Can romex condcutors be installed in emt?

[Jim W in Tampa]

Yup.

It's the same as PV installers who use "welding wire" for battery connections instead of whatever the actually required wire is. Works great, doesn't seem to be a hazard, still not the correct wire.

But if your a residential electrician and on trim need to hook up the condenser and do not have thhn/thwn on truck and your boss pushing you to trim it today cause it is called in for morning inspection you just might do it. If inspector catches it then eat a red tag

 

[iwire]

I thought the question was answered straight away -- "No".

No?

Funny, the NEC specifically tells us we can run NM in raceways, in some case the NEC requires us to place NM in raceways.

Yup.

It's the same as PV installers who use "welding wire" for battery connections instead of whatever the actually required wire is. Works great, doesn't seem to be a hazard, still not the correct wire.

Not the same, what you describe above is a violation, installing NM in a raceway is not.

 

[iwire]

The following is for EMT but should be much the same in all raceway articles 3XX.22.

358.22 Number of Conductors. The number of conductors
shall not exceed that permitted by the percentage fill
specified in Table 1, Chapter 9.
Cables shall be permitted to be installed where such use
is not prohibited by the respective cable articles. The number
of cables shall not exceed the allowable percentage fill
specified in Table 1, Chapter 9.

 

[tallgirl]

No?

Funny, the NEC specifically tells us we can run NM in raceways, in some case the NEC requires us to place NM in raceways.

Not the same, what you describe above is a violation, installing NM in a raceway is not.

Heading out for breakfast and coffee, but my understanding is that once the NM is unsheathed and there are no markings AT ALL on the wires, that it cannot be used.

Certainly willing to learn, but this looked like one of those "don't do it" questions from the outset.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

NM as a cable is allowed but soon as we remove the outside covering it becomes violation.

Anyone care to open can of worms as to what we have in the panel after we remove sheath

 

[tallgirl]

NM as a cable is allowed but soon as we remove the outside covering it becomes violation.

Anyone care to open can of worms as to what we have in the panel after we remove sheath

Jim,

I think there are two differences here.

1). You have to remove the sheath, at least to some extent, to actually INSTALL the stuff. So it can't be claimed that it isn't being used for its intended purpose. Stripping dozens of feet of NM does not seem like the "listed purpose", in which case it gets into 110.3 (B).

2). There is a requirement, as I recall, that all cables be marked with their ratings at least every two feet. Now, one might say that if the panel is more than 2' from top to bottom, that stripping the sheath where it enters the panel means the last few inches (or more) doesn't have that label, but in the OP's case, there will definitely not be any markings, at all, for significantly more than two feet. I think 110.21 is also relevant. Finally, with the "label" removed, is it even a wire that could be installed? Not a little of the "label", as is the case of stripping the sheathing upon entering a panel, but removing all of it for a considerable length.

 

[cpal]

NM as a cable is allowed but soon as we remove the outside covering it becomes violation.

Anyone care to open can of worms as to what we have in the panel after we remove sheath

Im amazed this has grown legs.

312.5 Exc (e) and 334.15 both require the cable sheath to extend into the enclosure not less than 1/4"

The nrtls are aware that the sheath will be removed in the enclosure, but the extension of the sheath and it's reveal is required to indicate that the exposed conductors are part of a cable assembly, there by identifying their condition of use.

There are provisions in the code allowing cables to be installed in raceways. this is not the issue. The question becomes provideing a means of determining the conductors application after installation.

I'm sure you are aware of this.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
The nrtls are aware that the sheath will be removed in the enclosure, but the extension of the sheath and it's reveal is required to indicate that the exposed conductors are part of a cable assembly, there by identifying their condition of use. ...

I have never heard that reasoning before. It is my understanding that the only reason for the extension of the sheath into the enclosure is the protection of the conductors.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I have never heard that reasoning before. It is my understanding that the only reason for the extension of the sheath into the enclosure is the protection of the conductors.

also how often is there enough jacket left on to identify the cable?

 

[tallgirl]

also how often is there enough jacket left on to identify the cable?

I doubt it's so you can stick your face in the box and read the vendor name so much as someone can open the wall and figure out who to sue.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Should be no problem as inspector seen what you ran on rough in

 

[glene77is]

I doubt it's so you can stick your face in the box
and read the vendor name
so much as someone can open the wall
and figure out who to sue.

Tall,
I enjoy reading your experienced responses.
And, I see that you can tie-up a knot just as tight as anyone!

 

[iwire]

Heading out for breakfast and coffee, but my understanding is that once the NM is unsheathed and there are no markings AT ALL on the wires, that it cannot be used.

Which brings us full circle to 310.11(A) which I take to be an instruction to the manufacturers more than a requirement of the installer. This point is certainly my opinion and not a code fact.

If it is a an instruction to the installer where is the needed exception to remove that marking at the enclosures?

 

[PaulWDent]

Using a common neutral in conduit

Using a common neutral in conduit

There has been much debate here about using one large neutral as you've described and still being code legal. Many feel that it isn't. This will be clarified in the 2011 NEC where the illegality of this type of installation will be spelled out in the code language.

Somehwere in the 2008 code I found a paragraph which specifically allowed this, but I see the problem:
If any of the circuits need breakers that get their ground through a pigtail (which is most of them these days!) you can't run a common neutral into the attic. You must either use separate neutrals, or else relocate the breakers to a panel in the attic. Moreover, if you use conduit, you gotta make sure you keep the neutrals paired with their own hots, and not crossed (at least for GFCIs and AFCIs).

 

[PaulWDent]

using common large neutral

using common large neutral

" Morever, if you are running them in conduit, you have to make sure you keep the neutrals paired with their own hots and not crossed. "

Sounds like numbered ident sleeves would be appreciated by the next guy!

 

[roger]

Somehwere in the 2008 code I found a paragraph which specifically allowed this,

Paul, that would be 225.7(B)

but I see the problem:
If any of the circuits need breakers that get their ground through a pigtail (which is most of them these days!) you can't run a common neutral into the attic. You must either use separate neutrals, or else relocate the breakers to a panel in the attic. Moreover, if you use conduit, you gotta make sure you keep the neutrals paired with their own hots, and not crossed (at least for GFCIs and AFCIs).

Sorry, but I don't understand the rest of you post.

Roger

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Paul, that would be 225.7(B)

Sorry, but I don't understand the rest of you post.

Roger

225 only applies to Outside BC and Feeders but I'm sure there must be another ref with the same idea

 

[roger]

225 only applies to Outside BC and Feeders but I'm sure there must be another ref with the same idea

Until 2011, there was nothing prohibiting it for other applications although it was not specifically stated.

Roger

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Until 2011, there was nothing prohibiting it for other applications although it was not specifically stated.

Roger

I agree. Lack of restriction is permission and I thought it was legal. I was just pointing out the scope of the article you listed wasn't applicable.

 

[PaulWDent]

"because neutrals don't count as current carrying conductors when derating..."

"because neutrals don't count as current carrying conductors when derating..."

That doesn't sound quite right!

Even when using both phases, if the neutral for a circuit on one phase is a different wire than the neutral for a circuit on the other phase, their currents
do not cancel and the heating effect adds. So each separate neutral must count as a current carrying conductor.

In the case of multiwire circuits with a common neutral, it is true that the neutral need not count as a current carrying conductor, because if you loaded both hot legs up to the max, the neutral current would be zero. So the maximum current carried by the three wires (two hots plus neutral) can only be twice the maximum current carried by any one wire.

So it is necessary to count neutrals unless they are the common neutral of a multiwire branch circuit.