How Hack Is This

[DBoone]

My original question has been answered so I'm going to leave the thread and let y'all chew on it awhile if you want to.

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Strathead]

IMO, not hack at all... as long as you properly terminated the cable with an NM connector upon entering the wiremold. :huh:

Only if the individual wires in the Romex were stamped per required code marking. That is a problem with Romex. I got corrected a few years ago when I stripped romex to run it the last 10 feet in EMT. Inspector told me I could do it only if I left the sheath on and we looked at the code. He was right.

 

[iwire]

Only if the individual wires in the Romex were stamped per required code marking. That is a problem with Romex. I got corrected a few years ago when I stripped romex to run it the last 10 feet in EMT. Inspector told me I could do it only if I left the sheath on and we looked at the code. He was right.

I disagree with the inspector and note he should fail all the stripped cables entering the panel if that where true.

 

[Smart $]

Only if the individual wires in the Romex were stamped per required code marking. That is a problem with Romex. I got corrected a few years ago when I stripped romex to run it the last 10 feet in EMT. Inspector told me I could do it only if I left the sheath on and we looked at the code. He was right.

The instances in the code where the sheath is required to remain intact through a raceway are where the sheath is not properly terminated with a cable connector... only secured close to where it enters the raceway.

Also, many construe 300.3(A) regarding single conductors to mean only listed and marked types of conductors are permitted in raceway... but that is not what it says. It says the single conductor types listed in Table 310.4(A) must be installed in raceway. It does not preclude any conductor from being run in raceway.

Granted, approval is up to the AHJ. But if you have an AHJ that doesn't approve such an installation, I would seriously question how they discern between safe and unsafe conditions. You have a recognized Chapter 3 wiring method of PVC sheathed conductors... yet they won't approve the same conductors in a raceway which provides conductor protection superior to the sheath... ???

And then there is what Bob (iwire) said...

 

[Strathead]

The instances in the code where the sheath is required to remain intact through a raceway are where the sheath is not properly terminated with a cable connector... only secured close to where it enters the raceway.

Also, many construe 300.3(A) regarding single conductors to mean only listed and marked types of conductors are permitted in raceway... but that is not what it says. It says the single conductor types listed in Table 310.4(A) must be installed in raceway. It does not preclude any conductor from being run in raceway.

Granted, approval is up to the AHJ. But if you have an AHJ that doesn't approve such an installation, I would seriously question how they discern between safe and unsafe conditions. You have a recognized Chapter 3 wiring method of PVC sheathed conductors... yet they won't approve the same conductors in a raceway which provides conductor protection superior to the sheath... ???

And then there is what Bob (iwire) said...

I respectfully disagree with both of you. 310.11 states the marking requirements of conductors and cables. Whether in or out of a raceway. Given your premise, it would be OK to strip 250 feet of romex in which the individual conductors are not marked and use it for wiring in conduit. Once you remove the sheath, in order to consider it a single conductor it must be marked per 310.11

 

[Strathead]

I disagree with the inspector and note he should fail all the stripped cables entering the panel if that where true.

An argument could be made that if the conductor sheath is stripped longer than 2 feet it is non-compliant. That would be an inspector that takes a tape measure to verify 3 feet from a box too.

 

[ritelec]

The instances in the code where the sheath is required to remain intact through a raceway are where the sheath is not properly terminated with a cable connector... only secured close to where it enters the raceway.

Interesting.
I like that.
Is this true? An article or exception?

I disagree with the inspector and note he should fail all the stripped cables entering the panel if that where true.

Good point.

Wondering, hoping this gets straightened out..

To strip or not to strip.. reckon at this point is to not... ug

 

[Smart $]

I respectfully disagree with both of you. 310.11 states the marking requirements of conductors and cables. Whether in or out of a raceway. Given your premise, it would be OK to strip 250 feet of romex in which the individual conductors are not marked and use it for wiring in conduit. Once you remove the sheath, in order to consider it a single conductor it must be marked per 310.11

I'll concede that you can't use the conductors with all the sheath stripped off... unless the inspector watches you do it and approves. :blink:

BTW, 310.11 moved to 310.120 in 2011.

An argument could be made that if the conductor sheath is stripped longer than 2 feet it is non-compliant. That would be an inspector that takes a tape measure to verify 3 feet from a box too.

And just what section would that fall under?

 

[Smart $]

Interesting.
I like that.
Is this true? An article or exception?

Not sure if there's another, but here's one...

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. Nonmetallic-sheathed 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 sheath of the
nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall extend through the conduit
or tubing and into the outlet or device box not less than
6 mm (1?4 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 complying
with the provisions of 250.86 and 250.148.

Nonetheless, I believe this to be pertinent to the debate.

300.12 Mechanical Continuity ? Raceways and Cables.
Metal or nonmetallic raceways, cable armors, and cable
sheaths shall be continuous between cabinets, boxes, fittings,
or other enclosures or outlets.

Adding to the above.

300.15 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings ?Where Required.
A box shall be installed at each outlet and switch
point for concealed knob-and-tube wiring.
Fittings and connectors shall be used only with the specific
wiring methods for which they are designed and listed.
Where the wiring method is conduit, tubing, Type AC
cable, Type MC cable, Type MI cable, nonmetallic-sheathed
cable, or other cables, a box or conduit body shall be installed
at each conductor splice point, outlet point, switch point, junction
point, termination point, or pull point, unless otherwise
permitted in 300.15(A) through (L).

...

(F) Fitting. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted
in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are
not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall
be accessible after installation.

