NM in conduit outside

Status
Not open for further replies.
jwjrw said:
looking at 310.13 I think romex is considered type tw. Its been a while does that sound right? If so I see the difference.
Click to expand...

No, NM is a cable type not a conductor type. The type of conductors installed in an NM cable has to be 90 degree C rated (See 334.112). Type TW conductors are only rated at 60 degrees C so they can't be installed in NM cable anymore.

Chris
 
jwjrw said:
I was told that by the southland wire rep. He said the insulation is basically the same. Maybe I was told wrong maybe I wasn't. Without it being legal since it isnt marked thhn it really dosent matter anyway. But since you seem to know everything what is the difference in the insulation? Maybe the rep knows less or more than you or his definition of "basically the same" is different than yours.
Click to expand...
The car salesman said my Yugo "was basicallt the same" as my GMC also.
NM Cable (UL-PWVX) is required to meet the basic design in UL catagory 719. (The UL standard for THHN is 83)
719 calls for the cable to have only "thermoplastic-insulated circuit conductors". In addtion 719 says NM is for use in normally dry locations and have conductors with a 90? rated insulation. THHN/THWN has requirements beyond "thermplastic-insulated circuit conductors"
 
many of them are "minor issues" until you end up testifying in a lawsuit, etc.
"Mr (Inspector): Were you aware that this installation did not meet the NEC?" and "if so, why did you pass it ?"
 
augie47 said:
many of them are "minor issues" until you end up testifying in a lawsuit, etc.
"Mr (Inspector): Were you aware that this installation did not meet the NEC?" and "if so, why did you pass it ?"
Click to expand...

True but if that's the case you have to inspect STRICTLY by the book and I doubt that happens nor should it.
 
electricmanscott said:
True but if that's the case you have to inspect STRICTLY by the book and I doubt that happens nor should it.
Click to expand...
I somewhat agree, but I have been the name in that quote and it can be embarrassing. If you elect to make that decision (not to enforce something) you better be prepared to show why you think your preference outweighs that of a Code Panel.
I've inspected long enough to adopt an attitude that if you and I can find justification, great. If not, follow the book.
When its black & white in the book, I can't see any excuse to accept any violation.
I can't say I never do.. ....
but if you want to run NM in a outside conduit when the proper wiring method is readily available, why should I risk my job and allow it ?
 
electricmanscott said:
True but if that's the case you have to inspect STRICTLY by the book and I doubt that happens nor should it.
Click to expand...


Hello Scott

You know that what may or may not happen in the real word is not the same as giving an answer in a forum that is viewed by all.

Augie's answer is right on. quote the language of the Code and let the site conditions dictate 90.4
 
augie47 said:
I somewhat agree, but I have been the name in that quote and it can be embarrassing. If you elect to make that decision (not to enforce something) you better be prepared to show why you think your preference outweighs that of a Code Panel.
I've inspected long enough to adopt an attitude that if you and I can find justification, great. If not, follow the book.
When its black & white in the book, I can't see any excuse to accept any violation.
I can't say I never do.. ....
but if you want to run NM in a outside conduit when the proper wiring method is readily available, why should I risk my job and allow it ?
Click to expand...

This is quite true Augie. It is minor until "You" have to answer that question. It is your livlihood at stake. I ain't going to the unemployment line over someone else "MINOR" infraction.
 
cowboyjwc said:
That's the second time I've seen you say that today. When do you get concerned?
Click to expand...

An old fuse panel , threadbare or cracked SEU cable, grounding adpaters plugged into 2-prong outlets, rusty or water damaged equipment, and so forth. Those are real hazards. What is pictured is not.
 
way it was presented to me was "well, since you missed that there's no telling what else you missed"
 
iwire said:
Lets not forget inspectors have some pretty strong protection against litigation.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there are some states that have laws that if an inspector willfully permits a code violation to pass inspection they can be found guilty of negligence and can loose their governmental immunity.

Chris
 
raider1 said:
Yes, but there are some states that have laws that if an inspector willfully permits a code violation to pass inspection they can be found guilty of negligence and can loose their governmental immunity.

Chris
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I'm to pretty for prison.:roll:

It was Gus, Gus missed it, it was all his idea, I told him not to.:D
 
raider1 said:
Yes, but there are some states that have laws that if an inspector willfully permits a code violation to pass inspection they can be found guilty of negligence and can loose their governmental immunity.

Chris
Click to expand...


I am sure, now can we find any instance of that happening without the inspector also being caught taking money?
 
electricmanscott said:
So I guess you guys all inspect strictly by the book? No wiggle room for situations or conditions that arise?
Click to expand...
Hard to do when the book is not always clear. I have seen even the "clear" stuff being by-passed. You simply can not put everything on paper. Hopefully we have more inspectors with common sense than not.
 
raider1 said:
Yes, but there are some states that have laws that if an inspector willfully permits a code violation to pass inspection they can be found guilty of negligence and can loose their governmental immunity.
Click to expand...
Do they face the same penalties for willfully failing a compliant installation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top