romex in emt
- Thread starter nodogg
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician (retired)
All of the 3XX.22 articles deal with conduit fill. You'll see the words "cables shall be permitted". When figuring conduit fill with flat NM cables the equivalent round dimension must be used for its cross sectional area.
rcarroll
Senior Member
- Location
- Fort Collins, Colorado
Right, it does not say romex is not allowed in pipe. However, look at the highlighted section that Roger posted. NM-B is not approved for wet locatiions, even in conduit.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
But if you are still on the 2002 code the issue is not as clear.
Don
Notice the difference in the wording of this section between the 2002 and 2005 codes.
Don
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
My take has always been that NM may be sleeved in EMT, but not in complete EMT systems (i.e., box-to-box runs).
mvannevel
Senior Member
- Location
- Hesperia, Michigan
The wording is different, but 334.15(B) in the '02 Code specifically mentions conduit, emt, sch. 80 PVC, pipe, surface metal raceways, etc. as being suitable for physical protection. To me, thats the permission required by 358.22.don_resqcapt19 said:
andrew said:
You would use the proper conduit or tubing connector for a conduit or tubing installation.
When a cable assembly is installed in conduit or tubing, it is not a cable installation method that would be used for approval purposes but the particular conduit or tubing requirements.
If you have access to the IAEI "Analysis of Changes 2005 NEC" it explains the allowance for this type of installation and the wording change from 2002 to 2005 as pointed out by Don.
You can also look at the 2002 and 2005 ROP's and ROC's.
Roger
Roger
So what you are saying is that once the nm is installed in a conduit it no longer is a wiring method bound by the rules of 334 or 300.15. One wiring method inside another wiring method 300.15 should apply.
Let's take this a little further and talk about MC. Is it allowed in a complete system of conduit? Using a 1" emt with one 14/2 MC so we do not have to worry about conduit fill I think 330.40 applies and therefore you cannot use MC in this conduit.
andrew
So what you are saying is that once the nm is installed in a conduit it no longer is a wiring method bound by the rules of 334 or 300.15. One wiring method inside another wiring method 300.15 should apply.
Let's take this a little further and talk about MC. Is it allowed in a complete system of conduit? Using a 1" emt with one 14/2 MC so we do not have to worry about conduit fill I think 330.40 applies and therefore you cannot use MC in this conduit.
andrew
M. D.
Senior Member
Here is a link to southwire scroll down to the last section
http://www.southwire.com/processGetArticle.do?commonId=f9ceee3e4bec1010VgnVCM1000002702a8c0____
Here is another scroll to the bottom
http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarc...-Proposals-for-2005-NEC-Part-VII~20040210.php
This one too
http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarc...Proposals-for-2005-NEC-Part-VIII~20040217.php
And I'm sorry for the size of this ,... but this is from May 2004 ROP.
________________________________________________________________
8-6 Log #2465 NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject
( 342.22 )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Wayne A. Lilly Bridgewater, VA
Comment on Proposal No: 8-9
Recommendation: Delete the proposed words ?not prohibited? and leave the
word ?permitted?. The language would remain as it is in the 2002 NEC. That
language is as follows:
?342.22 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 permitted not permitted
by the respective cable articles. The number of cables shall not exceed
the allowable percentage fill specified in Table 1, Chapter 9.?
Substantiation: This proposal should be rejected. The proposed language will
permit cables to be installed in IMC unless the cable article prohibits the installation
in IMC. This language will create several conflicts with other Code sections.
The following is a list of at least some of those conflicts:
1. For other than the exception in 314.17(C), 314.17(B) and (C) require cables
to be secured to boxes. The wording in these sections need to be revised to
clearly permit cables in raceways from being secured to boxes.
2. The requirements in 320.10, 320.12, and 320.30 have no exceptions to permit
AC cable to be installed in IMC thereby prohibiting the compliance with
these sections. Type AC cable can not be secured to the box or structure if it is
installed in a raceway.
3. 320.40 requires the terminations of Type AC cable to be provided with a
fitting to protect the wires from abrasion. Raceway installations will make this
difficult to do. Additionally, 314.16 does not provide a requirement for conductor
fill allowance for a cable fitting within a box.
4. Sections 334.10, 334.12 and 334.30 have no exceptions to permit NM and
NMC cables to be installed in IMC thereby prohibiting the compliance with
these sections. These cable types can not be secured to the box or structure if
they are installed in a raceway.
