NM in conduit no good?

[ritelec]

Loosing my mind here.
Since when are you not allowed to sleeve nm in emt or pvc... or strip the insulation off nm and sleeve the wire in emt or pvc.

Is this true.... or am I gullible??

 

[GoldDigger]

I believe that the issue with stripping the wire off is that the conductors most likely are not marked as a wire type, so you cannot determine what rules to follow when using it in a raceway.
As for not sleeving it, I have not heard that one, except possibly not being able to support and secure it properly if the sleeve or raceway brings it into a box.

Tapatalk!

 

[growler]

Loosing my mind here.
Since when are you not allowed to sleeve nm in emt or pvc... or strip the insulation off nm and sleeve the wire in emt or pvc.

Is this true.... or am I gullible??

Well you can't use NM sleeved in sealtight to feed an AC compressor as we often see done.

You can't use NM (sleeved) in locations where it wouldn't be allowed in the first place (exterior, wet, buried).

If you are on the inside and dry location then go for it.

 

[augie47]

You are allowed to "sleeve" NM, in fact, 334.15(B) requires it in certain situations.
As far as I know you can install NM in conduit, in a dry location, provided you follow the fill rules.
You can not remove the jacket and use the conductors as the individual conductors do not necessarily carry the listing of a building wire such as THHN.

 

[ritelec]

I believe that the issue with stripping the wire off is that the conductors most likely are not marked as a wire type, so you cannot determine what rules to follow when using it in a raceway.
As for not sleeving it, I have not heard that one, except possibly not being able to support and secure it properly if the sleeve or raceway brings it into a box.

Tapatalk!

Thank you.. I read that no writing on conductor but also read not at all (on line) that got me thinking... as alot of my thoughts of this stuff has been turning up side dwn...

Well you can't use NM sleeved in sealtight to feed an AC compressor as we often see done.

Thank you... why? can you point be toward the answer. maybe missing it but not seeing it in 334.

You are allowed to "sleeve" NM, in fact, 334.15(B) requires it in certain situations.
As far as I know you can install NM in conduit, in a dry location, provided you follow the fill rules.
You can not remove the jacket and use the conductors as the individual conductors do not necessarily carry the listing of a building wire such as THHN.

Ok thank you...

it's interesting... if I sleeve it (as an assembly) 2' or 200' it's ok.

But if I remove the sheathing and sleeve it 2' or 200' it's ng.

Thank you...

good thing I never did or would never do such a thing...

 

[growler]

Well you can't use NM sleeved in sealtight to feed an AC compressor as we often see done.

Thank you... why? can you point be toward the answer. maybe missing it but not seeing it in 334

334.10 (A) Type NM (1) For both exposed and concealed work in normally Dry locations except as prohibited in 334.10 (3).

Even though it's in sealtight it's still a wet location because it's outside in the rain and all that.

For some reason we see a lot of it used here but I think the inspectors just never look.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

....
Thank you... why? can you point be toward the answer. maybe missing it but not seeing it in 334. ...

Take a look at 300.9.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

IMO, this rule needs help. A vertical run of NM in a raceway where it is installed to drain should not be an issue with NM cable, IMO especially below an exterior panel.

For more than 30 years the south has been using ext. panels and sleeved nm in pvc out the bottom to an LB and into the crawl area. I have never seen a problem with this even though it violates a few NEC rules. It is only in the last few code cycle- I believe 2008- where this rule was introduced

 

[don_resqcapt19]

IMO, this rule needs help. A vertical run of NM in a raceway where it is installed to drain should not be an issue with NM cable, IMO especially below an exterior panel.

For more than 30 years the south has been using ext. panels and sleeved nm in pvc out the bottom to an LB and into the crawl area. I have never seen a problem with this even though it violates a few NEC rules. It is only in the last few code cycle- I believe 2008- where this rule was introduced

If you don't like my rule, submit a "public input" (formally known as a "proposal") to change it

3-63 Log #2234 NEC-P03

Final Action: Reject

(300.9 (New) )
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:
300.9 Raceways in Wet Locations. Cables and conductors installed in underground raceways or raceways that are located in wet locations shall be listed for use in wet locations.

Substantiation: The interior of raceways installed in wet locations is a wet location and the cables and conductors installed in such raceways should be listed for that purpose. I have submitted a proposal to delete the similar requirement for underground installations that is in 300.5(B). This new requirement will cover all raceways installed in wet locations.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The requirement for cables to be suitable for the location in which they are to be installed is presently addressed in Section 310.8, and Table 310.13 applicable locations. Article 310 covers the general requirements for conductors such as insulation types, designations, and uses. To add the proposed text to Article 300 would be inappropriate since 300 deals with wiring methods in general. Repeating this requirement in Article 300 does not add clarity to The Code. See panel action and statement for Proposal 3-43.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13

3-52 Log #2257 NEC-P03 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(300.9 (New) )
____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Comment on Proposal No: 3-63
Recommendation: This proposal should be accepted.

Substantiation: I understand that panel?s point that conductors must be selected so that they are suitable for the locations where they are being installed. The point of this proposal is to make it clear that the interior of any raceway installed in a wet location is a wet location. That is not a completely accepted idea in the field. A section was added, 300.5(B) in a previous code to make it clear that the interior of all underground raceways is a wet location. This is the same issue with raceways that are installed in wet locations. The interior of the raceway will be a wet location and conductors or cables installed in these raceways must be listed as suitable for use in wet locations. If the interior of raceways in outside or wet locations is not also a wet location, why do sections 225.22 and 230.53 require that ?raceways on exteriors of buildings or other structures shall be arranged to drain?? Note: This proposal covers underground raceways and raceways in wet locations and if accepted, you should also accept Proposal 3-43.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle

Revise recommended text for 300.9 to read:
300.9 Raceways in Wet Locations Above Grade. Where raceways are installed in wet locations above grade, the interior of these raceways shall be considered to be a wet location. Insulated conductors and cables installed in raceways in wet locations above grade shall comply with 310.8(C).

Panel Statement: The panel accepts the recommendation to create a new 300.9 for aboveground wet locations and has chosen to place the underground installation requirements in 300.5(B). The text was not deleted in 300.5(B) since this entire Section 300.5 applies to underground installations. Providing additional underground requirements in a new 300.9 could be missed by the user of the Code. The requirement for using wet location listed conductors in the proposal was changed to ?complying with 310.8(C)? because there are three different methods to comply with insulated conductors and cables used in wet locations. They must be:
(1) Moisture-impervious metal-sheathed;
(2) Types MTW, RHW, RHW-2, TW, THW, THW-2, THHW, THHW-2,
THWN, THWN-2, XHHW, XHHW-2, ZW; or
(3) Of a type listed for use in wet locations.
See the panel action and statement on Comment 3-20a (Log #CC300).
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
Comment on Affirmative:
CASPARRO, P.: See my explanation of vote on Comment 3-20a.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I am planning to do that but don't take it personally. I think the rule is okay but I would like a few exceptions