Romex running under joist

[mathew stouffer]

I found a section in the code that states Romex must run through joists and not be stapled to the underside. Does this include crawl space installations. Romex in photos is hanging along the underside of some joists and running through punch outs in others. The whole thing is a rats nest.

Thank you
Mat

[John Steinke]

Really? Will wonders never cease!

Alll things equal, I'd rather see the cables stapled to the flats. The only question that remains is: do the wires now require running boards for protection?

The short take? Are we in a location where folks are likely to try to hang the laundry from the cables? If not, and the cables are stapled every other joist, no problem.

[Jerry Peck]

Does this include crawl space installations.


The short take? Are we in a location where folks are likely to try to hang the laundry from the cables? If not, and the cables are stapled every other joist, no problem.

John is correct with regard to a crawlspace, there is limited danger to the cables being damaged if properly secured, and the "stapled every other joist" only works when run perpendicular across the joists as when run at an angle it is quite easy to exceed the required support every 4-1/2 feet, meaning it should be secured to each joist in most cases when it is run diagonally across the joists.

Besides, there really is nothing wrong with doing more than the minimum required even when running NM cable perpendicular to the joists and securing it at every joist.

[John Kogel]

I found a section in the code that states Romex must run through joists and not be stapled to the underside. Does this include crawl space installations. Romex in photos is hanging along the underside of some joists and running through punch outs in others. The whole thing is a rats nest.

Thank you
Mat

Hey that looks like my place! :)
As Jerry and John have said, it is typical and acceptable to run the wiring under the joists in a crawl. However, this looks like a newer home, I-beam joists and we would expect more care to be taken in supporting the wires in a new installation. The blue wires in the middle pic look like they're poorly supported and maybe running under some plumbing which is bad practice. So I would describe that mess in my report somehow.
Rat's nest? How about "evidence of rodent activity". :)

John Kogel
www.allsafehome (http://www.allsafehome) .ca

[Fred Warner]

I don't see relief in the code just because the NM is in the crawl space. It still has to comply with Article 300, wiring methods.

Also, a crawl space might actually be determined to be a damp location and then there goes the "romex" anyway.

[Jerry Peck]

I don't see relief in the code just because the NM is in the crawl space. It still has to comply with Article 300, wiring methods.

It does have to comply with Article 300, which includes protection from physical damage, and a crawlspace is similar to an attic (where NM cable does not need to be protected either - except within 6 feet of the opening because of storage).


Also, a crawl space might actually be determined to be a damp location and then there goes the "romex" anyway.

Fred,

You are the second person I've heard bring that up.

The other person was me :D , on other threads during the past and when inspecting.

It is one of those pet peeves of mine as to why more inspectors and electrical chiefs do not recognize it as such.

You do not know how much time I've spend talking about that with others, and I'm not talking about "sealed crawlspaces" with moisture barrier sealed all around, I'm talking about those 'open air' (vented) crawlspaces, most (many) of which have no moisture barrier down on the dirt.

In my opinion, crawlspaces (even sealed ones to a degree) are not "dry locations", they are "damp locations".

From the 2008 NEC. (underlining and bold are mine)
ARTICLE 334 Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable: Types NM, NMC, and NMS
- 334.10 Uses Permitted.
- - Type NM, Type NMC, and Type NMS cables shall be permitted to be used in the following:
- - (A) Type NM. Type NM cable shall be permitted as follows:
- - - (1) For both exposed and concealed work in normally dry locations except as prohibited in 334.10(3)
- - - (2) To be installed or fished in air voids in masonry block or tile walls

- 334.12 Uses Not Permitted.
- - (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

- Location, Damp. Locations protected from weather and not subject to saturation with water or other liquids but subject to moderate degrees of moisture. Examples of such locations include partially protected locations under canopies, marquees, roofed open porches, and like locations, and interior locations subject to moderate degrees of moisture, such as some basements, some barns, and some cold-storage warehouses.

- 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.

-Location, Wet. Installations underground or in concrete slabs or masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations subject to saturation with water or other liquids, such as vehicle washing areas; and in unprotected locations exposed to weather

In my opinion, a crawlspace *is not a "dry location" *. A crawlspace *is* a "damp location".

:) I exaggerated on the 'you and me only' people, but the number of inspectors and electrical chiefs I've known who have called crawlspaces "damp locations" can be counted on *both hands*, don't have to use my toes ... as I've still got fingers not counted yet. :D

[Jim Robinson]

When they are referring to the type NM in those sections, is it by definition NM-B? Just curious. Like most everyone, I also see it practically every time in the crawl space, although they are usually dry here unless they have some drainage problem going on. Fortunately, that isn't usually the case.

[Jerry Peck]

When they are referring to the type NM in those sections, is it by definition NM-B?

.Yes.

[ken horak]

2008 NEC - Section 334.15 (C) - In unfinished Basements and Crawl Spaces .......

The 2008 Nec was revised to include crawl spaces in this section. It clearly allows romex in the crawl spaces just as it allows romex to be used in a regular basement.

As long as the crawl space is not damp it is perfectly legal to be there.( I have been in many DRY crawl spaces also. )

The pictures are clearly a violation or NEC article 314.15 (C) as cables smaller then two six AWG or three 8 AWG must be run through bored holes or running boards. ( knockouts are the same as bored holes)

[Jerry Peck]

2008 NEC - Section 334.15 (C) - In unfinished Basements and Crawl Spaces .......

The 2008 Nec was revised to include crawl spaces in this section. It clearly allows romex in the crawl spaces just as it allows romex to be used in a regular basement.

As long as the crawl space is not damp it is perfectly legal to be there.( I have been in many DRY crawl spaces also. )

The pictures are clearly a violation or NEC article 314.15 (C) as cables smaller then two six AWG or three 8 AWG must be run through bored holes or running boards. ( knockouts are the same as bored holes)

Not all "non-metallic sheathed cables" are included in that code reference, thus NM cable is not clearly, and certainly not specifically allowed in crawlspaces, and, in fact, the wording in that section backs up not allowing NM-B in crawlspaces.

This is that code section:

From the 2008 NEC. (underlining and bold are mine)
- ARTICLE 334 Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable: Types NM, NMC, and NMS (Jerry's note: The first thing to remember is that this article covers the aforementioned types of non-metallic sheathed cable.)
- - 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).
- - - - (C) In Unfinished Basements and Crawl Spaces. Where cable is run at angles with joists in unfinished basements and crawl spaces, it shall be permissible to secure cables not smaller than two 6 AWG or three 8 AWG conductors directly to the lower edges of the joists. Smaller cables shall be run either through bored holes in joists or on running boards. (Jerry's note: I rarely ever insert a comment "within" a code section, but this is one of those rare times it is needed. Those first two sentences apply to all types of non-metallic sheathed cable as allowed/prohibited in 334.10 Use Permitted and 334.12 Uses Not Permitted) NM cable installed on the wall of an unfinished basement shall be permitted to be installed in a listed conduit or tubing or shall be protected in accordance with 300.4. Conduit or tubing shall be provided with a suitable insulating bushing or adapter at the point the cable enters the raceway. The NM cable sheath shall extend through the conduit or tubing and into the outlet or device box not less than 6 mm (¼ in.). The cable shall be secured within 300 mm (12 in.) of the point where the cable enters the conduit or tubing. Metal conduit, tubing, and metal outlet boxes shall be connected to an equipment grounding conductor. (Jerry's note: The last part after my first comment within the code section is all about "unfinished basement" installations. Not crawlspaces.)

Non-metallic sheathed cable *IS* allowed in crawlspaces ... *provided* the non-metallic sheathed cable is a type suitable for that installation in accordance with 334.10 Uses Permitted and 334.12 Uses Not Permitted.

To make a blanket statement that the above code section allows 'plain old NM cable' (or, in your words: "It clearly allows romex") in crawlspaces is like saying that you can use rigid PVC to come from underground up the wall ... you are correct but only partially correct - Sch 40 PVC is not allowed for that use, only Sch 80 PVC is allowed for that use.

[ken horak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Robinson http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/ca_evo/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/electrical-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/12422-romex-running-under-joist-post76667.html#post76667)
When they are referring to the type NM in those sections, is it by definition NM-B?


Jerry's answer: .Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You sir are double speaking. Above you acknowledge that the reference to NM IS NM-B

Then you go on to the following statement:

Not all "non-metallic sheathed cables" are included in that code reference, thus NM cable is not clearly, and certainly not specifically allowed in crawlspaces, and, in fact, the wording in that section backs up not allowing NM-B in crawlspaces.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now seeing how YOU clearly acknowledge that the NEC reference to NM is also NM-B , Article 334.10 clearly allows NM ( remember NM is ALSO NM-B)
in a crawl space.

Besides the above, Nonmetallic cable sold today is labeled NM-B. Plain old NM is no more. The manufactures added the "B" to it back when they introduced 90 degree rated thhn conductors in the NM cable. They used to sell NM and NM-B. NM has faded away and NM-B is the standard being sold today.The NEC reference to NM is NM-B, the UL white book listing for Nonmetallic sheathed cable refers to NM-B. The Manufactures websites also refer to NM-B as NM.

Looks like a duck , Walks like a duck, Sounds like a duck , Gee it must be a Duck.


YOUR TURN

[Ron Bibler]

Hi Ken ( USA ) is a big place. please add you local city to your USA Listing.

Best

Ron

[Jerry Peck]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Robinson http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/ca_evo/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/electrical-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/12422-romex-running-under-joist-post76667.html#post76667)
When they are referring to the type NM in those sections, is it by definition NM-B?


Jerry's answer: .Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You sir are double speaking. Above you acknowledge that the reference to NM IS NM-B

Then you go on to the following statement:

Not all "non-metallic sheathed cables" are included in that code reference, thus NM cable is not clearly, and certainly not specifically allowed in crawlspaces, and, in fact, the wording in that section backs up not allowing NM-B in crawlspaces.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now seeing how YOU clearly acknowledge that the NEC reference to NM is also NM-B , Article 334.10 clearly allows NM ( remember NM is ALSO NM-B)
in a crawl space.

Besides the above, Nonmetallic cable sold today is labeled NM-B. Plain old NM is no more. The manufactures added the "B" to it back when they introduced 90 degree rated thhn conductors in the NM cable. They used to sell NM and NM-B. NM has faded away and NM-B is the standard being sold today.The NEC reference to NM is NM-B, the UL white book listing for Nonmetallic sheathed cable refers to NM-B. The Manufactures websites also refer to NM-B as NM.

Looks like a duck , Walks like a duck, Sounds like a duck , Gee it must be a Duck.