5. Sections 338.10, 230.51(A) and 334.30 do not contain provisions to permit
SE cable to be installed in IMC without meeting the securing and supporting
requirements. Type SE cable can not be secured to the box or structure if it is
installed in a raceway.
6. Sections 340.10, 340.12 and 340.10(4) do not permit UF cable to be used
without being secured.
The proposed language will permit cables to be installed in IMC without
addressing the places in the Code where cables are required to be secured to
boxes, secured to the structure or addressing box fill issues. Other issues to
be considered include installing cables in pulling ells or other ells and how
metallic cables are to be pulled through raceways, either by the cable sheath or
the conductors. The proposed new wording would create a situation where the
inspector and installer would be forced to accept one or the other requirements.
This could easily mean that part of the country could be requiring cables to be
secured and another part of the country ignoring the securing requirements in
favor of raceway installations.
The current language creates no conflicts. It permits cable to be installed
in IMC when the respective cable article permits such use. For example,
328.10(2) for Type MC cable and 330.10(7) for MC cable have such specific
permission.
Whether or not we agree that cables should be permitted to be installed in
raceway systems we should all agree that we are trying to write good Code.
Creating conflicts, as would occur with this proposed change, is not good
Code.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel agrees with the submitter that there are issues
with installing cables into raceways when it comes to support and securing of
the cable and the termination of the cable.
However, the panel does not agree that revising the proposal back to its original
text addresses these issues. Nothing in the original proposals eliminated
the present requirements for securing and supporting cables in accordance with
their respective articles.
It is the responsibility of Panels 3, 7, and 8 to address the technical issues for
these type of applications. Panel 8 recommends that a Task Group, through the
NEC Usability Task Group, be created with members of Panels 3, 7, and 8 to
address the issues of the submitter and/or any other issues that may exist and
submit the appropriate proposals for the 2008 NEC.
CMP 8 acceptance of Proposal 8-9 only gives permission to install cables
in raceways. However, CMP 7 and CMP 3 determine how cables are to be
installed in raceways.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2
Explanation of Negative:
DABE: This comment should have been accepted until it has been demonstrated
to this panel, that the panels overseeing each cable type has been made
aware that, unless they specifically prohibit the installation of cable, it will be
permitted.
LILLY: Acceptance of this proposal will result in the inspection, installation
and design portions of the electrical industry being asked to choose between
meeting the cable article requirements or installing the cable in a complete conduit
or tubing system and ignoring the cable article requirements.
Proposal 8-9 replaces the word ?permitted? with the words ?not prohibited.?
This change means that cables will be permitted in complete conduit and tubing
systems when they are ?not prohibited? by the respective cable article.
This is a dramatic change from the language in the 2002 NEC which permitted
cables to be installed in complete conduit or tubing systems only when
the cable article contained such permission. It would seem that this change
prevents Panel 7 from utilizing the expertise it has to judge the suitability and
safety requirements of a specific cable for such issues as pulling through and
use within conduits or tubings and their fittings, such as pulling ells; judging
the ability of cable conductors to withstand damage when exiting a metallic
jacketed cable when not protected by a fitting design; and determining the
amount of stress the cable may subject to terminations because the cable is not
secured by a fitting, such as a box connector.
Panel 7 is charged with determining the installation requirements for cables.
Some cable articles give specific permission for cable installation in raceways.
Panel 7 has reviewed the cable and determined that it is safe for raceway installation.
The change that this proposal is permitting will permit all cables to be
installed in raceways even though Panel 7 has not reviewed the installation for
suitability and safety.
Whether or not one agrees that cables should be installed in complete conduit
and tubing systems, one should agree that the NEC should contain as few
requirement and permission conflicts as possible. The permission granted by
this proposal established a conflict in those requirements as the cable cannot be
secured in the complete conduit or tubing system once it is installed within the
conduit or tubing nor can it be supported in other than horizontal runs.
Other requirements are also ignored by the permission granted in this proposal.
The following are examples:
1. 320.40 requires Type AC cable to terminate in a fitting to protect the wires
from abrasion.
2. For other than some nonmetallic box installations, cables are required to
be secured to boxes. Installation in a conduit or tubing system prevents this.
Other issues need to be considered in addition to the above.
1. Does pulling spiral metallic jacketed cables through conduit or tubing with
up to 360 degrees of bends separate the jacket? Is the cable to be pulled by its
outer sheath, inner conductors, or both?
2. What size pulling elbow is permitted to be used with cables without damaging
the cable jacket as the cable is being inserted? Is the damage more likely
to occur to metallic or nonmetallic jacketed cables?
