Romex in a wet location???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Respectfully, 334.10 is the section on "uses permitted". I was talking about what's "not permitted". Everything else is in the gray area of the AHJ in my opinion.

Mark
 
Bob,
I have to agree with Mark's comment here as the code is a permissive code and a statement that specifically permits NM to be installed in normally dry locations does not act to prohibit the use of NM in wet locations.
This is a fundamental problem with the code wording in a number of cases. The CMPs seem to think that the specific permission acts as a prohibition of all applications. There is no reasonable reading of a statement that says I can do something that leads me to believe that I can't do something different.
 
As I've said before. I wish this would get cleaned-up in future codes. We have fairly clear definitions of dry, damp and wet locations. Why they couldn't use these for Romex is beyond me. Maybe I should make a proposal?

Mark
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Bob,
I have to agree with Mark's comment here as the code is a permissive code and a statement that specifically permits NM to be installed in normally dry locations does not act to prohibit the use of NM in wet locations.
This is a fundamental problem with the code wording in a number of cases. The CMPs seem to think that the specific permission acts as a prohibition of all applications. There is no reasonable reading of a statement that says I can do something that leads me to believe that I can't do something different.
Click to expand...

This seems restrictive.

334.12
B) Types NM and NMS. Types NM and NMS cables shall not be used under the following conditions or in the following locations:
(1) Where exposed to corrosive fumes or vapors
(2) Where embedded in masonry, concrete, adobe, fill, or plaster
(3) In a shallow chase in masonry, concrete, or adobe and covered with plaster, adobe, or similar finish
(4) In wet or damp locations
 
Did this get changed for 2008? I'm still on 2005 cause that's what my jurisdiction uses. I try not to buy the new code book until we're using it. Otherwise I just get confused.

Mark
 
busman said:
Did this get changed for 2008? I'm still on 2005 cause that's what my jurisdiction uses. I try not to buy the new code book until we're using it. Otherwise I just get confused.

Mark
Click to expand...

2005


(B) Types NM and NMS
Types NM and NMS cables shall not be used under the following conditions or in the following locations:
(1) Where exposed to corrosive fumes or vapors
(2) Where embedded in masonry, concrete, adobe, fill, or plaster
(3) In a shallow chase in masonry, concrete, or adobe and
covered with plaster, adobe, or similar finish
​
​
(4) Where exposed or subject to excessive moisture or dampness​


​
 
busman said:
Type NM is NOT prohibited in "wet locations".
Click to expand...
This is thrusting the code right out of reality! :-? It flies in the face of 334.12(B)(4).

busman said:
The code says "not exposed or subject to excessive moisture or dampness".
Click to expand...
This is nothing short of distorting the actual intent of this section to create a new meaning that supports the reasoning that "excessive moisture or dampness is not present in a wet location".:-?:-?

busman said:
Only the AHJ knows t(w)hat this means. What is considered excessive?
Click to expand...
:-?

....."only the AHJ knows what this means"......I have yet to meet anyone who cannot clearly tell the difference between a dry location, a damp location and a wet location.
:smile:
 
Sorry, but my 2005 code does not talk about dry, damp or wet locations. It says "excessive dampness or moisture". What's excessive. A drop? A bucket? Under pressure? Who knows. That's my point. I'm not trying to distort the code. When does some amount of moisture become excessive? Is a Wet Location excessive?

Respectfully,

Mark

PS: Hopefully the other post was from the 2008 and this has been changed, but I don't have the book to check.
 
busman said:
Sorry, but my 2005 code does not talk about dry, damp or wet locations.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. Look under Location, Damp, Location, Dry, and Location, Wet on page 70-30 in Article 100 Definitions.
busman said:
It says "excessive dampness or moisture". What's excessive. A drop? A bucket? Under pressure? Who knows. That's my point. I'm not trying to distort the code. When does some amount of moisture become excessive? Is a Wet Location excessive?
Click to expand...
Deductive reasoning must come into play. "Damp" is subject to moderate degrees of moisture, not saturation. Therefore "saturation" would be excessive to a damp location which would make it a "wet" location, no longer a "damp" location. "Dry" is not normally subject to either of these conditions.

busman said:
Respectfully,

Mark

PS: Hopefully the other post was from the 2008 and this has been changed, but I don't have the book to check.
Click to expand...
No change to the definitions for 2008, but the wording at 334.12(B)(4) was amended from "Where exposed or subject to excessive moisture or dampness"('05) to the new wording "In wet or damp locations" ('08):)
 
busman said:
Sorry, but my 2005 code does not talk about dry, damp or wet locations. It says "excessive dampness or moisture". What's excessive. A drop? A bucket? Under pressure? Who knows. That's my point. I'm not trying to distort the code. When does some amount of moisture become excessive? Is a Wet Location excessive?

Respectfully,

Mark

PS: Hopefully the other post was from the 2008 and this has been changed, but I don't have the book to check.
Click to expand...

You have a reasonable arguement and that's why it was made clear in the 2008 NEC
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top