Romex in conduit

[sfav8r]

We just had an inspector tell us that an installation was non-compliant because the 12/3 Romex ran for more than 10' in conduit. Essentially, we had to jump around an inaccessible portion of the crawl space so we stubbed out ran 20' of EMT then poked back into the crawl space. He cited 312.5(c) which I don't even think is a relevant code section. I think 344.15(B) not only allows it, but requires it.

I just want to make sure I am thinking about this correctly before I ask him to revisit this.

Thanks

 

[roger]

See 358.22.

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.

Since it is not prohibitted in article 334 it is allowed but, as John points out in this thread, it is not legal in all areas.

Roger

 

[LEO2854]

We just had an inspector tell us that an installation was non-compliant because the 12/3 Romex ran for more than 10' in conduit. Essentially, we had to jump around an inaccessible portion of the crawl space so we stubbed out ran 20' of EMT then poked back into the crawl space. He cited 312.5(c) which I don't even think is a relevant code section. I think 344.15(B) not only allows it, but requires it.

I just want to make sure I am thinking about this correctly before I ask him to revisit this.

Thanks

What size is the EMT?

 

[david]

We just had an inspector tell us that an installation was non-compliant because the 12/3 Romex ran for more than 10' in conduit. Essentially, we had to jump around an inaccessible portion of the crawl space so we stubbed out ran 20' of EMT then poked back into the crawl space. He cited 312.5(c) which I don't even think is a relevant code section. I think 344.15(B) not only allows it, but requires it.

I just want to make sure I am thinking about this correctly before I ask him to revisit this.

Thanks

I am not sure what article he met I think you met article 334.
Take a look at 300.18

 

[JDBrown]

What do you mean when you say you "stubbed out" and "then poked back into the crawl space"? If your conduit is exposed to the elements, then the inside of your conduit is likely to be considered a "wet location". I'm getting this from the 2008 NECH - commentary after "Location, Wet" in Article 100:

The inside of a raceway in a wet location and a raceway installed underground are considered wet locations. Therefore, any conductors contained therein would be required to be suitable for wet locations.

Of course, this is commentary, which is not the same as actual enforceable code language, but this seems to be the interpretation most Inspectors stick with.

 

[jcassity]

i hate seeing stubbed out conduits that go free air in a crawl space.

If i find romex in conduit home run end to end, due diligence was applied to protect the wire for some technical reason and i kind of appreciate it.

I never was sure if romex in conduit is legal... cant imagine why not if the proper bonding bushings applied.

from what i understand the OP is saying, he is doing one short conduit run on each end and leaving the crawlspace with exposed romex.
~this i dont like seeing but i cant let my preference get in the way of the NEC.

 

[GoldDigger]

I never was sure if romex in conduit is legal... cant imagine why not if the proper bonding bushings applied.

The problem is that you cannot, using listed components, comply with the need to clamp the NM where it enters the box if it is coming in through conduit. Bonding the conduit is a separate issue. There is a specific exemption for short runs of NM in conduit when it is secured at the point where it enters the conduit but not at the end where it enters the box.
A similar problem with both clamping and bonding occurs when your bring MC or AC into a box through conduit.

When you sleeve NM inside a piece of PVC which does not run from box to box, there is no problem with securing and no requirement for bonding.

 

[jcassity]

i may learn something here....
in my log home the builder used snap on cover fully enclosed wiremold raceway.

its all brown so it looks good.
my exterior walls have not way to do romex due to them being logs.

my light switches have wire mold from the floor up to the switch, then on out to overhead lights.

It "could" have been conduit but for the sake of discussion, the wiremold i have contains romex 12/2.

your saying that is not compliant?
another example,, i installed my exterior conduits in my garage to the florecent lamps and also to my oulets. I pulled in romex , thats not compliant?

what i would consider shoddy is if there is a box and conduit that penetrates a drop cieling tile or overhead, then within 6'' of the earlier described situation, the conduit stops and out pops the romex.... that travels and travels and then jumps back into conduit on the other side duplicating a mirror image of the opposite side out to the load.

perhaps im missing the idea here of something to do with the additonal lack of heat disipation on the romex or something.