunk. Never did find dry paper filler, so it will get wet, eventually.

 

[kwired]

I do remember carrying a partial roll of 12 or 14 in the back of my truck for quite some time. Several rainstorms and maybe a snowstorm or two. Yea, we do a lot of residential:roll:. Finally needed a chunk. Never did find dry paper filler, so it will get wet, eventually.

And all that really changes until it gets dried out is the amount of capacitance between conductors:happyyes:

 

[George Stolz]

What do we do?

Why else do they sell gas cans at building supply stores? Think, people!

 

[George Stolz]

Is the inspector right or wrong for failing the OPs' install?

Per 110.11, he is doing his job. Per common sense, he is asking for a fragging.

 

[iwire]

Per 110.11, he is doing his job. Per common sense, he is asking for a fragging.

:thumbsup:

 

[Ponchik]

IMO, the op installed the romex in a dry location. He has nothing to worry about. Side blown rain will NOT damage the romex or the conductors inside.
Ask the inspector if he/she can prove that the romex is damaged. I bet he/she will say "I will let it go this time, make sure it does not happen again"

 

[iwire]

IMO, the op installed the romex in a dry location. He has nothing to worry about. Side blown rain will NOT damage the romex or the conductors inside.
Ask the inspector if he/she can prove that the romex is damaged. I bet he/she will say "I will let it go this time, make sure it does not happen again"

Which rule requires the inspector to prove the product has been damaged?

Apparently the inspector knows it rained on the NM, that is really all they need.

I don't necessarily agree with the call but per the NEC it is withing the inspectors judgment.

 

[Ponchik]

Which rule requires the inspector to prove the product has been damaged?

Apparently the inspector knows it rained on the NM, that is really all they need.

I don't necessarily agree with the call but per the NEC it is withing the inspectors judgment.

There is no NEC requirement to prove the NM is damaged, but there is no NEC rule that he can cite either.

 

[kwired]

There is no NEC requirement to prove the NM is damaged, but there is no NEC rule that he can cite either.

110.3(A) can certainly be used.

Justification in using that is what is or should be in question here, IOW additional proof that the proof that the product in question is indeed compromised, and that this is not just a whim by someone with some authority.

Unfortunately fighting it may have other costs and may be easier to do what was asked.

 

[ADub]

110.3(A) can certainly be used.

Justification in using that is what is or should be in question here, IOW additional proof that the proof that the product in question is indeed compromised, and that this is not just a whim by someone with some authority.

Unfortunately fighting it may have other costs and may be easier to do what was asked.

What???


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

What???


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Did I stutter?

If AHJ feels the product in question has been compromised why not?

But I hope he gives me a reasonable technical reason of why he thinks it has been compromised and doesn't just say "because I say so".

 

[iwire]

There is no NEC requirement to prove the NM is damaged, but there is no NEC rule that he can cite either.

Sure there is, the NM section and the listing telling us it is for dry locations only.

The listing has no 'wiggle room' for periods of construction.

There is also 110.11 and 110.3(A).

 

[ADub]

Did I stutter?

If AHJ doesn't feels the product in question has been compromised why not?

But I hope he gives me a reasonable technical reason of why he thinks it has been compromised and doesn't just say "because I say so".

I don't know, sometimes I struggle with your posts. It's probably my fault.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ponchik]

Sure there is, the NM section and the listing telling us it is for dry locations only.

The listing has no 'wiggle room' for periods of construction.

There is also 110.11 and 110.3(A).

IMO, 110.11 and 110.3(A) will apply only if the NM is permanently installed in a wet location. In OP situation that is NOT the case. The definition of dry location will certainly allow temporary wetness to the NM cable.

In the NM cable, I know the conductors are rated THHN and dry location only, but is the jacket dry location as well?

Based on OP situation the inspector's ego is the problem not the NM cable being subject to temporary wetness.