YOUR TURN

Ken,

Huh?

Go back and re-read my post.

The NM reference IS NM-B.

The SECTION references NM (which IS NM-B), *AND* NMC, *AND* NMS.

The first part of that SECTION is applicable *TO ALL* the included referenced types of NM, which includes NM (which IS NM-B) *AND* NMC *AND* NMS.

The second part of that SECTION is specifically applicable only to what is specifically specified - that being NM (which IS NM-B).

All you need is a little general construction knowledge, electrical knowledge, code knowledge, and you should be able to understand it.

However, ... if you cannot understand it, let me know and I will try to figure out another way to explain it to you.

Waiting to hear from you.

[ken horak]

334.10- allows it under one and two family dwellings 334.10(1) , and 334.12 - I see no prohibitions on crawl spaces. Do Not give me that damp or wet location line either. A properly constructed crawl space is dry

You Sir are the one who needs to slowly read the section 334.15( C)

334.15 - Exposed Work
Part (C) - In Unfinished basements and CRAWL SPACES....

The ENTIRE section of 334.15 covers ALL NM cables.

It does not specifically state NM,NMC,or NMS - this means it is covering ALL 3 types. The reference to cable in this section(334.15) is all three types of NM.

If it was referencing one particular type it would clearly specify that type. Like the code panel did in sections :334.2,334.6,334.10,334.12,334.15 (A),334.17,334.24,334.80, and 334.112.
334.15(A) does mention NMC.

So Jerry, Show me in writing,The writing from the NEC section334.15 (B) thats clearly states that NM can not be run in a crawl space. Remember only the words from the code - not YOUR interpretation of it.
You are reading more into this section then is there,you can not willy nilly pick out parts of a section and twist them to fit your ideas.

I know that the commentary in the NEC Handbook is not enforceable as code,but rather the commentary is the code making panels way to assist users in understanding and applying the NEC.
I strongly suggest you read the commentary for section 334.15 (B) and look at exhibit 334.1 in the 2008 Handbook. (page 378)
This commentary and exhibit even state that you are allowed to run NM in crawl spaces

So next time you want to insult someone by suggesting they need some general knowledge you best have the knowledge to back it up yourself!

[Jerry Peck]

Ken,

(trying to figure out how to teach you to read that) ...

This section is about Spot, Dick and Jane running around at the same time with Spot in the lead.
- See Spot Run. Now see Dick and Jane run. See Dick and Jane run faster.

Now, no where in there does it state that Dick and Jane are trying to catch Spot, but that is probably what you read into it.

That would be incorrect.

That only says that Spot ran first. Then Dick and Jane ran. Then Dick and Jane ran faster. It does not even say that Dick and Jane ran faster than Spot.

Now, with that in mind, go back and read the code again.

To read an example of what the code says and how it says it, read 334.10 Uses Permitted.

That section starts off talking about *all* types, then, just like in 334.15(C) In Unfinished Basements and Crawlspaces, 334.10 diverges into different permissible uses for the different types, no longer are *all* types lumped together, i.e., 334.10 is about all types, but (A), (B), and (C) are each about different types. One must be able to read what is written, not what one wants it to say.

This is one of those sections which so often will come back later as a "code change" when in reality it is merely a "clarification" so all understand it, the clarification for 334.15(C) would like read something like this:

(the underlined section would be the new "clarification", similar to what was added to the last sentence in 334.15(B) "Type NMC cable installed in shallow chases or grooves in masonry, concrete, or adobe, shall be protected in accordance with the requirements in 300.4(F) and covered with plaster, adobe, or similar finish.")

(C) In Unfinished Basements and Crawl Spaces. Where cable is run at angles with joists in unfinished basements and crawl spaces, in accordance with the requirements of 334.10 and 334.12, it shall be permissible to secure cables not smaller than two 6 AWG or three 8 AWG conductors directly to the lower edges of the joists. Smaller cables shall be run either through bored holes in joists or on running boards. NM cable installed on the wall of an unfinished basement shall be permitted to be installed in a listed conduit or tubing or shall be protected in accordance with 300.4. Conduit or tubing shall be provided with a suitable insulating bushing or adapter at the point the cable enters the raceway. The NM cable sheath shall extend through the conduit or tubing and into the outlet or device box not less than 6 mm (¼ in.). The cable shall be secured within 300 mm (12 in.) of the point where the cable enters the conduit or tubing. Metal conduit, tubing, and metal outlet boxes shall be connected to an equipment grounding conductor.

How long will it take for that to come up? If many think like you, I'm guessing "soon". :rolleyes:

[ken horak]

:rolleyes: You just hate it when your wrong don't you- oh that's right you can't ever admit when your wrong!:rolleyes:

1) 300.4(F) - Has zero (0) to do with the topic at hand - Romex running under joist. 300.4(F) is for protection against physical Damage,Part F - Cables and raceways installed in shallow grooves.
Where in that exact quoted section [300.4(F)] does it say anything about running NM in a crawl space,through bored holes,other then needing a nail plate if you do not have the required 1 1/4" clearance?

2) I ALREADY stated that 334.10 covers ALL types and under 334.10 Uses Permitted Type NM, Type NMC, and TYPE NMS cables SHALL be permitted to be used in the Following:
1) ONE and TWO Family Dwellings - Where would one find a crawl space?
Would it be a ONE FAMILY Dwelling?

3) 334.10 (A) Type NM - Type NM cable SHALL be PERMITTED as follows
(1) For both exposed and concealed work in normally dry locations except as prohibited in 334.10(3)
334.10(3)Other structures permitted to be of types 3,4,and 5 construction except as prohibited by 334.12.

4) 334.12 Uses not Permitted
(A) - Types NM,NMC,and NMS shall not be permitted in 334.10(1),(2),and (3).
334.10(1) - In any dwelling or structure NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN 334.10 (1),(2),&(3) We already established that NM IS permitted by 334.10(1) correct(- remember 1 & 2 Family Dwellings);)

Part B of the same section Says absolutely zero (0) about prohibiting NM in a Crawl space

Did you even bother to look at the commentary I tried to direct you to?

Again I ask : PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE EXACTLY IN THE CODE IT STATES NM CAN NOT BE USED IN A CRAWL SPACE.
This time use ONLY, I REPEAT ONLY, The words from the NEC and do not INSERT any of YOUR Perspectives of what it should read.
TRY to be SHORT and to the POINT

Maybe once you can read above the level of Dick,Jane,& Spot you will see that you are way off base on this one,as you have not proven anything to say NM can not be used in a crawl space.

[Fred Warner]

If a crawl space (or any other space, for that matter), is deemed (typically by the building official) to be a "damp location", then NM-B cable is not permitted as a wiring method.
Also regardless of it being a crawl space or not, the wiring methods of Chapter 3 apply. Cables of #12, 14, and 10 would have to be fastened to a board raceway (or other acceptable method) or run through bored holes.

[Jeff Remas]

In our area, the minimum IRC standard for crawlspace ventilation is insufficient as there is a high water table and just about every single crawlspace is a damp or wet location, mostly damp.

We have to condition the crawlspace in order for it to be considered dry.

90% of crawlspaces in new construction in my area are at the very least damp. The only "dry" ones are conditioned or not below grade and in areas of very sandy soil with a low to virtually nonexistent water table.

Entering into a crawlspace during the spring time or times of high humidity is like going into a rainforest.

NM cannot be used in most crawlspaces in most areas of the country.

[Fred Warner]

NM cannot be used in most crawlspaces in most areas of the country.

Agreed. NM is NM-B (building) and NM-S (signalling).
UF and NM-C (corrosive) are permitted in damp locations.

[ken horak]

I'd be willing to bet that the number of "dry" compared to the number of "damp/wet" crawl spaces across the country would be about equal.

But it is nice to see someone else agree that NM iS allowed in a crawl space :)

[Jerry Peck]

But it is nice to see someone else agree that NM iS allowed in a crawl space :)

And again you are wrong. :)

That is not what they agreed to. :D (but you knew that, you were just being like Watson, have to be right and have to try to have it your way, and say you are right even when you are not). :p

:D

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

And again you are wrong. :)

That is not what they agreed to. :D (but you knew that, you were just being like Watson, have to be right and have to try to have it your way, and say you are right even when you are not). :p

:D

What's up with the off-topic, Ad hominem attack?

[Jim Port]

Jerry,

Why do you insist on belaboring a point?

Ken is correct that NM IS allowed in a crawlspace as long as it is not considered a damp or wet location.

You cannot enforce your opinions as a Code inspector, you need to enforce the words that are in black and white. You can't even enforce the intent. Being you advertise yourself as a litigant I would have assumed that you would have known this.

[ken horak]

Mr.Peck-
Instead of trying to drag in innocent lurkers to this post,and insulting people,why don't you spend your time being creative and actually show me in writing form the NEC that clearly states that NM is nor allowed in a crawl space? I have shown why it is allowed and all you have done is cut and paste a bunch of NEC sections that zero to do with the issue.

That's all we need is the Facts and only the facts. No personnel thoughts,ideas,intents,should haves,should be's,could of's and so on.

I ask again have you bothered to look into the commentary I referred you to?
Also I ask again - IN writing direct form the code where does it CLEARLY state NM is prohibited in a crawl space. DO NOT give me a ton of that goofy cut and paste you like to do,just tell me where in the entire NEC does it state clearly that NM is Prohibitted in crawl spaces.

I know I am correct, others know I am correct ......
Come on Jerry join us on the correct side...
just say it, it won't hurt, it won't make you any less of a man then you already are...
I Jerry was Incorrec_ ! Go ahead fill in the blank

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Matt Stouffer,

Of issue is if there is systems equipment installed in the crawl space.
Of issue is if the crawl space is vented or enclosed and conditioned space.
Of issue is if the crawl space is used for storage.

No part of the NEC stands alone, no section or sub-section stands alone.

The NEC is not authoritative, it is the adoption of it by the authority with its own amendments and deletions which is authoritative for the jurisdiction, and whatever other building codes which have been adopted.

When we quote copyright materials such as the NEC we are permitted to do so only when we reference a version of the cavaet regarding the entire code...and two other caveats.

On an issue such as this more than one code may apply. Other codes are not moot on this subject (of the securing, spacing, and protection from damage of non-metalic cable in ceiling areas of unfinished crawl spaces (conditioned, unconditioned, vented, non-vented) and unfinished basements.

Regarding NEC and Non-metalic cable the sections previously quoted incorrectly (copyright violations) are not the only areas that are applicable. The NEC is available on line to be viewed in its entirety for free. The errata for previously published versions is also available to review at no cost.

