Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 65 of 105
  1. #1
    mathew stouffer's Avatar
    mathew stouffer Guest

    Default Romex running under joist

    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

    Similar Threads:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Inspection Referral

  2. #2
    John Steinke's Avatar
    John Steinke Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by mathew stouffer View Post
    Does this include crawl space installations.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Steinke View Post
    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.

    Last edited by Jerry Peck; 03-13-2009 at 10:44 AM.
    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southern Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,549

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by mathew stouffer View Post
    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 .ca


  5. #5
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Warner View Post
    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 , 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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,258

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.

    Jim Robinson
    New Mexico, USA

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Robinson View Post
    When they are referring to the type NM in those sections, is it by definition NM-B?
    .Yes.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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)


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by ken horak View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jim Robinson
    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

    Last edited by ken horak; 03-14-2009 at 07:19 AM.

  12. #12
    Ron Bibler's Avatar
    Ron Bibler Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

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

    Best

    Ron


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by ken horak View Post
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jim Robinson
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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!

    Last edited by ken horak; 03-14-2009 at 08:50 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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 ( 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".

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

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

    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.


  17. #17
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  18. #18
    Jeff Remas's Avatar
    Jeff Remas Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  19. #19
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Remas View Post
    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.


  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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


  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by ken horak View Post
    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. (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).



    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    And again you are wrong.

    That is not what they agreed to. (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).

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


  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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


  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 03-15-2009 at 04:19 PM.

  26. #26
    mathew stouffer's Avatar
    mathew stouffer Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    H.G. Watson, Sr. 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.


  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    What's up with the off-topic, Ad hominem attack?
    Not an attack, just acknowledging your accomplishments here to date.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by ken horak View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.


  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  31. #31
    John Steinke's Avatar
    John Steinke Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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


  32. #32
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by John Steinke View Post
    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."

    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.


  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  34. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    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).

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

    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.

    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  36. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    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!

    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    885

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.

    The above statements are expressed solely as my opinion and in all probability will conflict with someone else's.
    Stu, Fredericksburg VA

  38. #38
    John Steinke's Avatar
    John Steinke Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  39. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  40. #40
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by John Steinke View Post
    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

    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.


  41. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Warner View Post
    ul-719.12

    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,

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  43. #43
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Fred,

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

    Thank you,
    My pleasure, Jerry.


  44. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  45. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.



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

    OK, here you say it is prohibited.

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


    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.

    Here you say it is permited.

    Sounds like a Kerry flip-flop to me.


  47. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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


  48. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by mathew stouffer View Post
    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?

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 03-16-2009 at 06:31 PM. Reason: corrected name of subsection.

  49. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by ken horak View Post
    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):
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.

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

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  50. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  51. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post

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

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

    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.


  52. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  53. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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?


  54. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by ken horak View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  55. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  56. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by ken horak View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by ken horak View Post
    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


    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  57. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.
    Seems like he has little support for his opinion too. Maybe others have actually seen the elusive dry crawlspace.


  58. #58
    John Steinke's Avatar
    John Steinke Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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.


  59. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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


  60. #60
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by John Steinke View Post
    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.




  61. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by ken horak View Post
    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, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  62. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by John Steinke View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  63. #63
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

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


  64. #64
    mathew stouffer's Avatar
    mathew stouffer Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    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


  65. #65
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: Romex running under joist

    Quote Originally Posted by mathew stouffer View Post
    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".


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •