Speedy Petey

At the risk of this having nothing to do with the topic at hand, I agree.
At the same time, I have heard inspectors red tagging the same thing. It goes BOTH ways. It amazes me some of the things some "inspectors" will demand.

__________________

jrclen

Hmmm, interesting change of subject. I was never taught in any code class that a receptacle outlet in a closet was prohibited by code. Maybe you need better code courses.

rch

The reason it is highly worth discussion is because it addresses the very important issue of accuracy in using the Code.
It is of great importance that an Inspector actually understand the Code and not just grab the easy bits & pieces.
It also speaks to the more serious issue of Licensed Electricians who repeat what they are told and taught, as opposed to taking it upon themselves to authenticate the actual reasons for what they are instructed to do.

The FACT is, as seen here in this example we are discussing, most here are refusing to deal with all of the words in that paragraph..not just the ones we like or find easy to accept.

You don't get to pick & choose the words and lines you like when dealing with the Code. You have to accept all of them, regardlss of what order they happen to be in or whether they force you to actually read the references they take you to in other articles.

You can choose to accept the SCHED 80 as gospel, but you would be remiss in denying the rest of the words that follow it. This is not a first-come, first served thing.
Really understanding the Code is not as simple as it looks. All too many Inspectors and Electricians are seriously lacking in a real understanding of how to use this book, and this discussion demonstrates it.

"Because I said so" is not a sufficient answer for an inspector to give an Electrician when making demands. At least not for me.
I don't speak for anyone but myself. When I walk into a jobsite and I open my mouth, what comes out is true and correct based on an extended and thorough knowledge of the subject matter...not what someone said to me or what I always saw done. I speak with authority and I have no problem explaining my reasons to the Electrician AS PER THE NEC. Electricians who know me know that I am fair, felxible, and knowledgeable, and always open to discussion or debate BASED ON FACTS....not on myth & legend.
I take what I do seriously. And I always have something new to learn every time I go out.

It is certainly not my intention to argue with anyone, but I will not 'dumb it down' for the sake of keeping the peace. Anything less would be a great dis-service to those who come to this forum looking for complete and CODE CORRECT answers.

dSilanskas

How do you figure that Sch. 40 is no more protection then NM? Do tell

Speedy Petey

I don't know. Read Art. 352 and you tell me.

__________________

Speedy Petey

rch,

Thank you, but I REALLY don't need your help in understanding the code and how to use it.

__________________

rch

What I was referring to was one of the many common misconceptions that I oftern run into. The fact that YOU did not encounter this is no indication that others have.

As for inpsectors being wrong and not understanding the Code, that is a fair statement. I have had many an argument with other Inspectors who make unreasonable and unsupported demands on Electricians.

I never said that Inspectors are above this. I can only speak for myself.

Many folks think that reading = understanding.
If that were true I would be a genius...and I'm no genius!

And if you think that NM by itself is equal to NM in Sched 40, then you may want to look into the laws of physics as well.

dSilanskas

I think you are a bit confused my friend Art. 352 does not say that Sch. 40 is no more protection than NM Perhaps you can explain so I can understand?

jrclen

I like that you mentioned this. I think you are saying that inspectors and electricians alike must understand and apply the entire code and not just pick what they wish to rely upon. I agree with you.

So we first look at 110.3. This tells us we must use materials according to their listing and labeling.

Now we look at 352.10F. Then look at 352.12C

Then look at the listings and labeling for sch 40 and sch 80 PVC conduit.

Or just accept the FPN of 353.10F for what we need to know.

And if you are going to make insulting statements such as my looking at the laws of physics, then this discussion is over for me.

rch

It was not an insult...merely yet another statement of FACT (often conveniently ignored) that a wire assembly such as NM is not physically the same as that same assembly sleeved by Schedule 40 Conduit. To imply that they are equal to eachother in the protection of the copper enclosed in the NM jacket only is an outrightly incorrect and absurd statement, ignoring the laws of physics.
The laws of physics are not negotiable and rarely open to opinion...certainly not in this case.

Your debate over this issue, so far, has not been based in fact and on code...rather on your perception of what you are reading, which is evidently incomplete.

If the sentence says "...SCHEDULE 80, or other approved means" than it is an incorrect assumption that this implies that SCHEDULE 80 is mandatory, as through careful referencing in the CODE, I easily showed that Schedule 40 in this particular application would qualify as an 'approved means'.
That you do not like it or that is what you have been taught does not qualify it as Minimum Required Code, which is the basis of the Code and this discussion.

That you choose to go beyond that requirement is a credit to you, but to wrongfully espouse your wrong interpretation as the Minumum Requirement as per the Code, to others, isn't fair to those seeking such knowledge. It is misleading and at the very least, an additional cost burden on the other guy. Every working Electrician is constantly aware of overhead and cost of materials. If you sleeve maybe 3 or 4 wall lines in an unfinished basement (as opposed to using running boards), that's a 10' piece of Schedule 80.
If you do 30 houses a year that's 30 pieces. If you go into a supply house and get a refund for the difference between 30 pieces of 80 and 30 pieces of 40, then I think you will very happy. Maybe that pays for a toy for your kid at Christmas, flowers for your wife or girlfriend, or a bunch of lottery tickets. The point is, as a business, so long as you meet the Minimum Code Requirement to maintain a nationally recognized margin of safety, then the money is better in your pocket than the supply house.
If you are a large contractor and have 3 or more trucks on the road, just keep multiplying that small savings and at the end of the year you have a lot more than just a few bucks.