Pictured are not joists they are a manufactured system. Trusses, I-joists, etc. are not dimmensional lumber joists.

I would also note the low voltage communication cable draped.

Is that fiberglass faced on the floor side? If there are systems present and/or the crawl is vented the floor/ceiling system above may require containment/fire stopping/draft blocking/protection.

It would be helpful if you would indicate what reference you "found".

Due to the direction of some of the activity and discussion on this thread I would not be surprised if you chose not to return to it. In the event that you do and chose to respond to those questions, I would be happy to offer any assistance I can to help you form your own determination as to how to phrase or address the concern. I suspect the instant report has already been completed.

[mathew stouffer]

H.G. Watson, Sr. (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/members/h-g-watson-sr.html) http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/ca_evo/statusicon/user_online.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_76819", true);
Thank you for the response. The crawl space is an earth floor vented crawl space with a vapor barrier. Moreover, the insulation has no vapor barrier, although a vapor retarder is covering the crawl space floor.

[Jerry Peck]

What's up with the off-topic, Ad hominem attack?

Not an attack, just acknowledging your accomplishments here to date.

[Jerry Peck]

I know I am correct, others know I am correct ......


You are incorrect and others here know you are incorrect.

This is the correct side, and I am on this side.

[Jim Port]

You are incorrect and others here know you are incorrect.

This is the correct side, and I am on this side.


Wrong again Jerry. You seem to be making a habit of this.

You will not be able to find a Code section that prohibits NM in a crawlspace. You seem to keep glossing over the FACTS and again stating things that are not in the code.

[Jerry Peck]

Wrong again Jerry. You seem to be making a habit of this.

Jim,

You are wrong ... AGAIN ... the code states what I and others are saying, not what Ken, you and a couple of others are saying.


You will not be able to find a Code section that prohibits NM in a crawlspace. You seem to keep glossing over the FACTS and again stating things that are not in the code.

You need to take off your ruby red glasses and stop glossing over the FACTS as the code states them.

Putting your own spin on them, or following Ken's spin, only keeps you spinning in circles, attested to by your continued posts saying the same thing without providing anything other than * "Jim Port" says otherwise, and, oh yeah, Ken says so too.*

If you have something which says something other than what the code says, post it so we can all have the benefit of your sources.

[John Steinke]

OK, here is where I must confess to being inaccurate in my use of terms. As a matter of habit, when I say "NM," or "Romex," what I almost always mean to say is "NMC." The NEC does not define "NM-B."

Type "NM" might describe the older, cloth-covered 'romex.' As the ban against this being used in "damp" locations is new to the 2008 edition, the issue is moot. The cloth-covered stuff hasn't been made in decades.

Type "NMS" supposedly also contains low voltage wires inside the same jacket as power wires ... I'm not sure I've ever seen this stuff, unless it is that really fat stuff that combines phone and co-ax cables in a single bundle - but I've never seen that stuff with power wires as well, even at sales meets. Heck, I don't know anyone who would run the data-only stuff, anywhere, for that matter.

"NMC" seems to differfrom "NM" only in that the outer sheath is 'corrosion resistant.' I can't imagine the PVC jacket we see today being anything but 'corrosion resistant.'

Yet, the packaging is clearly markes "NM-B." I suspect that only Southwire knows what that means.

Now, let's look at the classification of the area. I note that even "NM" is allowed in 'normally dry' areas. While many would allow for a crawl space to be considered 'damp,' it certainly is also 'normally dry.' The NEC fails to define 'normally dry.'

Is "damp" an issue? Perhaps, but I would not worry unless the wires terminated in that 'damp' area. If the wires are simply passing through, with all connections somewhere else, I would consider it a non-issue. (This reasoning parallels the 'pass through' allowance of EMT in hazardous locations). If PVC makes for a good water pipe, a jacket of PVC ought to do a fine job of protecting nylon and PVC insulated wire from a little occasional humidity.

Finally, if the crawl space truly is 'damp,' to the point that mold and mushrooms prosper .... a little Romex passing through is the least of your concerns. If you're in Florida, that 'cute raccoon' just might be an alligator :D

[Fred Warner]

OK, here is where I must confess to being inaccurate in my use of terms. As a matter of habit, when I say "NM," or "Romex," what I almost always mean to say is "NMC." The NEC does not define "NM-B."

:D

You're still being inaccurate when you refer to NM-B as NMC. NMC is non-metallic Corrosive and is constructed differently than NM-B. NMC is permitted in damp locations, NM-B is not.

[Jim Port]

Jerry,

Cut and post the exact section of 334.12 that specifically mentions crawlspaces and prove your point that NM is not allowed. This should take you quite a while since it is not there.

If NM is not allowed in a crawlspace why did the code making panel feel it was needed to specifically mention CRAWLSPACES in 334.15?

Again you are on the wrong side.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,

Cut and post the exact section of 334.12 that specifically mentions crawlspaces and prove your point that NM is not allowed. This should take you quite a while since it is not there.

For starters, it has already been posted in posts #6, 10, 13, 15 above (if I got the numbers correct). :p

However, you have not yet posted the code *which allows NM (which is NM-B) in crawlspaces. :rolleyes:


If NM is not allowed in a crawlspace why did the code making panel feel it was needed to specifically mention CRAWLSPACES in 334.15?

It is, go back and read it. :rolleyes:


Again you are on the wrong side.

You can, and probably will, keep saying that, and you will still be wrong each and every single time you repeat that, you are incorrect, as as the other couple of people who think like you do. :rolleyes:

[Jim Port]

Jerry,

In your post #34 you switch sides. At first you say it is prohibited by the reasons in post #6, #10,... etc. Then you say that it is permited by 334.15(C). Seems like you might be able to finally see what myself and others have said. NM is allowed in a crawlspace.

A crawlspace is not necessarily a wet or damp location and as such would be a dry area. NM is clearly allowed in dry areas. You have focused on a condition that may prohibit its' use, not that it cannot be used.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,

In your post #34 you switch sides. At first you say it is prohibited by the reasons in post #6, #10,... etc. Then you say that it is permited by 334.15(C).

Nope, must be that reading thing of yours.


Seems like you might be able to finally see what myself and others have said. NM is allowed in a crawlspace.

Nope. It's that reading thing of yours again.


A crawlspace is not necessarily a wet or damp location and as such would be a dry area.

The reverse is true: A crawlspace is not a dry area, and thus is (at the least) a damp area.


NM is clearly allowed in dry areas.

Correct. So no YOU are agreeing with US that NM is not allowed in crawlspaces as they are not dry areas. Excellent! :cool:


You have focused on a condition that may prohibit its' use, not that it cannot be used.

Incorrect yet again.

From the 2008 NEC. (underlining and bold are mine)
- 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.

Crawlspaces are locations where moisture migrates up through the soil and into the crawlspace, where it is then vented out.

[Stuart Brooks]

Don't you just love it when we get several people who have to have the last word wading in on a topic. Makes things interesting. I sure am glad that the nicety of conceding that one may have a different opinion does not apply here.

I, for one, don't like the idea of hanging electrical wires by metal staples.

This is one of the problems with Building codes. One AHJ inspector interprets something one way from the next AHJ inspector (in the same locality). No wonder contractors go nuts. I guess that where local code review boards come into play.

[John Steinke]

Fred, I am not able to find any definition as to just what is "NM-B." Strictly speaking, since "NM-B" is not listed as an approved wiring method in the NEC, then it cannot be used for anything.

Perhaps you are referring to some manufacturers' brand name? Or some other criteria? In any case, what does the listing information on the cable say? That is, what does UL call it? We can't really discuss this without knowing just what it is we're discussing.

[Jim Port]

Jerry,

As seems to be your habit you have distorted my answers again. I did not agree that crawlspaces are a damp area. I said they can be. Totally different. Cars can be blue, not all cars are blue but they can still be cars.

I am guessing from your description of a crawlspace you have never seen on with a poured slab. The only difference between it and a basement would be the headroom issue. I have also been in crawlspaces that would choke you from all the soil dust that kicks up while trying to work there.

[Fred Warner]

Fred, I am not able to find any definition as to just what is "NM-B." Strictly speaking, since "NM-B" is not listed as an approved wiring method in the NEC, then it cannot be used for anything.

Perhaps you are referring to some manufacturers' brand name? Or some other criteria? In any case, what does the listing information on the cable say? That is, what does UL call it? We can't really discuss this without knowing just what it is we're discussing.


ul-719.12 (http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/0719.html)

John: This link is to the standard on NM. Actually NMB includes NM and NMC. NMC is permitted in damp locations, NM (standard "romex") is not.

[Jerry Peck]

As seems to be your habit you have distorted my answers again. I did not agree that crawlspaces are a damp area. I said they can be. Totally different. Cars can be blue, not all cars are blue but they can still be cars.

Oh ... you mean like when you distorted my answers to try to make it seem like I agreed with you?

Got it. You can do that with my comments, but I am not allowed to do the same with yours. I will try to remember that. Sounds like Watson speaking 'you really should stop doing this' and then he does just the opposite and keeps on doing it.

Mental note to self: Jim and Watson like to be treated differently than they treat others. Do as they say, not as they do. Got it. :rolleyes:

[Jerry Peck]

ul-719.12 (http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/0719.html)

John: This link is to the standard on NM. Actually NMB includes NM and NMC. NMC is permitted in damp locations, NM (standard "romex") is not.

Fred,

Thank you for that link, quite informative and directly applicable to the discussion at hand.

Thank you,

[Fred Warner]

Fred,

Thank you for that link, quite informative and directly applicable to the discussion at hand.

Thank you,

My pleasure, Jerry. :)

[Jim Port]

Jerry,

I did not distort your answer. I was pointing out that in your post #34 that you contradict yourself. First you say it is prohibited then you agree that 334.15 allows it.

Too bad that the quotes in that post don't carry over into another quote.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,

I did not distort your answer. I was pointing out that in your post #34 that you contradict yourself. First you say it is prohibited then you agree that 334.15 allows it.

Nope, not what that says. You are distorting it to say it says what you want to say it says. Seems to be a common thing you do.

[Jim Port]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Port http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/ca_evo/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/electrical-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/12422-romex-running-under-joist.html#post76889)
Jerry,

Cut and post the exact section of 334.12 that specifically mentions crawlspaces and prove your point that NM is not allowed. This should take you quite a while since it is not there.


For starters, it has already been posted in posts #6, 10, 13, 15 above (if I got the numbers correct). :p

OK, here you say it is prohibited.

