Romex wet

[codewarrior321]

Hi, I have a would be future customer call and ask me if it was ok for an electrician to pull the whole house without a roof, open to the elements. She told me that her electrician had pull all the romex cables in the house without a roof. She said that it has rained in the house for about 3 to 5 times that she can remember and that it had frozen over a couple of nights. So I told her that was not good that it was not legal. So I suggested to her to tell the electrician he would have to replace all the wiring in the house.

Reason the insulation of the cable would absorb moisture, that would give her problems later, all connection or splices would have absorb moisture too.

I tried to get something I could use from the code, the only thing I came up with was Listing and Labeling and article 334.

Thanks for any comments

 

[jumper]

How about this:

110.11 Deteriorating Agents. Unless identified for use in
the operating environment, no conductors or equipment
shall be located in damp or wet locations; where exposed to
gases, fumes, vapors, liquids, or other agents that have a
deteriorating effect on the conductors or equipment; or
where exposed to excessive temperatures.

 

[raider1]

Modern NM cable has a PVC jacket that does not absorb moisture. The open ends of the NM cable if submerged would wick up water and the ends should be cut off until the paper inside is dry.

Here is a quote from a UL paper dealing with flood damaged electrical equipment.

In general, cables with PVC insulation and jacket can withstand
immersion in clean water for a short period of time without being
damaged as long as the ends are not immersed. If the ends of the
cable are immersed for any period of time, however, the internal
paper wrapping around the bare equipment-grounding conductor
will absorb and transfer the water into the cable assembly. The
water may then start degrading the insulation or possibly corrode the
conductors. If the cable comes into contact with contaminated water,
the contaminants may also act on the insulation or conductors. Over
time, failures can occur.

You can read the entire paper HERE.

Chris

 

[ceb58]

Although I agree with the code art. that Derek posted I don't think it your place to get involved in a situation like this. IMHO it was poor judgment on the contractors part to install any electrical wiring with out the home being dried in. He was probably in a rush to get a pay day. You could suggest that she call in the local inspector to come inspect the wiring and voice her concerns. Give her the code article and let her discuss this with the inspector. If he backs up code and says all the wiring must go the other contractor has the choice of redoing it or having her take recourse for having someone else redo it.

 

[dana1028]

wet romex

wet romex

NEC definitions:
Locations, Dry. A location not normally subject to dampness or wetness. A location classified as dry may be temporarily subject to saturation with water or other liquids, as in a building under construction.

As an inspector I had occasion to question a similar situation as the OP described [thoroughly soaked NM cable from a rain storm, uncovered building].

The wire mfr. assured me the jacket protected the conductors; if the ends of the NM were submerged the paper might 'wick' the moisture...if I was concerned then I could have some of the sheathing cut back to check on paper insulation. Remedy: cut back till there was no longer any wet paper insulation. In the case of installed NM [i.e. not fully submerged] this resulted in no wicking at any point.

 

[steve66]

When I first saw the post, I was all for the contractor ripping out all the NM and replacing it. After Chris's post, I more for allowing it to stay.

Now the question I'm wondering about is why can't NM be used in wet locations? If the covering protects it, shouldn't it be suitable for a wet location? Are we going to see a future change in the Code that allows NM in wet locations?

Will there be a day when direct burried NM cable is code compliant? I just can't see that being safe.

 

[readydave8]

I have known of electricians that work out of a pickup truck, any rx in bed of truck gets rained on, what then?

 

[roger3829]

I have known of electricians that work out of a pickup truck, any rx in bed of truck gets rained on, what then?

Nobody KNOWS it got wet. (It's a secret) But if you install it and somebody sees it get wet.......That's different

 

[LarryFine]

Will there be a day when direct burried NM cable is code compliant?

It is now, if you consider UF to be an NM cable.

 

[mivey]

When I first saw the post, I was all for the contractor ripping out all the NM and replacing it. After Chris's post, I more for allowing it to stay.

Now the question I'm wondering about is why can't NM be used in wet locations? If the covering protects it, shouldn't it be suitable for a wet location? Are we going to see a future change in the Code that allows NM in wet locations?

Will there be a day when direct burried NM cable is code compliant? I just can't see that being safe.

The wicking effect in romex and the paper wrap is the killer in wet locations so I don't ever see it as being allowed.

Also, see here:
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthre...r-an-electrical-upgrade?p=1290964#post1290964

Personally, I would not be concerned about a light rain on new romex. A frog-strangler might make me want to check out some termination points and boxes (I hope no metal boxes were in the rain). Also, some locations are just funnels for water and I would check those as well.

If the guy had just pulled the romex and left the ends facing down, I would not be worried about it one bit. The length of exposure to the elements would matter as it is not UV resistant.