That is why this discussion is worthwhile.

rch

And again, unless you are living on the Sun, the argument cannot be made for SUNLIGHT RESISTANT requirements within the Basement of a residential dwelling. Sunlight does not pierce the walls and window exposure does not count. Again, the laws of physics apply.

As a reasonably fair and scientific test, please set up a beach lounge chair, put on a bathing suit, and sit uorself down next to a wall in a basement of your choice (not on the sun!) and next to you, set up another chair exactly like yours, and place a 6' long piece of Sched 40 in the chair (bathing suit optional). Sit there from 10AM until 4 PM. If you havea serious sunburn, then I will concede your argument. If not, give up the idea that a basement interior wall is somehow miraculaously subject to the effects of direct sunlight (or contact with soil or Direct Burial requirements).

Don't forget the #15 and reapply every 45-60 minutes...you AND the sched 40!

mickeyco

What if you have a walk out basement with lots of windows?


.

__________________
Some people climb mountains. I take out the trash. But we both do it for the same reason.

mdshunk

Schedule 40 PVC is not rated for protection against physical damage
NM cable is not rated for protection against physical damage.

They are the same in that regard. If physical damage is expected, neither method may be used.

Schedule 80 PVC is the only nonmetallic wiring method rated for protection against physical damage. EMT, IMC, and RMC would also work if the goal is to provide protection against physical damage.

If you sleeve some romex in Schedule 40 PVC, it may in fact have some more mechanical protection if you ask an engineer, but not if you read the code. If your whole reason for sleeving romex in PVC was to enhance the beauty of the installation, you may have succeeded. If the reason for sleeving some romex in PVC was to provide physical protection, the code shows you have wasted your time. The PVC simply isn't approved for that. It might work in deed and in fact, but it's not an approved application.

rch

Forgive me but I am not familiar with the term 'walk-out basement'.
As for lots of windows....Nope. Interior is Interior...Sunlight Resistant will not come into play.
And while this may be contrary to everything that we see or believe, as in ANY legal code, whether it be the Tax Code or the Electrical Code, if it is not enumerated then it cannot be enforced.
I would agree with you that there is a possibility that sunlight can enter a room through a window, but if you 'open that door, then you must now look at every appliance and every switch and every lamp cord and, actually, every visiable device in the home as it may be physically near a window.

No one ever said that the Code is perfect...far from it...but it is what we have and it;s still teh best in the world at this moment in time.
There are holes and loopholes throughout the Code, but it is not the right of the Inspector to plug them at will, unless he can make a solid case based on the references in the existing Code.
Interior = Direct Sunlight will never fly in court.

rch

MDSHUNK, please support your argument with exact text from the Code.

I have already shown text to the contrary (please read previous posts if you came into this late). I would be interested in reading your basis.

mdshunk

Regarding Romex, 334.15(B): Protection from Physical Damage. The cable shall be
protected from physical damage where necessary by conduit,
electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC rigid nonmetallic
conduit, pipe, guard strips, listed surface metal or
nonmetallic raceway, or other means.

Regarding PVC, 352.12: Uses Not Permitted. RNC shall not be used in the
following locations.
(C) Physical Damage. Where subject to physical damage
unless identified for such use

The only PVC conduit 'identified for such use' is schedule 80 at the moment.

The romex section requires that romex be protected from physical damage by one of many means if it is exposed to physical damage. The section on PVC precludes the use of PVC 40 as a method of protecting against physical damage.

You can't protect something from physical damage with a product not rated for protection against physical damage. Sorta like putting on pajama pants to go walking through a briar patch.

GSE

Your contrary is wrong, MD has it right, and I am sure he can quote it from the current code, he has no basis, the code is not up for debate, most of us in the trade spend many hours updating our code knowladge, and every new cycle we have to complete 34 hours of code courses, you view of inspectors goes back to the 70's or before, today inspectors are well trainned and certified, and they need years of contracting experience in the electrical trades before being considered for employment, in some states they may be inspectors thet were appointed by ploitical hacks and have little or no knowladge for the job, but they have one heck of a voting record.

Speedy Petey

Thank you Marc, JR, et al, for taking up where I left off.

__________________

jrclen

It's a tough job Speedy, but somebody has to do it. I'm glad Marc jumped in with 334.15B.

rch

Can you please now cite the definition of 'Protection from Physical Damage'?
And then cite the code indicating that an unfinished basement wall in a residential 1 or 2 family dwelling is a likely location to be subjected to physical damage.

I would also like to ask if any Electrician here has ever used a running board to bring Romex down the wall of an unfinished basement to a utility receptacle or light switch.

As well, I have repeatedly asked for someone to define the words 'or other means' from 334.14(B).

PS: I hold all 3 IAEI Certifications and my employment was with the NY Board of Fire Underwriters. I left the NYBFU one year ago next week. My knowledge and experience is very current and my argument still stands that the use of Sched 40 in an unfinished Basement is NOT PROHIBITED by the Code.