3. Can cables be installed in conduit or tubing and meet the bending requirements
for the cable while still meeting the permitted bending radius for the
conduit or tubing?
These are but a few of the considerations that must be addressed. Panel 7
has the expertise to determine the installation requirements of cables. Panel
8 should not grant a blanket acceptance for cables in complete conduit or tubing
systems because it lacks the expertise to determine the cable installation
requirements.
The language in the 2002 NEC gives permission for cables to be installed
in complete conduit or tubing systems when the respective cable article gives
that permission. This means that Panel 8 has done what is required for the use
of cables in complete conduit and tubing systems and also given Panel 7 the
opportunity to address the safety issues associated with the installation.
http://www.southwire.com/processGetArticle.do?commonId=f9ceee3e4bec1010VgnVCM1000002702a8c0____
Here is another scroll to the bottom
http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarc...-Proposals-for-2005-NEC-Part-VII~20040210.php
This one too
http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarc...Proposals-for-2005-NEC-Part-VIII~20040217.php
And I'm sorry for the size of this ,... but this is from May 2004 ROP.
________________________________________________________________
8-6 Log #2465 NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject
( 342.22 )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Wayne A. Lilly Bridgewater, VA
Comment on Proposal No: 8-9
Recommendation: Delete the proposed words ?not prohibited? and leave the
word ?permitted?. The language would remain as it is in the 2002 NEC. That
language is as follows:
?342.22 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 permitted not permitted
by the respective cable articles. The number of cables shall not exceed
the allowable percentage fill specified in Table 1, Chapter 9.?
Substantiation: This proposal should be rejected. The proposed language will
permit cables to be installed in IMC unless the cable article prohibits the installation
in IMC. This language will create several conflicts with other Code sections.
The following is a list of at least some of those conflicts:
1. For other than the exception in 314.17(C), 314.17(B) and (C) require cables
to be secured to boxes. The wording in these sections need to be revised to
clearly permit cables in raceways from being secured to boxes.
2. The requirements in 320.10, 320.12, and 320.30 have no exceptions to permit
AC cable to be installed in IMC thereby prohibiting the compliance with
these sections. Type AC cable can not be secured to the box or structure if it is
installed in a raceway.
3. 320.40 requires the terminations of Type AC cable to be provided with a
fitting to protect the wires from abrasion. Raceway installations will make this
difficult to do. Additionally, 314.16 does not provide a requirement for conductor
fill allowance for a cable fitting within a box.
4. Sections 334.10, 334.12 and 334.30 have no exceptions to permit NM and
NMC cables to be installed in IMC thereby prohibiting the compliance with
these sections. These cable types can not be secured to the box or structure if
they are installed in a raceway.
5. Sections 338.10, 230.51(A) and 334.30 do not contain provisions to permit
SE cable to be installed in IMC without meeting the securing and supporting
requirements. Type SE cable can not be secured to the box or structure if it is
installed in a raceway.
6. Sections 340.10, 340.12 and 340.10(4) do not permit UF cable to be used
without being secured.
The proposed language will permit cables to be installed in IMC without
addressing the places in the Code where cables are required to be secured to
boxes, secured to the structure or addressing box fill issues. Other issues to
be considered include installing cables in pulling ells or other ells and how
metallic cables are to be pulled through raceways, either by the cable sheath or
the conductors. The proposed new wording would create a situation where the
inspector and installer would be forced to accept one or the other requirements.
This could easily mean that part of the country could be requiring cables to be
secured and another part of the country ignoring the securing requirements in
favor of raceway installations.
The current language creates no conflicts. It permits cable to be installed
in IMC when the respective cable article permits such use. For example,
328.10(2) for Type MC cable and 330.10(7) for MC cable have such specific
permission.
Whether or not we agree that cables should be permitted to be installed in
raceway systems we should all agree that we are trying to write good Code.
Creating conflicts, as would occur with this proposed change, is not good
Code.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel agrees with the submitter that there are issues
with installing cables into raceways when it comes to support and securing of
the cable and the termination of the cable.
However, the panel does not agree that revising the proposal back to its original
text addresses these issues. Nothing in the original proposals eliminated
the present requirements for securing and supporting cables in accordance with
their respective articles.
It is the responsibility of Panels 3, 7, and 8 to address the technical issues for
these type of applications. Panel 8 recommends that a Task Group, through the
NEC Usability Task Group, be created with members of Panels 3, 7, and 8 to
address the issues of the submitter and/or any other issues that may exist and
submit the appropriate proposals for the 2008 NEC.