However, you have not yet posted the code *which allows NM (which is NM-B) in crawlspaces. :rolleyes:


Quote:

If NM is not allowed in a crawlspace why did the code making panel feel it was needed to specifically mention CRAWLSPACES in 334.15?

It is, go back and read it. :rolleyes:

Here you say it is permited.

Sounds like a Kerry flip-flop to me.

[ken horak]

I am finding it hard to believe that this is going on still.
It's real simple is NM allowed or not?
Code clearly states it is allowed in unfinished basements and CRAWL SPACES. That's in black and white in the NEC 2008 section 334.15 (C)

It seems some of you are stuck on 334.12(B)(4) Wet or Damp Locations.

How can anyone make a blanket statement about crawl spaces being wet and /or damp?
There are way too many in way too many places across the USA to make such a statement.

IF its wet or damp then it's not allowed, BUT if it's dry it IS allowed.

Pretty basic huh? No twisting going it's all in Black and White.

Jerry - Why won't you acknowledge that you have at least looked at the commentary I pointed you to?????? Has anyone else looked at the commentary in the NEC Handbook? It's the commentary following section 334.15 (C) page 377 in the 2008 NEC Handbook

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Thank you for the response. The crawl space is an earth floor vented crawl space with a vapor barrier. Moreover, the insulation has no vapor barrier, although a vapor retarder is covering the crawl space floor.

Mathew Stouffer,

It is unfortunate that your topic string has been hijacked by others who ignore your own posts.

That unconditioned natural ventilation crawlspace would be considered a damp location. Condensation would be likely as you describe it, poor choice of insulation materials for the as-described crawl space.

There are a multitude of issues with this crawl space's "rats nest"(as you called it) although hosting a mouse colony might be more likely:) .

Yes the draped unsecured, twisted, bundled cable, not maintaining spacing, and intermixed with comunications cable and low voltage is a problem. Not too keen on the pex draped below either.

The draping/unsupported cable not permitted. It does not meet either 334.20(B)(1) or (2) of 2005 NEC.

Regarding your orginal post. Perhaps the NEC, 2008 edition. 2005 was not as specific about crawl spaces but the intent was clear, 2008 was changed to reflect the intent of the prior edition while it was re-numbered.

2005 NEC 334.15 (C) discusses this being prohibited in unfinished basements. Except for two 6 awg or three 8 awg cables which may be secured directly to the lower edges of the joists, all smaller cables have to be run either through bored holes in joists or on running boards

This was clarified to include same requirements for crawlspaces and unfinished basements and crawlspaces in the 2008 NEC at 334.15(C).

Both editions mentioned above the sub-sections are titled Exposed Work.

Unfinished does not mean unconditioned. NM-B doesn't belong in unconditioned naturally ventillated crawlspace.

How was the ski season?

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry - Why won't you acknowledge that you have at least looked at the commentary I pointed you to?????? Has anyone else looked at the commentary in the NEC Handbook? It's the commentary following section 334.15 (C) page 377 in the 2008 NEC Handbook

Ken,

It is because that comment, which runs through to, and including, drawing Exhibit 334.1, is *all about protection from physical damage*, which, in case you have not yet noticed, is not what this discussion is about. The discussion has been about the use of NM-B (as differentiated from NMC-B) and its use in crawlspaces because of crawlspaces being damp locations.

However, if the mis-direction to that commentary in the Handbook is to bring this discussion to "protection from physical damage in crawlspaces", then, yes, I will have to agree that I was incorrect when I stated (in post #3 of this thread):

John is correct with regard to a crawlspace, there is limited danger to the cables being damaged if properly secured, ...

You are quite correct that ALL NMC CABLES IN CRAWLSPACES are required to be protected from physical damage similar to that protection provided in unfinished basements, and, in fact, that commentary points out that crawlspaces ARE MORE DANGEROUS than unfinished basements as regards to being subject to physical damage: "Section 334.15(C) was revised for the 2008 Code to include crawl spaces. Crawl spaces pose dangers similar to those of unfinished basements and in some case are more dangerous due to limited height." The commentary then continues on about protection from physical damage.

Thus, not only was I wrong about stating that protection from physical damage was not as needed in crawlspaces (I reasoned that would be the case because fewer people would go in crawlspaces than go in unfinished basements, therefor the risk was lower), when, in fact, the code has elevated the risk level due to "limited height".

SO, based on that acknowledgment, that the code is actually implying that crawlspaces need MORE ATTENTION TO PROTECTION FROM PHYSICAL DAMAGE than unfinished basements, what on earth makes you think the code would even consider relaxing its requirements regarding "damp locations" for those very same "limited height" 'elevated danger' crawl spaces?

Ken, I am not sure why you kept insisting on re-directing the discussion, but, being as you did, I went with you in that direction, and, lo and behold, the VERY SAME REASONING the code uses to elevate the dangers of exposure to physical damage IS THE VERY SAME REASONING the code would not relax any requirements for prohibitions against using NM-B in damp locations.

You did well on that one. You pointed out a very good cause and explanation as to why the code WOULD NOT REDUCE any prohibition against NM-B use a damp location like a crawlspace, heaven forbid a worker get in there and become engaged in un-approved NM-B in a damp location, the code is about minimum levels of safety and they recognized the elevated safety necessary in crawl spaces.

Combine that commentary with the UL information Fred provided and it is CLEAR why the code DOES NOT WANT NM-B IN CRAWL SPACES. :cool:

THANK YOU for forcing that to the forefront of this discussion! :D

[Jerry Peck]

It is sounding like HG's opinion of NM-B being used in a crawlspace and my opinion are not that far apart, actually quite similar.

To clarify the type of crawlspace under discussion, I'll take us back to post #6 above:

You do not know how much time I've spend talking about that with others, and I'm not talking about "sealed crawlspaces" with moisture barrier sealed all around, I'm talking about those 'open air' (vented) crawlspaces, most (many) of which have no moisture barrier down on the dirt.

In my opinion, crawlspaces (even sealed ones to a degree) are not "dry locations", they are "damp locations".

I have come to agree with Ken on his post regarding protection of physical damage in a crawl space (although I doubt that it was Ken's intent to get into that protection from physical damage aspect, his insistence on applying that commentary took us there as that is what that commentary is about).

I'm just not sure that Ken agrees with Ken on the protection from physical damage he so adamantly insisted we look at and get into. :)

[Jim Port]

Combine that commentary with the UL information Fred provided and it is CLEAR why the code DOES NOT WANT NM-B IN CRAWL SPACES. :cool:

THANK YOU for forcing that to the forefront of this discussion! :D

If the code making panels don't want the possibility of NM in a crawlspace they certainly don't give that impression by clearly allowing it. If that was their true intent they could have easily listed it under "Uses not permitted", but they didn't so it is allowed.

I am starting to think that regardless of how many times it it pointed out that it is allowed under certain conditions some people will still refuse to admit it.:confused:

Just because someone does not agree with the code does not change the fact of what is in black and white. If you don't like it you can always submit a proposed change along with the substantiation.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

An unfinished ceiling cavity of an unconditoned crawl space which has natural ventillation is at a minimum a damp location.

Just as Unfinished basements.

The section is Exposed Work.

Type NM both the eariler NM and the present NM-B is not for other than DRY locations.

Some crawl spaces are conditoned and closed, and likewise have a sealed floor. In Dry conditioned crawl spaces with unfinished ceiling cavity (exposed work) NM-B would be permitted; however, not installed as pictured on the original post.

[ken horak]

Jerry your twisting again -
You are the one who started the entire issue of protection in unfinished basements. Matter if fact you cut and pasted a ton of useless to this topic information about it.
The commentary you so quickly are trying to twist to one side the protecion in unfinished basements- WHAT ABOUT the faxt it states crawl spaces also? The last paragraph clearly describes how to install NM in a crawl space. The exhibit staes that it is a crawl space.
It was nice of you to quote part of the commentary though.
Why do you keep insisting that every crawl space is a damp location?
Have you even been in one?
Have you been in crawl spaces in EVERY part of the USA?
Have you done studies or researched them in every part of the USA?
ARe youjust baseing you blanket statement on your LIMITED exposure?
I invite you to come to my area to see those dusty, full of cob webs, dirt DRY crawls spaces.
I even admitted that NOT evry crawl space is wet/damp or dry, as there are all 3 in this country. Why do you have such a problem admitting the same?

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry your twisting again -


Ken, Ken, Ken,

I'm not the one twisting, you are, you are out on a limb and that limb is blowing in the breeze, you feel as though you are going to fall off, and, if you do not come down out off that limb, you will likely fall off. The more you twist the more you expose yourself to falling off.

I keep explaining the same thing over and over and over again, and I use whatever tools you throw my way.

The last time you threw a tool my way which included the meandering off to physical protection, so I took that tool and used it to explain to you where you are wrong.

I am trying to figure out what it is you do not understand, and thus how best to explain it to you.

Tell you what, being as you don't seem to be able to understand what it is I am telling you, why not ask Fred, or HG, maybe they have a larger vocabulary and higher education (I'm just a small town boy who graduated from high school and never had no coleege edumacation), maybe one of those two fellers are smarter than I am and can 'splain it to you in a way in which you will understand it.

In fact, you can start by reading their posts above.

If they can't do help you, I'm not sure I can either, but I am willing to try as long as you are willing to try.

If you don't want to ask them, take two aspirins and check with me in the morning. :)

[ken horak]

Pardon me ,but you sir are the one who went wandering off course- posting sections about protection.

I asked a simple basic question that you do not want to answer.

Why do you feel all crawl spaces in the USA are all wet / damp locations?
What are you basing your findings on?

Everyone here already agreed that NM is allowed in dry locations.

It seems the only issue anymore is the fact you and some others keep saying a crawl space is a wet/damp location but offer no proof other then you own opinions.

What legally recognized code clearly states that ALL crawl spaces across the USA are wet/damp locations. The point is ALL crawl spaces in the ENTIRE USA.

The NEC does NOT state that anywhere in it.

[Jerry Peck]

Pardon me ,but you sir are the one who went wandering off course- posting sections about protection.



Nope, no siree ... YOU INSISTED on me, and "anyone else", reading that commentary YOU REFERRED TO. Go back and re-read YOUR POST #47, for posterity in case you decide to edit it and change it to reflect something else, I have quoted it below.

So I did.

And now you don't like it.

Possibly, just possibly, you should have read the commentary yourself first and thought 'Ummm, do I really want to bring protection from physical damage into this discussion.', but you did not, and you INSISTED on it.