 

[ritelec]

Thanks Smart...........was looking for something to back this up..

The instances in the code where the sheath is required to remain intact through a raceway are "Where The Sheath Is Not Properly Terminated With A Cable Connector"... only secured close to where it enters the raceway.

Which I'm thinking throw a connector on raceway and strip away.......

but haven't seen that exception

 

[jim dungar]

Which I'm thinking throw a connector on raceway and strip away.......

Put a connector on it and now you have a complete raceway. Skip the connector and all you have is a protective sleeve.
Individual conductors are generally not allowed in non-raceway applications.

 

[RLyons]

There is only one brand of "Wiremold" there are multiple brands of "surface metal raceway" and "surface non-metallic raceway" of which "Wiremold" is most well known brand

Don't think I've ever seen the non-metal ever used except for TV wires and LV....which is why I was curious as to the "snap on cover". I know the metal legrand wiremold raceway 90's and such the cover snaps on.

I just did a house with plaster over brick and decided to use wiremold cuase I couldn't convince the guy to fur out his baseboard to hide the wiring. The brick was so soft behind the plaster tapcons wouldn't work and plastic anchors kept pulling out, what a mess.

My biggest peeve is when people use midway device covers on wiremold boxes :rant: :lol:

 

[Smart $]

Thanks Smart...........was looking for something to back this up..



Which I'm thinking throw a connector on raceway and strip away.......

but haven't seen that exception

That's why I included the sections regarding fittings as it applies to a cable's sheath. A connector is a fitting, is it not?

 

[Strathead]

I'll concede that you can't use the conductors with all the sheath stripped off... unless the inspector watches you do it and approves. :blink:

BTW, 310.11 moved to 310.120 in 2011.


And just what section would that fall under?

iWire stated

Originally Posted by iwire I disagree with the inspector and note he should fail all the stripped cables entering the panel if that where true.

And that was why I posted that part. Using the most common method of marking conductors per 310.11(B) is probably (1) Which states the marking would be every two feet. So if you stripped off more than two feet the individual wires would no longer be compliant with that section.

 

[Strathead]

BTW, 310.11 moved to 310.120 in 2011.

I have a 2011 but since it looks like Florida is never going to adopt it, I don't use it for reference any more.

 

[ritelec]

That's why I included the sections regarding fittings as it applies to a cable's sheath. A connector is a fitting, is it not?

yes.........so you lost me, a fitting (F)..says the fitting shall be accessible after installation...

I can't bury a coupling or connector?

Jim Dungar...(or anyone else), so all these years I've been stripping nm sleeved in emt to a box, and the emt had a emt to rx connector on it, as of lately I've been thinking I was wrong and couldn't strip it, but know appears the install was actually correct??

Thanks.

 

[kwired]

An argument could be made that if the conductor sheath is stripped longer than 2 feet it is non-compliant. That would be an inspector that takes a tape measure to verify 3 feet from a box too.

I was going to ask for where this 2 feet comes from but I think it has been answered.

Don't think I've ever seen the non-metal ever used except for TV wires and LV....which is why I was curious as to the "snap on cover". I know the metal legrand wiremold raceway 90's and such the cover snaps on.

I just did a house with plaster over brick and decided to use wiremold cuase I couldn't convince the guy to fur out his baseboard to hide the wiring. The brick was so soft behind the plaster tapcons wouldn't work and plastic anchors kept pulling out, what a mess.

My biggest peeve is when people use midway device covers on wiremold boxes :rant: :lol:

Many may choose not to use non-metallic for lighting and power circuits, but they are listed for it. One may need to decide if it is suitable for the environment in which it will be installed, kind of making it a 110.3(A) decision.

I don't use NM Wiremold all that much, but have found it handy when working with old wiring that has no EGC. Though codes may often require bringing an EGC to these locations if you do much more then change a device, if I am going to break code in such a case I would rather not add additional components that are required to be connected to the non existing EGC. A good example of an application is moving an existing switch. Before the NEC required the metal yoke to be grounded this was actually a legal way to do it.

 

[jim dungar]

... so all these years I've been stripping nm sleeved in emt to a box, and the emt had a emt to rx connector on it, as of lately I've been thinking I was wrong and couldn't strip it, but know appears the install was actually correct

I would vote yes, but I am not your AHJ.

 

[kwired]

I would vote yes, but I am not your AHJ.

I've recently seen ads for Bridgeport fittings where they featured a AC/MC cable to EMT fitting. Even had "duplex" fittings that will accept two AC/MC cables and adapts to EMT. Kind of hard to use such a fitting without stripping the sheath off the cable. I think I recently saw it just inside the cover of the latest EC magazine.

 

[Strathead]

I've recently seen ads for Bridgeport fittings where they featured a AC/MC cable to EMT fitting. Even had "duplex" fittings that will accept two AC/MC cables and adapts to EMT. Kind of hard to use such a fitting without stripping the sheath off the cable. I think I recently saw it just inside the cover of the latest EC magazine.

And if you look at the individual conductors of the MC you will find that current construction methods are that the conductors are individually stamped. There was a time when they used to have a ribbon run along with the conductors that had the conductor properties.

Look I am not saying that I know for a fact that I am right or the inspector i brought up in the first place. But here is my challenge. Tell me that either the marking section that I have referred to doesn't say that the conductors have to be marked in the conduit per it, or that there is another code section that specifically waives the requirement. If you contend that it is OK do you also contend that it is fine to strip 250 feet of romex and use the individual conductors when they are not marked? If yes, then I guess it would be OK to do the same thing with SO cord conductors too right?