1) Yes, sort of......and NO. Sch40 is no more protection that NM cable in the eyes of the code.

2) Don't know. Typically yes, up to the joist cavity, or until the cable is out of harms way. Up into the joist cavity looks better.

3) Huh? Can you translate?
Oh I see, "Where is this in the NEC?". Several places. Start in Art. 334.


Chuck, your profile states you are in the electrical trade. Are you a student or just starting out? How long have you been in it?

 

1) Yes, sort of......and NO. Sch40 is no more protection that NM cable in the eyes of the code.

You can use PVC for concealed work, no problem. You can use it for exposed work as well, provided it is not subject to damage and identified as such.

Check out 352.10 and 352.12 in the 2005 NEC.

Personally, I'd use romex.

 

What copy (year) of the NEC are you using?

 

....sniff...sniff..

 

if its an unfinish base ment then yes wires can be exposed
if it a finish base yes you need to put it in any kind of tubing that you like

 

Let's not forget that local amendments can trump the NEC - w/o knowing where the OP is from...the question/s cannot be answered.

 

Yes, local codes do trump national and local inspectors have different interpretations as well.

1. Does exposed wirng on basement walls have to be in conduit and if so can schedule 40 PVC be used in place of EMT?

Of course it does, if it's not within the wall and rocked over or outta sight. Every basement is different. Is it subjected to water or moisture? If so, I would use PVC. Call up your building dept and ask them. In a panel upgrade, an inspector here made me run additional service ground through basement to a cold water pipe in mc cable or EMT no PVC.

Chilla

 

Again, Sch.40 PVC is no more protection than the NM itself.
For protection purposes Sch.80 must be used, or use metal.

 

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

 

Can you cite the code that says the raceway protecting wire in a basement cannot be Sched 40 where a raceway is required for protection?

This is a trick question. Exposed Wire on Basement Walls must always be protected, finished or not.

On the basement walls, if it's an unfnished basement, it need only to be sleeved up to the bottom level of the joists. Bear in mnd that if its metal, it needs to be bonded to ground and don't forget the romex clamp at the top where the NM exits that EMT.
BX does not need to be protected on the walls of an unfinished bsmt.

Chilliwatt, ask that inspector to show you the code that allows him to make that demand. Unless the grounding electrode conductor is exposed to physical damage, it does not have to covered or protected as long as it is properly supported the entire length.

Inspectors are given some lattitude in interpreting some things, but writing new code is not in the job description.

 

Can you cite the code that says the raceway protecting wire in a basement cannot be Sched 40 where a raceway is required for protection?

Sure.

334.15 Exposed Work
In exposed work, except as provided in 300.11(A), cable shall be installed as specified in 334.15(A) through (C).

(A) To Follow Surface Cable shall closely follow the surface of the building finish or of running boards.

(B) Protection from Physical Damage Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary by rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC rigid nonmetallic conduit, or other approved means. Where passing through a floor, the cable shall be enclosed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC rigid nonmetallic conduit, or other approved means extending at least 150 mm (6 in.) above the floor.

Exposed Wire on Basement Walls must always be protected, finished or not.

Can you cite the code that says this?

Trick question, it's the same quote, but it does NOT say anything about basement walls.

 

Ahhhh...you are correct sir!.....almost.

The part where it says "other approved means".
You cannot come to an interpretation of any particular code article without considering ALL of the references within that article.

Let's consider the words "Approved Means"
note: please forgive me as I have only the 2002 with me, so if I cite anything that has been changed in later editions, please correct me and I would appreciate the help...it's been awhile for me.

Rigid Non Metallic Conduit (RNC)
352.10 USES PERMITTED
(E) Dry & Damp (this meets any Basement requirement, though in a 1 & 2 Family dwelling, th ebasement would be considered normally dry, and at the very worst, only Damp.
(F) Exposed

352.12
Except where Physical Damage..."

I will concede that exposed wiring must be protected on these walls

352.10 Construction of RNC
For use above ground, "resistant to impact and crushing".
This construt=ction spec meets the criteria for adequate protection against posible physical damage in a dwelling basement.

