Sleved romex with rigid pvc

[peter d]

I agree with Big John. Likewise, I can bury plumbing PVC in the ground then pull UF cable through it. That's a totally compliant installation.

 

[Smart $]

Where does the code make any such distinction about what the wire is fished in? There is never a guarantee of protection, even if a raceway is used. Neither does the code make a distinction about what constitutes protected, which is why their is no listing requirement for sleeves. Thankfully the code isn't this arbitrary: It's either fished and legally unsecured, or accessible and must be secured.

I said essentially all I've had to say and can see we're not getting anywhere. I doubt restating it in different words, different ways is going to sway your opinion. Ultimately, it's an AHJ call and I only care about what an AHJ says about my work. I wish you the best in your endeavors.

 

[Smart $]

I agree with Big John. Likewise, I can bury plumbing PVC in the ground then pull UF cable through it. That's a totally compliant installation.

UF doesn't have the same securing and support requirement as NM. In fact, I don't believe any other cable type has the same requirement as NM.

 

[peter d]

UF doesn't have the same securing and support requirement as NM.

Are you suggesting that cables inside of sleeves need to be secured somehow?

 

[Smart $]

Are you suggesting that cables inside of sleeves need to be secured somehow?

Go back and read my other posts carefully...

 

[big john]

UF doesn't have the same securing and support requirement as NM. In fact, I don't believe any other cable type has the same requirement as NM.

It has the same securing and supporting requirements when run as an above-ground cable assembly. 340.10(4).

With the exception of the distances involved the rules for supporting NM are basically the same as every other cable assembly

Are you suggesting that cables inside of sleeves need to be secured somehow?

I think his position is that the requirements for support basically mean it's illegal to sleeve, 334.30(B)(1) notwithstanding.

 

[Smart $]

It has the same securing and supporting requirements when run as an above-ground cable assembly. 340.10(4).

Which sends you to Article 334, Parts II and III... so above ground, installed as nonmetallic-sheathed cable it is no different... so you want to go around the block again. :roll:

With the exception of the distances involved the rules for supporting NM are basically the same as every other cable assembly.

I suggest you actually read each article. To me, it seems each article ranges from just a bit different to almost radically different. So if you want to say that they're all the same, it's because you are only reading what you want to read, and not what is actually there. "Basically the same" is about like saying they are all cables.

 

[big john]

Which sends you to Article 334, Parts II and III... so above ground, installed as nonmetallic-sheathed cable it is no different.... :roll:

So installing a plumbing pipe sleeve for UF in the dirt is perfectly acceptable, but mount that same sleeve on a wall and it becomes a violation?

So if you want to say that they're all the same, it's because you are only reading what you want to read, and not what is actually there....

All flexible wiring methods allowed to be fished have virtually identical wording about being installed unsecured an unsupported.

 

[peter d]

FYI- It's Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable....not the "R" word.....but those who dislike me will relish in that statement:angel:

I don't dislike you but I do disagree with practically everything you say. So...with that out of the way.

"Romex" is a commonly accepted trade slang used to describe NM cable. Just because you work for a particular manufacturer that competes with Southwire Romex isn't going to change that reality. And while we're on that subject, Romex is superior than the product that your company makes anyway. Maybe you can let the "higher ups" at Encore know that your SuperSlick NM cable or whatever you call it is still not close to being as easy to pull and strip as Romex.

 

[peter d]

With the exception of the distances involved the rules for supporting NM are basically the same as every other cable assembly I think his position is that the requirements for support basically mean it's illegal to sleeve, 334.30(B)(1) notwithstanding.

I strongly disagree with his point of view.

 

[JFletcher]

Wow, lively topic here.

I suppose my aversion to using sleeves of materials not mentioned expressly by the NEC has to do with the fact that a good 100% of them were horizontal thru fire rated assemblies. Yes, I've seen many a sch80 plumbing pipe run under driveways and sidewalks, and, to date, 100% of them not installed by us are too shallow a depth to pass a proper inspection (which is another topic altogether).

If I am installing a sleeve, chase, or riser, whether it be for physical protection, ease of installing future cables, or fire rating, it will be of a material/method listed by the NEC, and properly firestopped. If this is above minimum code, then that's ok. The NEC is a minimum code book. I was also taught "when in doubt, overkill it".

Someone mentioned that the main way NM cable is protected is by drywall. I disagree; it is covered by how the NM is stapled, distance from framing member edges, nail plates (if necessary), and probably by drywall guys using proper length screws/nails in the correct location.

On an aside, I find it oddly amusing that the NEC covers the use of NM cable staples, but not what we call sleeves.

Fished cable is what it is (which is code compliant), until someone makes a $4000 tool to staple it down behind existing wall finishes and it becomes illegal on the 2038 code cycle.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

In spite of all that is said it is interesting that 334.15 (C) states a listed conduit must be used. One can say that that is only for basements as that is the section quoted but I think you may be able to look ahead a bit at this and come to a conclusion.

I realize it does not say it must be---

334.15(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.

 

[iwire]

In spite of all that is said it is interesting that 334.15 (C) states a listed conduit must be used. One can say that that is only for basements as that is the section quoted but I think you may be able to look ahead a bit at this and come to a conclusion.

I realize it does not say it must be---

Not only does it not say required, it says shall be permitted.

So I don't see that meaning anything.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

It seems odd that they would say a listed conduit shall be permitted. That seems to indicate that a non listed one is not permitted

 

[Smart $]

Not only does it not say required, it says shall be permitted.

So I don't see that meaning anything.

True, but it continues to say "or shall be protected in accordance with 300.4."

So what is the alternative?

Also, does this not seem to express that listed conduit or tubing offers some level of protection?

 

[Smart $]

It seems odd that they would say a listed conduit shall be permitted. That seems to indicate that a non listed one is not permitted

It's only "permitted" as an alternative to 300.4. Realistically, what in 300.4 covers [otherwise] surface-run NM?

 

[iwire]

True, but it continues to say "or shall be protected in accordance with 300.4."

So what is the alternative?

In my area NM run down a running board.

Also, does this not seem to express that listed conduit or tubing offers some level of protection?

I was not aware reality was in question. :huh:

 

[iwire]

It seems odd that they would say a listed conduit shall be permitted. That seems to indicate that a non listed one is not permitted

Not to me.

 

[Smart $]

So installing a plumbing pipe sleeve for UF in the dirt is perfectly acceptable, but mount that same sleeve on a wall and it becomes a violation?

Don't shoot the messenger.

All flexible wiring methods allowed to be fished have virtually identical wording about being installed unsecured an unsupported.

You have to read and interpret each section as a whole... and each respective section is not virtually the same. Looking only at part of a section doesn't always give you the whole picture on compliance.

 

[iwire]

Don't shoot the messenger.

You are assuming the messenger is correct. That is not in evidence yet.

You have to read and interpret each section as a whole... and each respective section is not virtually the same. Looking only at part of a section doesn't always give you the whole picture on compliance.

Or said another way, we have to read it how you read it to reach your conclusion.