From YOUR POST #47:

Jerry - Why won't you acknowledge that you have at least looked at the commentary I pointed you to?????? Has anyone else looked at the commentary in the NEC Handbook? It's the commentary following section 334.15 (C) page 377 in the 2008 NEC Handbook

[Jim Port]

Ken,

I really don't expect you to get a straight answer. Seems when someone cannot backup their assertions the questions that get asked get conveniently ignored. This is probably as close as you will get.


In my opinion, crawlspaces (even sealed ones to a degree) are not "dry locations", they are "damp locations".

In my opinion, a crawlspace *is not a "dry location" *. A crawlspace *is* a "damp location".

:) I exaggerated on the 'you and me only' people, but the number of inspectors and electrical chiefs I've known who have called crawlspaces "damp locations" can be counted on *both hands*, don't have to use my toes ... as I've still got fingers not counted yet. :D

Seems like he has little support for his opinion too. Maybe others have actually seen the elusive dry crawlspace.

[John Steinke]

Thank you, Fred, for the link.

Now it is clear ..."NM-B" is a form of NM, and not NMC.

This leaves us with the remaining issue: is a crawl space "normally dry," or is it "damp?." There hangs the issue.

Just how much moisture, how often, makes the difference?

I would submit that either crawl spaces are considered 'normally dry,' or thet the use of NM in houses is almost impossible to do legally. It's a pretty agressive stance to assert that nearly every house is wired incorrectly.

[ken horak]

Jerry-
Wrong AGAIN you sir started the protection issue in post #10. You even did the jerry peck special and underlined.

I simply was referring you to a commentary that explained NM in a Crawl space and you chose to grab one part of it and only one part of it.

Are you afraid to answer my questions,or can you not back up your OPINIONS. I HAVE backed up my FACTS

[Fred Warner]

Thank you, Fred, for the link.

Now it is clear ..."NM-B" is a form of NM, and not NMC.

This leaves us with the remaining issue: is a crawl space "normally dry," or is it "damp?." There hangs the issue.

Just how much moisture, how often, makes the difference?

I would submit that either crawl spaces are considered 'normally dry,' or thet the use of NM in houses is almost impossible to do legally. It's a pretty agressive stance to assert that nearly every house is wired incorrectly.

Beginning with the 1984 NEC, the construction of nonmetallic-sheathed cable was changed From type NM to type NM-B. The newer cable contains conductors rated at 90*C rather than the earlier 60*C.

I'm in the school that recognizes that some environments are only damp for short periods of time, such as a building under construction or a crawl space that allows ground water to seep in at the spring of the year. So there would certainly be acceptions.

The AHJ must determine whether a location is damp. Often this is overlooked and left to the electrician of record who will install NM-B in a damp location. Doing so can have a deleterious effect on the equipment grounding conductor which is only protected by a paper cover. This allows corrosion to occur which eventually can effect the conductor's ability to carry fault-current intended to open a circuit breaker or fuse. Using a proper wiring method would better protect the EGC. Of course, in a dry crawl space this would not come into concern.:)

[Jerry Peck]

I simply was referring you to a commentary that explained NM in a Crawl space and you chose to grab one part of it and only one part of it.


Incorrect again.

YOU selected ONE SENTENCE out of that entire commentary to try to back you up, when that ONE SENTENCE was the first sentence in the commentary explanation and was all about protection from physical damage.

*YOU* tried to pull one sentence out of context, *I* simply kept that one sentence in the context in which it was presented.

You are reaching and stretching for anything you can think of which might save you from being wrong, and I'm not faulting you for that, I am, though, pointing out the fallacies associated with each of those grasping straws you put out in your defense.

Keep grasping for those straws, if you find one which supports your position and post it, I will explain why it does so, until then, though, all I can do is explain why they do not support your position.

[Jerry Peck]

This leaves us with the remaining issue: is a crawl space "normally dry," or is it "damp?." There hangs the issue.

Just how much moisture, how often, makes the difference?

I would submit that either crawl spaces are considered 'normally dry,' or thet the use of NM in houses is almost impossible to do legally. It's a pretty agressive stance to assert that nearly every house is wired incorrectly.

John,

"It's a pretty agressive stance to assert that nearly every house is wired incorrectly."

It was that very same stance which took place that resulted in NM-B being brought out to replace NM-A (NM-A for lack of an other designation, there had only been 'NM' up to that point, but that is why they used -B after the new NM). Someone recognized that the original 60 degree C conductors run through attics made it such "that nearly every house is wired incorrectly". They talked to others about it, who talked to others, who set up meetings and discussions, and, eventually, the result was ... a recognition "that nearly every house is wired incorrectly" and we need to do something about that, which resulted in changing the conductors to 90 degree C rated insulation and NM became NM-B.

Yes, that is a big stance to take, but, it has been done in the past, so it is not out of the question to do it again.

I have two questions for you.

1) Would you allow NM (NM-B) to be installed outdoors (if labeled for sunlight resistant)?

2) How about in the area formed by the triangle of Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Palm Springs? That area has an annual rainfall of less than 8 inches, meaning that it is "normally dry".

In 2) above, that area probably have less moisture in rainfall annually than the total moisture in most crawl spaces should the daily moisture rising from the ground not be vented out but captured and measured.

~~~~~~

For those who do not think there is moisture rising from the ground, do this: Lay out a sheet of plastic moisture barrier over some 2x4s, say a 10 feet by 10 feet piece with the 2x4 resting on a crate of some type in the center to create a high point, lay a rock in the middle of the high point to create a drip point, place a pan below that drip. You have now created a rudimentary 'moisture collection and measuring' device.

Now, on a daily basis, go in and measure the amount of water in the pan in the early morning after the sun has risen.

How much water has collected on the underside of the plastic 'tent' shaped moisture barrier? How much water has accumulated in the pan under the drip?

Your response is 'Well, there was some water/moisture in the pan, but not enough to really measure, and yes there was some condensation on the underside of the moisture barrier.'

In which case there is no need to try to do the math, the simple fact of moisture/water being present would be that you have documented that the crawl space is not "normally dry", that the crawl space is a "damp" location

If you do not collect any water or moisture, then, yes, you would have documented that the crawl space was "normally dry" - but that documentation would need to continue throughout all seasons for the data to establish it was "normally dry".

Report back here monthly for the next 12 months with your observations and then we can address your findings. :D

[Fred Warner]

If this thread is going to go on for 12 months, I'll be right back, I'm gonna get some popcorn and cola. :D

[mathew stouffer]

Ok, I know this is going to add gas to the fire but the crawl space floor is very wet. Moreover, water is ponding in areas of the crawl space and there is mold on the ceiling of the crawl space.

Mat

[Fred Warner]

Ok, I know this is going to add gas to the fire but the crawl space floor is very wet. Moreover, water is ponding in areas of the crawl space and there is mold on the ceiling of the crawl space.

Mat

"Damp Location".:)

[Roland Miller]

Type NM cable is for use in normally dry locations. This wording from the UL standard implies that occasional departure from normal to damp or wet location would be acceptable for using NM cable. Not a very clear statement.

Also to address something Jeff said--There are lots of dry crawl spaces in this state and an occasional area that contains damp crawl spaces. It then becomes the responsiblity of the BO or EI to define these spaces. In general, I have not seen any issues with NM installed regardless of dampness.

[ken horak]

MR.peck,
How in the world can you say I grabbed one sentence out of the commentary, when I never even quoted any of it? I simply tried to get you to read it and admit your errors. The commentary covers ALL aspects of unfinished basements & crawl spaces. Both the protection of wiring(that you drug into this in post #10)and the fact the NM IS ALLOWED.

WHY WILL YOU NOT BACK UP YOUR OPINIONS LIKE i ASK YOU?
WOULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST THAT - OPINIONS?

everyone agrees( except you) that NM is allowed by the NEC in a crawl space, and that NM is not allowed in damp/wet locations.



Now that part you can't or won't admit to- NOT EVERY CRAWL SPACE IS DAMP. YOU say they are - show the written documentation that clearly declares EVERY CRAWL SPACE IN THE USA as damp/wet. LEGAL documentation that is not your ramblings.

OK Jerry - time for you to twist and shake some more, go ahead cut and paste a ton of posts everyone has already read.Maybe you'll insult me or some others some more also:rolleyes:

Here's an idea - how about we post this question over at Mike Holts forum to see what they think?
Their a bunch of smart,professional people over there. What do you say????

[Jim Port]

Sounds like the gauntlet has been thrown. Will he answer the challenge?

Stay tuned.

[Jerry Peck]

I have no idea what Jim is talking about, guess he means Ken 'took the gloves off'. From his posts, I was not aware that he was wearing any gloves to take off.

However, *I AM* truly amazed that Ken feels he needs to ask my permission to ask a question someplace else.

And, yes, you may go to the bathroom now, here is a note for the hallway. :D

[Jim Port]

Surprised that someone can't figure out a common expression. The gauntlet has been thrown means a challenge has been issued. I think Ken was asking if you were up to seeing what an educated group of people would think about this topic and how they would respond.

Seems like a courtesy to ask before getting others involved, lest someones feeling get hurt.

[Jerry Peck]

Seems like a courtesy to ask before getting others involved, lest someones feeling get hurt.


Unless Ken's feelings are apt to get hurt, I am STILL shocked and amazed that Ken needs to ask for permission, and that he needs his buddy Jim to reply on his behalf.

[Roland Miller]

Does anyone use and reference NPFA 73??

[ken horak]

1) I am not asking permission
2) I was showing some common courtesy as it is your name also that would be brought in when referencing these posts.
3) WHY would my feelings get hurt?
4) WHY would I be wearing gloves - It's not like I'm going up against a heavy hitter.
5)My buddy? I have never met Jim. He does seem to be a knowledgeable person when it comes to dealing with electrical issues. I would not hesitate to ask him for advice on any electrical issues in the future.
6) The reason your shocked is, most likely you are next to a pool you did and failed to install the equipotential grid properly

[John Kogel]

Maybe it's not correct, but they'd run me outa town if I called out every crawlspace I see with NM? wire stapled under the joists. Who wants to crawl in and fix them?
John Kogel
www.allsafehome (http://www.allsafehome) .ca

Here's what some Mike Holt sparkys had to say.

Mike Holt's Forum > NEC
The use of "NM" cable
#1 04-14-2005, 07:45 AM
kevinware
Senior Member Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 156

The use of "NM" cable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As defined by article 100 a "damp location" is one protected from weather and not subject to saturation with water or other liquids but subject to moderate degrees of moisture. Would a crawl space under a house fall under this definition? Article 334.10(A)(1) states (A)"type NM cable shall be permitted as follows"
(1) For both exposed and concealed work in normally dry locations except as prohibited in 334.10(3). Section 334.10(B)(1) states the NMC cable shall be permitted in both exposed and concealed work in dry, moist, damp, or corrosive locations, except as prohibited in 334.10(3). Does the NEC by definition require me to use "NMC" in the crawl space or can I use "NM cable"????
Thanks for all your help,
Kevin
kevinware
View Public Profile
Send a private message to kevinware
Find all posts by kevinware
#2 04-14-2005, 09:38 AM
steve66
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,461

Re: The use of "NM" cable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal opinion: You are ok if the wire is supported from the bottom of the joists. There the wire wouldn't be subject to moisture, just some humidity.
If you are laying it on the ground, I think that would be a damp or even wet location.
Steve
steve66
View Public Profile
Send a private message to steve66
Find all posts by steve66



Mike Holt's Forum > NEC
Wiring in crawl space
#1 08-21-2007, 05:30 PM
mikederuby
Junior Member Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13

Wiring in crawl space
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a school with a ventilated crawl space. Which location is this are classified as (damp, wet or dry)? Will set screw fitting be OK?
mikederuby
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mikederuby
Find all posts by mikederuby
#2 08-21-2007, 05:41 PM
Physis 3
Guest Posts: n/a


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't article 100 handle this question?
Physis 3
#3 08-21-2007, 05:52 PM
mikederuby
Junior Member Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I looked to article 100 and still had to question if the crawl space would be an area not normally subject to dampness or wetness due to the ventilation fans installed. One could consider this area a dry location I would think.
mikederuby
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mikederuby
Find all posts by mikederuby
#4 08-21-2007, 05:53 PM
mdshunk
Banned Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Right here.
Posts: 12,327


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If any crawl space is "normally wet", then it's a failure mode and not a normal condition. I'd wire it like any other crawl space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by mdshunk; 08-21-2007 at 06:04 PM.
mdshunk
View Public Profile
Find all posts by mdshunk
#5 08-21-2007, 06:08 PM
raider1
Moderator Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: North Logan, Utah
Posts: 3,475


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could be damp or dry check out the definitions of location damp, and location dry in Article 100. Either way, set screw fittings would be acceptable.
Chris

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Ok, I know this is going to add gas to the fire but the crawl space floor is very wet. Moreover, water is ponding in areas of the crawl space and there is mold on the ceiling of the crawl space.

Mat

IIRC you previously posted the crawl had an earthen base covered only with a vapor barrier or vapor retarder, and was vented/open to the outdoors.

Is this crawl considered completed and final or is this incomplete, suspended, in-progress, building or remodeling work?


Mathew Stouffer,

It is unfortunate that your topic string has been hijacked by others who ignore your own posts.

That unconditioned natural ventilation crawlspace would be considered a damp location. Condensation would be likely as you describe it, poor choice of insulation materials for the as-described crawl space.

There are a multitude of issues with this crawl space's "rats nest"(as you called it) although hosting a mouse colony might be more likely:) .

Yes the draped unsecured, twisted, bundled cable, not maintaining spacing, and intermixed with comunications cable and low voltage is a problem. Not too keen on the pex draped below either.

The draping/unsupported cable not permitted. It does not meet either 334.20(B)(1) or (2) of 2005 NEC.

Regarding your orginal post. Perhaps the NEC, 2008 edition. 2005 was not as specific about crawl spaces but the intent was clear, 2008 was changed to reflect the intent of the prior edition while it was re-numbered.

2005 NEC 334.15 (C) discusses this being prohibited in unfinished basements. Except for two 6 awg or three 8 awg cables which may be secured directly to the lower edges of the joists, all smaller cables have to be run either through bored holes in joists or on running boards

This was clarified to include same requirements for crawlspaces and unfinished basements and crawlspaces in the 2008 NEC at 334.15(C).

Both editions mentioned above the sub-sections are titled Exposed Work.

Unfinished does not mean unconditioned. NM-B doesn't belong in unconditioned naturally ventillated crawlspace.

How was the ski season?


An unfinished ceiling cavity of an unconditoned crawl space which has natural ventillation is at a minimum a damp location.

Just as Unfinished basements.

The section is Exposed Work.

Type NM both the eariler NM and the present NM-B is not for other than DRY locations.

Some crawl spaces are conditoned and closed, and likewise have a sealed floor. In Dry conditioned crawl spaces with unfinished ceiling cavity (exposed work) NM-B would be permitted; however, not installed as pictured on the original post.

Mathew Stouffer,

The UL White Book as well as the edition of the NEC with local amendments in place at the time of the work might prove helpful, you would be in a better position locally to contact the AHJ and inquire regarding the local conditions. As you have indicated the crawl space of discussion has a multitude of "issues" beyond the choice of materials for the electrical system.

It seems there are those who would rather nit pick a singular issue rather than address your original post, photographs and further contributions to your own topic string, and direct their posts on-topic (your topic).

The structural members are clearly marked, I would further suggest you would be better served if you looked into the specifications for those members. You will find that there are specific guidelines as to where in the web they may and may not be bored or knocked out.

I hope you have enough information in a timely enough manner to form your report. Hope that helps.

Regards,

H.G.

[Jerry Peck]

MR.peck,
How in the world can you say I grabbed one sentence out of the commentary, when I never even quoted any of it? I simply tried to get you to read it and admit your errors. The commentary covers ALL aspects of unfinished basements & crawl spaces. Both the protection of wiring(that you drug into this in post #10)and the fact the NM IS ALLOWED.

WHY WILL YOU NOT BACK UP YOUR OPINIONS LIKE i ASK YOU?
WOULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST THAT - OPINIONS?

everyone agrees( except you) that NM is allowed by the NEC in a crawl space, and that NM is not allowed in damp/wet locations.



Now that part you can't or won't admit to- NOT EVERY CRAWL SPACE IS DAMP. YOU say they are - show the written documentation that clearly declares EVERY CRAWL SPACE IN THE USA as damp/wet. LEGAL documentation that is not your ramblings.

OK Jerry - time for you to twist and shake some more, go ahead cut and paste a ton of posts everyone has already read.Maybe you'll insult me or some others some more also:rolleyes:

Here's an idea - how about we post this question over at Mike Holts forum to see what they think?
Their a bunch of smart,professional people over there. What do you say????


2) I was showing some common courtesy as it is your name also that would be brought in when referencing these posts.

Ken,

Your post was certainly NOT anything close to showing "common courtesy". :rolleyes:

Talk about trying to switch things around. :eek:

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I found a section in the code that states Romex must run through joists and not be stapled to the underside. Does this include crawl space installations. Romex in photos is hanging along the underside of some joists and running through punch outs in others. The whole thing is a rats nest.

Thank you
Mat


H.G. Watson, Sr. (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/members/h-g-watson-sr.html) http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/ca_evo/statusicon/user_online.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_76819", true);