CMP 8 acceptance of Proposal 8-9 only gives permission to install cables
in raceways. However, CMP 7 and CMP 3 determine how cables are to be
installed in raceways.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2
Explanation of Negative:
DABE: This comment should have been accepted until it has been demonstrated
to this panel, that the panels overseeing each cable type has been made
aware that, unless they specifically prohibit the installation of cable, it will be
permitted.
LILLY: Acceptance of this proposal will result in the inspection, installation
and design portions of the electrical industry being asked to choose between
meeting the cable article requirements or installing the cable in a complete conduit
or tubing system and ignoring the cable article requirements.
Proposal 8-9 replaces the word ?permitted? with the words ?not prohibited.?
This change means that cables will be permitted in complete conduit and tubing
systems when they are ?not prohibited? by the respective cable article.
This is a dramatic change from the language in the 2002 NEC which permitted
cables to be installed in complete conduit or tubing systems only when
the cable article contained such permission. It would seem that this change
prevents Panel 7 from utilizing the expertise it has to judge the suitability and
safety requirements of a specific cable for such issues as pulling through and
use within conduits or tubings and their fittings, such as pulling ells; judging
the ability of cable conductors to withstand damage when exiting a metallic
jacketed cable when not protected by a fitting design; and determining the
amount of stress the cable may subject to terminations because the cable is not
secured by a fitting, such as a box connector.
Panel 7 is charged with determining the installation requirements for cables.
Some cable articles give specific permission for cable installation in raceways.
Panel 7 has reviewed the cable and determined that it is safe for raceway installation.
The change that this proposal is permitting will permit all cables to be
installed in raceways even though Panel 7 has not reviewed the installation for
suitability and safety.
Whether or not one agrees that cables should be installed in complete conduit
and tubing systems, one should agree that the NEC should contain as few
requirement and permission conflicts as possible. The permission granted by
this proposal established a conflict in those requirements as the cable cannot be
secured in the complete conduit or tubing system once it is installed within the
conduit or tubing nor can it be supported in other than horizontal runs.
Other requirements are also ignored by the permission granted in this proposal.
The following are examples:
1. 320.40 requires Type AC cable to terminate in a fitting to protect the wires
from abrasion.
2. For other than some nonmetallic box installations, cables are required to
be secured to boxes. Installation in a conduit or tubing system prevents this.
Other issues need to be considered in addition to the above.
1. Does pulling spiral metallic jacketed cables through conduit or tubing with
up to 360 degrees of bends separate the jacket? Is the cable to be pulled by its
outer sheath, inner conductors, or both?
2. What size pulling elbow is permitted to be used with cables without damaging
the cable jacket as the cable is being inserted? Is the damage more likely
to occur to metallic or nonmetallic jacketed cables?
3. Can cables be installed in conduit or tubing and meet the bending requirements
for the cable while still meeting the permitted bending radius for the
conduit or tubing?
These are but a few of the considerations that must be addressed. Panel 7
has the expertise to determine the installation requirements of cables. Panel
8 should not grant a blanket acceptance for cables in complete conduit or tubing
systems because it lacks the expertise to determine the cable installation
requirements.
The language in the 2002 NEC gives permission for cables to be installed
in complete conduit or tubing systems when the respective cable article gives
that permission. This means that Panel 8 has done what is required for the use
of cables in complete conduit and tubing systems and also given Panel 7 the
opportunity to address the safety issues associated with the installation.
Thank you both for your time and efforts. I have never liked the idea of doing a complete piping system and then putting romex instead of single conductors and had fiqured that 300.15 was my best way out of the problem I thought existed. I from the old school and I was wrong. I appreciate your posts and it will help me do a better job inspecting. Thank you again Roger and M.D. Looks like I brought a knife to a gun fight.
Andrew
Fl. Standard inspector Electrical/Plans examiner, NC Unlimited Qualifying test passer. (looking to move to Murphy or close anybody in NC needing someone with any of those qualifications please let me know).
Andrew
Fl. Standard inspector Electrical/Plans examiner, NC Unlimited Qualifying test passer. (looking to move to Murphy or close anybody in NC needing someone with any of those qualifications please let me know).
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
andrew said:
I don't believe you can sleeve a metallic raceway inside another metallic raceway.
edit-- well, I thought you can't but art 330.10 (7) says you can
Last edited:
tadavidson
Senior Member
- Location
- Georgia
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Is the run gonna be inside or out or undergroung? You May need to use UF if water is gonna accumulate. I've never pulled a wire or cable in underground that wasn't wet.
- Status