On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:30:55 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:29:35 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 21:13:33 -0500, wrote:

OK - it is a DAMP location - not wet in Canadian code,

Cite that
I've been looking for an official definition of "damp" and there
doesn't appear to be one. other than in agricultural buildings where a
livestock housing building needs a minimum air exchange -that is only
described as "adequate"
Under your NEC it is: "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 pen
porches, and like locations, and interior locations subject to
moderate degrees of moisture, such as basements, some barns, and some
cold storage buildings."
while "wet" is : "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."

Also :
"From the 2002 NEC Definitions

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 under ground 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."


Being enclosed in a water resistant, if not water proof enclosure
(conduit) it does not completely comply with the description for a
"wet" location.( unprotected locations exposed to weather) or (
locations subject to saturation with water or other liquids,) But
that is under US regulations.

As you say - code in the USA and code in Canada are not the same.

And it seems pretty obvious my local inspector considered it to be
only a "damp" location .Another inspector may not have agreed. Such is
the ambiguity of an undefined or under-defined term, which is left to
the interpretation of the inspector involved.


There is no confusion here. Conduit outside is "wet". I was hoping you
had a cite because I poked around a little in the CEC and I do not see
the definition for locations. They seem to use "conditions"
I will ask some of my Canadian electrical guys.

I believe in the USA under the NEC nmd-90 does not exist - nmd is 90
by default? And perhaps the limitations to it's use are different
than in Canada.?

NMD90 seems to be the same as NM-b here and both are made by at least
one company (Southwire). I suspect it is just marking.

I also know that in some areas of the USA NMD cable is not allowed to
be used at all - you must use armored cable or conduit. - and as in
Canada where each province has it's own interpretations and "sub
codes" the same is true in the USA - with the addition of even
different cities in the same state having totally different
interpretations /versions of electrical code.


There were only 2 cities that I knew of that did not allow NM (NYC and
Chicago) and I think that is down to Chicago now. They have even
started to soften.
More states are going the way of Florida and just adopt the NEC with
no local exceptions. We still have a few guys who try to squeeze their
interpretations too hard but appeals to Tallahassee tend to pull them
back onto the farm