Thank you for the response. The crawl space is an earth floor vented crawl space with a vapor barrier. Moreover, the insulation has no vapor barrier, although a vapor retarder is covering the crawl space floor.


Ok, I know this is going to add gas to the fire but the crawl space floor is very wet. Moreover, water is ponding in areas of the crawl space and there is mold on the ceiling of the crawl space.

Mat

Mathew Stouffer (Mat),

With the latest "wrinkle" of the pooled water and suspected fungus or mold in the previously described crawlspace ceiling/floor assembly above, it seems there are more important structural issues beyond the ripped non-circular or square holes, and the Chapter 3 wiring issues.

It looks to me that those are residential Weyerhaeuser TJI (R) Series Joists (Prefabricated Wood I-Joists). I cannot make see enough in the pictures to completely identify (size, type) except that it is obvious regarding manufacturer (hint CCMC number). From what I can make out from the photos they appear to be non-vented webs and sawn lumber flanges (as opposed to "Microllam(R) LVL or "TimberStrand(R) LSL). I recall them being "orange boxed" as "TJI (R) joists are intended for dry-use applications" in the now discontinued (for that vintage) specifiers.

Although the HUD Code report has subsequently been revised (presently rev. 11) and I can't locate the HUD 6/89 revision dated 07-07-06, I am confident that they were even then for dry use locations.

For your information I offer a link to the revision 11 code report (HUD): http://www.ilevel.com/literature/HUDSEB689Rev11.pdf
Canadian standards are even stricter limiting in-use at 15% MC and no history of exceeding even brief periods of 19% prior to in use.

Moisture probing (invasive) and structural integrity/engineering evaulations are usually beyond the skill set and perview of the general HI.

A strongly recommend referral/deferral to Structural Engineer (and environmental engineer) as necessary the integrity of the structural ceiling/floor material (TJI's and sub-floor) over the crawl may be compromised - disclaimer and specialized inspection, analysis and report warranted. At this point (sharing of additional conditions of the crawl space area) the other concerns and possible remediations are akin to "putting the cart before the horse".

The presence of the standing water, moist TJIs, plates, insulation, and the presence of suspected mold/fungus (recommend you documment/photograph) should be noted in conjunction with the other areas of concern regarding the electrical system installation, less-than-round or square rip-outs, and insulation issues mentioned in my prior posts.

You may still be able to acquire now discontinued from the website library technical documents applicable to the TJIs I'm not sure, perhaps if you call and ask of the technical department at (Truss Joist TJI contact) 1-888-453-8358 iLevel by Weyerhaeuser (http://www.iLevel.com) or iLevel@weyerhaeuser.com

Hope that helps,
H.G.

P.S. It is unfortunate and discourteous that others posting on this string ignore your contributions to it, as it is a subject string that you, yourself created.

[Jerry Peck]

P.S. It is unfortunate and discourteous that others posting on this string ignore your contributions to it, as it is a subject string that you, yourself created.

That coming from the master of courtesy, honesty and integrity???? :rolleyes:

[Jerry Peck]

Mat's original question:

I found a section in the code that states Romex must run through joists and not be stapled to the underside. Does this include crawl space installations. Romex in photos is hanging along the underside of some joists and running through punch outs in others. The whole thing is a rats nest.

Thank you
Mat

Was answered to a great extent by this:

Ken,

It is because that comment, which runs through to, and including, drawing Exhibit 334.1, is *all about protection from physical damage*, which, in case you have not yet noticed, is not what this discussion is about. The discussion has been about the use of NM-B (as differentiated from NMC-B) and its use in crawlspaces because of crawlspaces being damp locations.

However, if the mis-direction to that commentary in the Handbook is to bring this discussion to "protection from physical damage in crawlspaces", then, yes, I will have to agree that I was incorrect when I stated (in post #3 of this thread):


You are quite correct that ALL NMC CABLES IN CRAWLSPACES are required to be protected from physical damage similar to that protection provided in unfinished basements, and, in fact, that commentary points out that crawlspaces ARE MORE DANGEROUS than unfinished basements as regards to being subject to physical damage: "Section 334.15(C) was revised for the 2008 Code to include crawl spaces. Crawl spaces pose dangers similar to those of unfinished basements and in some case are more dangerous due to limited height." The commentary then continues on about protection from physical damage.

Thus, not only was I wrong about stating that protection from physical damage was not as needed in crawlspaces (I reasoned that would be the case because fewer people would go in crawlspaces than go in unfinished basements, therefor the risk was lower), when, in fact, the code has elevated the risk level due to "limited height".

SO, based on that acknowledgment, that the code is actually implying that crawlspaces need MORE ATTENTION TO PROTECTION FROM PHYSICAL DAMAGE than unfinished basements, what on earth makes you think the code would even consider relaxing its requirements regarding "damp locations" for those very same "limited height" 'elevated danger' crawl spaces?

The second question which arose from this post:
(My apologies for reposting this Fred, hopefully you will not get caught in the crapola being thrown at me ;) - this is to help "answer" the thread.)

I don't see relief in the code just because the NM is in the crawl space. It still has to comply with Article 300, wiring methods.

Also, a crawl space might actually be determined to be a damp location and then there goes the "romex" anyway.


Ok, I know this is going to add gas to the fire but the crawl space floor is very wet. Moreover, water is ponding in areas of the crawl space and there is mold on the ceiling of the crawl space.

Mat


I believe Mat answered the second question raised by Fred with that information.

THAT crawl space is not a "dry location".

Mat, I believe your questions had already been answered, but, at Watson's prodding, I combined the applicable posts to consolidate the questions and answers.

Hopefully this helps.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

That coming from the master of courtesy, honesty and integrity???? :rolleyes:

Dear Readers,

Send your complaints to: brian@hanntech.com
or PM member: Brian Hannigan
or click the REPORT button on the bottom right corner of the specific problematic poster's post.

I invite and enjoy your PMs but your concerns regarding posts by anyone other than myself should be addressed to our forum host.

Regards,
H.G.

[John Steinke]

A couple of observations ....

1- it appears the folks at Holt aren't too worried about any sort of Romex in nearly any crawl space; and,

2- Guys - and you know who you are- this juvenile bickering may be fun for you .... but it quickly becomes tedious for everyone else. If you have something on point to say, by all means sayit. Feel free to explain how you arrived at your decision. Such makes clear that you disagree with someone ... you need not suggest the other guy is 'this' or 'that.'

If someone says you're ugly, and your Mama dresses you funny - let it slide. Everyone else will be able to see what a fool the speaker is. Lincoln spoke on the topic of arguing with fools, and he's right .... it CAN be hard to tell the two of you apart.

Finally, remember that opinions are like fingers .... most have a couple handfulls of them! Don't expect everyone to hold the same you have, and there is no need for a 'last word.'

[Jerry Peck]

2- Guys - and you know who you are- this juvenile bickering may be fun for you .... but it quickly becomes tedious for everyone else.


John,

Has become very tedious here too.

[Jerry Peck]

Dear Readers,

Send your complaints to: brian@hanntech.com
or PM member: Brian Hannigan
or click the REPORT button on the bottom right corner of the specific problematic poster's post.

I invite and enjoy your PMs but your concerns regarding posts by anyone other than myself should be addressed to our forum host.

One of the few times Watson and myself seem to agree on something. :D

[Fred Warner]

A couple of observations ....

1- it appears the folks at Holt aren't too worried about any sort of Romex in nearly any crawl space; and,.....

John, as long as the area is not a "damp location" I will agree. There are many on the Mike Holt site that agree NM-B is not permitted in a "damp location." If it's not a "damp location" and all other provisions of the code are met, there certainly is not a problem with using NM-B cable in a crawl space. :)

[Jerry Peck]

John, as long as the area is not a "damp location" I will agree. There are many on the Mike Holt site that agree NM-B is not permitted in a "damp location." If it's not a "damp location" and all other provisions of the code are met, there certainly is not a problem with using NM-B cable in a crawl space. :)


Fred,

I think almost all of us here are of the same opinion: That NM-B is not allowed in "damp locations" and that if a crawl space is a "damp location" then NM-B is not allowed there.

What it gets down to, I think, and which no one as answered (but many seem to refute out of hand) is whether or not a crawlspace is a "damp location", even whether a crawl space *can be* a "damp location".

In looking at some of the areas of rainfall across the use, with large areas receiving less than 8" of rain annually, those areas are likely 'drier, and drier more often, than most of the crawl spaces we see', therefore, if NM-B is not allowed to be used outside in those locations, which are "normally dry locations" because of the chance to exposure to rain, then and likewise, NM-B should not be used in most crawl spaces.

The only difference (and it is a big difference) is that those locations with limited rainfall also would have exposure to sunlight. However, if the NM-B were protected from sunlight in a PVC conduit, even in those areas, by virtue of being outside, that PVC conduit would be deemed a "wet location".

Which brings me back to: If a location *with less moisture* is deemed a "damp location" or a "wet location", how can any crawl space be deemed a "dry location"?

Yes, I have admitted that it is a big wake up call to presume that NM-B is not allowed in any crawl space, I have been trying to wake people up to that possibility for over well 10 years, and, yes, it would take a big change to either not use NM-B in a crawl space, or to make NM-B suitable for use in a crawl space, but ...

... that same "big wake up call" was done back when NM went from 60 degree C conductor insulation to 90 degree C conductor insulation for the sole basic purpose of allowing NM-B (NM at that time) to continue to be installed in attics.

Thus, the only real difference we are talking about between the two "big wake up call" issues is one was for an attic issue (temperature) and one is for a crawl space issue (moisture/dampness). And, yes, there were many who insisted that NM was fine in attic as it had been used in attics for decades - yep it sure had, should not have been, but it sure had been.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Hint: asked original poster a question about the ski season.

Assuming the property in question is near where the original poster's listed location is - this region has design parameters for excessive snow loads both roofs and ground.

Description of the instant crawl space indicates a less-than-dry location in-use.

Can we strive to keep the discussion on-topic to the OP when the OP has a fresh/real-time question regarding inspection to report generation. A new more general topic string can easily be created for a general discussion which takes a turn beyond the scope of the original poster's situation.

IMHO when the discussion on a specifically oriented instant inspection issue(s) takes a generalist turn (debate, etc.), I think we do our friend in the industry a disservice, especially if one has a report due or pending a return visit to the property. Can we keep strive to keep a focused more helpful-oriented response towards our brothers and sisters when they reach out for real-time assistance?

We might be all better served (especially the OP's need/time-frame) if we take the more general discussion to another string and keep the original string specific and on-point/on-topic specific to the OP, when the original poster indicates a real-time concern. We've all faced deadlines - and if one is subscribed to a string looking for some resources, opinions, answers - wouldn't/isn't it frustrating to get back to the topic on the board if that's what you're expecting and one finds otherwise?

[Fred Warner]

Hint: asked original poster a question about the ski season.

Assuming the property in question is near where the original poster's listed location is - this region has design parameters for excessive snow loads both roofs and ground.

Description of the instant crawl space indicates a less-than-dry location in-use.
The mere fact that a crawl space is under a building located in a region of a state that has skiing is not in and of itself a reason to prohibit NM-B from a crawl space. The crawl space must be deemed to be a "wet location".

[Ted Menelly]

The mere fact that a crawl space is under a building located in a region of a state that has skiing is not in and of itself a reason to prohibit NM-B from a crawl space. The crawl space must be deemed to be a "wet location".

Absolutely Fred

I have been in swampy areas where the crawl space was dry as a bone year round. I have been in dry areas where half the crawls are damp to wet and the other half is dry as a bone.

Where I use to live in Mass there are homes with basements and those with crawls. Sometimes I would not put anything in some of those basements because of dampness (not water, just dampness) and then some crawls in New Hampshire or just the North East had crawls as dry as a bone.

You just don't know. The OP crawl is not only moist or damp but very wet with standing water.

[Jerry Peck]

IMHO when the discussion on a specifically oriented instant inspection issue(s) takes a generalist turn (debate, etc.), I think we do our friend in the industry a disservice, especially if one has a report due or pending a return visit to the property. Can we keep strive to keep a focused more helpful-oriented response towards our brothers and sisters when they reach out for real-time assistance?