If you look at the requirements for PROTECTION of NM cable, it calls for RACEWAYS. under DEFINITIONS, the term RACEWAYS includes RNC, with no specification as to schedule.
Since there is no Direct Sunlight nor Soil COntact in the basement, Sched. 80 is not 'mandatory'.

Iin an unfinished basement, unless you use a running board on the wall, it is common and acceptable to 'sleeve' NM cable iwith Sched 40 PVC from wall box to ceiling.

As for the quote regarding 'basement walls' & protection...you are correct. I added the words 'basement walls' for the benfit of the original question which was only dealing with Basement Walls.
However, it is also a TRICK ANSWER! There would not be an acceptable Unfinished Room in the home, other than the basement, garage or Service Equipemt room, that could have open walls!

 

If you look at the requirements for PROTECTION of NM cable, it calls for RACEWAYS. under DEFINITIONS, the term RACEWAYS includes RNC, with no specification as to schedule.
Since there is no Direct Sunlight nor Soil COntact in the basement, Sched. 80 is not 'mandatory'.

Then what is your answer to this:

(B) Protection from Physical Damage
Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary by rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC rigid nonmetallic conduit, or other approved means. Where passing through a floor, the cable shall be enclosed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC rigid nonmetallic conduit, or other approved means extending at least 150 mm (6 in.) above the floor.

 

Quote: "Since there is no Direct Sunlight nor Soil COntact in the basement, Sched. 80 is not 'mandatory'."

You are an electrical inspector where?

 

:laughing: :laughing:

 

Can't use PVC conduit inside here in Chicagoland, not supposed to use it outside either but everybody does.

 

In my numerous code courses, I've been taught that when the words, protect from physical damage, are used in conjunction with PVC conduit, we are automatically talking about schedule 80. Every time. Speedy provided the specific code reference.

 

WAS in NY. Stopped 2 years ago to pursue GC & other business ventures.

The answer to your question, Speedy, lies in the words "other approved means" which opens the door to establishing the Sched 40 as acceptable by CODE via the references that I cited. Because ti is taught does not make it so. There is no 'automatic' in the code. That premise is an assumption.

And as best I can figure, there is usually no Direct Sunlight hazard nor Soil Contact or Direct Burial with regard to Basement Walls in a Home...at least most homes that I have been in.

ps: For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that Scehd 4o IS LEGAL in that locality, as I do realize that there are superceding codes in any given locality that has chosen to adopt additional restrictions.

 

The answer to your question, Speedy, lies in the words "other approved means" which opens the door to establishing the Sched 40 as acceptable by CODE via the references that I cited. Because ti is taught does not make it so. There is no 'automatic' in the code. That premise is an assumption.

I think this is a deep, deeeeeep sea fishing expedition.
Why you are fishing for approval on this is beyond me. It is a trivial issue.

Why would Sch40 be allowed, even in a round about way, when in the same sentence, immediately before it, is a DIRECT and SPECIFIC requirement to use Sch.80?????????

If you want to allow it in your inspections, fine. Cool. I'm OK with that.

This is NOT something I think is worth even discussing further.

 

As for being taught in code classes, I cannot begin count how many electricians (even the Licensed Ones) think that an outlet or light switch in a clothing closet is not legal by code. This is a widely accepted premise but has no code to support it. It may not be wise under many circumstances, but it has no objection in the code.
The closest you will find to this is under Hazardous Locations, but, alas, a clothes closet is not a hazardous location...and there is very little code to address Home Owner stupidity.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

rch,

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

 

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.

 

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!

 

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!

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


.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Can you please now cite the definition of 'Protection from Physical Damage'?

No. You already know this.

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.

This is s judgment call. To say this is an area that is not subject to damage is a bit naive in my opinion.

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.

No.

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.

It's not at all prohibited. It's just Sch40 is EXPRESSLY not rated for protecting NM from physical damage. Physics aside. I am talking about in the eyes of the NEC.

Besides, you know as well as I do that we do NOT follow the NEC for one and two family dwellings in NYS.

When I quote codes on boards like this one I use the NEC, unless of course the poster is in NY .

 

I think everyone who was originally involved in this thread is dead now.

Just saying.

Andy.