We might be all better served (especially the OP's need/time-frame) if we take the more general discussion to another string and keep the original string specific and on-point/on-topic specific to the OP, when the original poster indicates a real-time concern. We've all faced deadlines - and if one is subscribed to a string looking for some resources, opinions, answers - wouldn't/isn't it frustrating to get back to the topic on the board if that's what you're expecting and one finds otherwise?


Many here will disagree with your controlling nature of wanting to avoid that as, in many cases, the discussions which diverge from the original question lead to unasked questions and answers which are as important and informative as was the original question.

That is the way this board has SUCCESSFULLY operated from its inception, and it is the way this board will likely successfully operate and grow from now on too.

NOT having persons with a need control those things and put those types of restrictions ON OTHERS is what has made this board so SUCCESSFUL.

I vote to let this board continue to be so SUCCESSFUL in the manner in which it has been.

The purpose here is to ask questions, answer them, learn from each other, and NOT TO TRY TO CONTROL THE BOARD IN A MANNER IN WHICH ONE WANTS because they would like it done differently. This board has been successful, you are a new member, instead of trying to make this board *what you want*, you should be trying to make this board more successful in the way it has been operating in the past.

In fact, there have been many posts here stating that such diverging information has been most helpful in learning more.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Simply pointing out that the OP's contributions to the thread were seemingly oft ignored (with the notable exception of three contributors) and continued off-topic discussions and ad hominem rants were continuing to "pepper" some posts without apparent regard or acknowledgment of what the Original Poster had provided in additional feed-back.

Unlike SOME participants on THIS STRING, on this subject I have simply stated MY OPINION influenced OBSERVATION/CONCLUSION.

Unlike SOME PERSONS, I do NOT seek to CONTROL others. I am not trying to DIRECT others, I can only offer my OPINION and SUGGESTION, and/or RECOMMENDATION, and offer support or explanation as to what that was based upon. IMHO UNLIKE SOME I am doing my best to do so without personal attacks.

I do find (again MY OPINIONATED CONCLUSION) it to be UNFORTUNATE that SOMETIMES SOME PERSONS' participation on a topic string are less-than-helpful or appear to be in less-than-the-SPIRIT of the participation agreement.

The TIMELINESS and/or the WASTE OF TIME when the circumstances of a question or topic post is of a "time is of the essence" nature, (again MY OPINION!:) I FEEL SHOULD, (yes should as in do unto others, should) BE RESPECTED and their issue, concern, question, addressed, and their strings ought not be HIJACKED.

I recall language to the effect of on-point or on-topic direction on our host's sticky announcment and following post. With that in mind, and in that spirit, I spoke.

I honestly find the off-topic personal jabs, the speaking for OTHERS, the "garbage" distracting, distasteful, overwhelming, rude, unnecessary, and a waste of time (I have and do include myself in this criticism).

If I were the party having made such an inquiry on a time-sensitive basis, would have been discouraged and disgusted and given up on any hope of finding some helpful input, long before the OP did.

The spring thaw, run-off potential (location, location!) and the OPs description of the space were likewise not acknowledged while the arguments persisted over the theories and discussions about dry conditioned crawl spaces and minimally damp location unconditioned, naturally vented crawl spaces, when the OP indicated the circumstance in his second and third post. The third post from the OP indicated standing and pooling water and additional moisture/destructive concerns.

I was pointing out the climatic and geographical region, so as to get off the theoretical, hypothetical, the guessing and wild assumptions, and focus on/HIGHLIGHT the specifics with the known fact set provided by the original poster himself.

I tried to speak to that in my prior participation on this thread.

Perhaps OTHERS have different motive(s) with their participation on this and other threads on the board I DO NOT KNOW - I AM NOT TRYING to speak FOR others regarding their own motives, intentions, or meanings of their posts; I can only speak to my own.

[Jerry Peck]

Simply pointing out that the OP's contributions to the thread were seemingly oft ignored (with the notable exception of three contributors) and continued off-topic discussions and ad hominem rants were continuing to "pepper" some posts without apparent regard or acknowledgment of what the Original Poster had provided in additional feed-back.

Unlike SOME participants on THIS STRING, on this subject I have simply stated MY OPINION influenced OBSERVATION/CONCLUSION.

Unlike SOME PERSONS, I do NOT seek to CONTROL others. I am not trying to DIRECT others, I can only offer my OPINION and SUGGESTION, and/or RECOMMENDATION, and offer support or explanation as to what that was based upon. IMHO UNLIKE SOME I am doing my best to do so without personal attacks.

I do find (again MY OPINIONATED CONCLUSION) it to be UNFORTUNATE that SOMETIMES SOME PERSONS' participation on a topic string are less-than-helpful or appear to be in less-than-the-SPIRIT of the participation agreement.

The TIMELINESS and/or the WASTE OF TIME when the circumstances of a question or topic post is of a "time is of the essence" nature, (again MY OPINION!:) I FEEL SHOULD, (yes should as in do unto others, should) BE RESPECTED and their issue, concern, question, addressed, and their strings ought not be HIJACKED.

I fully agree, and you can delete your posts and remove those things you object to just like that. :cool:


I honestly find the off-topic personal jabs, the speaking for OTHERS, the "garbage" distracting, distasteful, overwhelming, rude, unnecessary, and a waste of time (I have and do include myself in this criticism).

Then why do you keep doing just that?

Such as your entire post.


Perhaps OTHERS have different motive(s) with their participation on this and other threads on the board I DO NOT KNOW - I AM NOT TRYING to speak FOR others regarding their own motives, intentions, or meanings of their posts; I can only speak to my own.

You certainly have in many of your posts.

However, as I said above, if you dislike personal rants THAT MUCH, you can remove A LOT OF THEM by simply deleting YOUR POSTS.

Cheers. :)

I am not the only one who understands that you are trying to control this board, since I posted that above, I have received PMs agreeing with me.

Watson, you are welcome to stay, I have said before that I see glimpses of brilliance in your posts, that if you would get off your high horse and come down and walk and talk with us you could be an asset to this board.

However, if you have been around as long as you have implied you have (I guess lurking before starting to post) then you would have known:

- a) No one controls the way the threads run out.

- b) That the way threads wonder and drift from the original question is a source of great education.

- c) That you would be smart enough to know that you could not come here and control the board in your fashion.

- d) That the board is bigger than one person can control.

- e) That you may not be c).

It's your call to either participate with the rest of us or keep on doing what you are doing - being totally disruptive.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Funny thing, that's not what the PMs I receive say, quite the opposite;) . To each his/her own. :)

[Ted Menelly]

Word

Word

Word

Word

Now, I got the last word in so know one else has to.

[Jerry Peck]

To each his/her own. :)


Well, being as I am a "his", guess that leaves you as being a "her". :D

Sorry Ted, but Watson was just begging for that response.

[Fred Warner]

Word

Word

Word

Word

Now, I got the last word in so know one else has to.

Did you mean "no" instead of "know"? :D There, I got the last word...:D :D
(Just kidding with you, Ted.)

[Ted Menelly]

Did you mean "no" instead of "know"? :D There, I got the last word...:D :D
(Just kidding with you, Ted.)


The "know" was just to leave an opening for anyone elses last word :p

[Fred Warner]

The "know" was just to leave an opening for anyone elses last word :p
Ah Ha! So you suckered me in, eh? :) I'll be a little harder to catch next time! :D

[Jerry Peck]

anyone elses last word :p

The Last Word: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/FX100649251033.aspx :D

[JOSEPH OBRIEN]

Really? Will wonders never cease!

Alll things equal, I'd rather see the cables stapled to the flats. The only question that remains is: do the wires now require running boards for protection?

The short take? Are we in a location where folks are likely to try to hang the laundry from the cables? If not, and the cables are stapled every other joist, no problem.

I was an electrician long before I was a home inspector. I was always taught never to drill through a micro lam beam. It looks as though the electrician at least attempted to use the pop outs in the beam but as any electrician can tell you, they never line up!

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I was an electrician long before I was a home inspector. I was always taught never to drill through a micro lam beam. It looks as though the electrician at least attempted to use the pop outs in the beam but as any electrician can tell you, they never line up!

Interesting "teaching".

I see Weyerhaeuser TJIs non-vented and sawn lumber flanges. They are stamped with the CCMC number and a HUD 6/89 revision date of 07-27-06 in the photos.

Since you've brought it up, I'm not seeing a micro lam can you point it out?

Edit: corrected typo in hud spec rev date highlighted correction in red.

[JOSEPH OBRIEN]

Not trying to get technical just posting as a humorous anecdote. I used the term micro lam as a generalized adjective for beams that are of that style (Not usual lumber such as a 2x10 for example). I know a micro lam is different then those but I was generalizing the holes that are pre-drilled for wiring and plumbing. They never line up and pulling feeds through in a nice, orderly, straight line is nearly impossible.

[John Steinke]

The framing method used is actually called "PRI," or 'performanceratedI-joists' - at least according to the Engineered Wood Association. In more common use, you may find these referred to as "TJI's"and the "Plywood Association."

A visit to their site APA - The Engineered Wood Association (http://www.apawood.com) will lead you to the industry standard. The standard defines where holes may be made. Essentially, this standard says that small holes - such as those for wires and small pipes - can be made anywhere in the web.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Mathew Stouffer (Mat),

With the latest "wrinkle" of the pooled water and suspected fungus or mold in the previously described crawlspace ceiling/floor assembly above, it seems there are more important structural issues beyond the ripped non-circular or square holes, and the Chapter 3 wiring issues.

It looks to me that those are residential Weyerhaeuser TJI (R) Series Joists (Prefabricated Wood I-Joists). I cannot make see enough in the pictures to completely identify (size, type) except that it is obvious regarding manufacturer (hint CCMC number). From what I can make out from the photos they appear to be non-vented webs and sawn lumber flanges (as opposed to "Microllam(R) LVL or "TimberStrand(R) LSL). I recall them being "orange boxed" as "TJI (R) joists are intended for dry-use applications" in the now discontinued (for that vintage) specifiers.




The framing method used is actually called "PRI," or 'performanceratedI-joists' - at least according to the Engineered Wood Association. In more common use, you may find these referred to as "TJI's"and the "Plywood Association."

A visit to their site APA - The Engineered Wood Association (http://www.apawood.com) will lead you to the industry standard. The standard defines where holes may be made. Essentially, this standard says that small holes - such as those for wires and small pipes - can be made anywhere in the web.

John Steinke,

They are clearly marked and the markings are visable in the submitted photos. Registered Trademark Series Name and Manufacturer ARE identifiable via the CCMC number. The HUD standard/revision date also indicates their "vintage".

They are:

Residential Weyerhaeuser TJI (R)* Series Joists (Prefabricated Wood I-Joists).

As mentioned previously, from the images in the photographs they appear to be non-vented webs and the flanges appear to be sawn lumber, however that Weyerhaeuser "Series" includes vented webs and flanges made from other than sawn lumber as well.

Manufacturer's (in this case Weyerhaeuser's) instructions, specifications, limitations, etc. apply, including required engineering for deviations from same.

*Note: TJI (R) = the "(R)* denoting a registered trademark name.

TJI (R) Series Joists is not a common description which would include other manufacturers or specifications.

A more generalized more-inclusive term would be a more common one; in this case I-joist, "Performance Rated I-Joist", or "PRI" being "common". Calling a PRI or a TJI(R) a "Microllam(R)" wouldn't be correct (nor would calling a Joist a Beam). A more common more inclusive term would be "Engineered Lumber".


EDIT: Moved sentance to last postition for clarification, and highlighted in bold, blue color, and underlining for emphasis (hit submit instead of preview - UGH!).

[John Steinke]

"TJI" might be the brand name of Weyerhaeuser, but the industry standards, and the ANSI standards, define them as "performance rated I-joists."

Your argument is rather akin to saying 'that's not a motorcycle, that's a Harley!' Good marketing, perhaps - but bad logic.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

"TJI" might be the brand name of Weyerhaeuser, but the industry standards, and the ANSI standards, define them as "performance rated I-joists."

Your argument is rather akin to saying 'that's not a motorcycle, that's a Harley!' Good marketing, perhaps - but bad logic.

No I'm saying: "that's not JUST any motorcycle, THAT is a Harley-Davidson Motorcycle, and specifically it is a 2002 FLHRSEI Screamin' Eagle Road King, but from the color resolution, contrast and limited details visible in the photos I can't be sure if its Candy Brandywine with Flames or Purple Radical, and can't tell if it has Legend Air Ride Suspension.:D

And your saying its a motorcycle vehicle, and someone else is discussing jags.