Romex to AC Disconnect

[beav]

Hi I need to run Romex through a stud wall which is furred out from the exterior cinder block wall. Can I run the Romex through the block directly into the back of the AC disconnect? Or do I have to run 3 PVC nipple, or a short piece of nmc flex ...or is any of this allowed at all?

 

[ptonsparky]

I would be inclined to the pvc nipple, but 334.10(A)(2) seems to fit.

 

[infinity]

You can run NM cable through a hole in the block directly into the disconnect.

 

[kwired]

You can run NM cable through a hole in the block directly into the disconnect.

To add to this, what you can't do is embed the NM cable in mortar if you happened to be doing this while the block wall was being constructed or similar activity. Drilling a hole in cured concrete/mortar and then passing the cable through is fine or placing a sleeve to pull through if still constructing the wall is also fine.

 

[beav]

Thanks for the responses has guys!

 

[Little Bill]

You can run NM cable through a hole in the block directly into the disconnect.

They won't allow that here. You have to sleeve it. The inspector uses the "subject to physical damage" rule here. He allows straight through wood without sleeves. but not any masonry material.
I'm not defending him, just reporting!
I might know someone that would run NM through a hole in a block if no one is looking!

 

[LarryFine]

They won't allow that here. You have to sleeve it. The inspector uses the "subject to physical damage" rule here. He allows straight through wood without sleeves. but not any masonry material.

I take it that UF would be equally verboten.

 

[Little Bill]

I take it that UF would be equally verboten.

Probably

 

[infinity]

They won't allow that here. You have to sleeve it. The inspector uses the "subject to physical damage" rule here. He allows straight through wood without sleeves. but not any masonry material.

I'm not sure how that is subject to any damage.

 

[Jose cisnero]

I think is always a good practice to call your local inspector and find out if they require the use of sleeves for NM cable through brick walls.
If the don’t, it would save you time and money..

 

[kwired]

I'm not sure how that is subject to any damage.

Me neither, seems very well protected to me. You have to damage the brick/block first before you are going to damage the cable inside.

 

[infinity]

Me neither, seems very well protected to me. You have to damage the brick/block first before you are going to damage the cable inside.

Yup, I can think of many other places where NM cable is permitted to be installed that it is much more like to be damaged, start with through bored holes in a basement.

 

[Little Bill]

Yup, I can think of many other places where NM cable is permitted to be installed that it is much more like to be damaged, start with through bored holes in a basement.

As I said, I'm not defending or agreeing with the inspector, I'm just saying what he requires. When asked, that was his reasoning.

 

[kwired]

As I said, I'm not defending or agreeing with the inspector, I'm just saying what he requires. When asked, that was his reasoning.

He seem pretty closed minded then. Might be good with code but when something isn't crystal clear in code it ends up his way or not at all?

 

[GMc]

Can someone tell me why the argument hasn't been made that using NM to the back of a A/C disconnect would be in violation of 334.12(B)(4)? Something in 2020 change that I'm not aware of? I'm was getting ready to do something similar by running to the back of a inlet box for a generator but was going to use UF instead but after reading this thread I'm thinking something in 2020 NEC has changed.

 

[infinity]

Can someone tell me why the argument hasn't been made that using NM to the back of a A/C disconnect would be in violation of 334.12(B)(4)? Something in 2020 change that I'm not aware of? I'm was getting ready to do something similar by running to the back of a inlet box for a generator but was going to use UF instead but after reading this thread I'm thinking something in 2020 NEC has changed.

The inside of the inlet is neither a wet or damp location. The 2020 has no change to that section other than to eliminate the type NMS.

 

[GMc]

Thanks for the response. I've read many threads here that have argued that because the disconnect is on the outside of the building it would be "by the letter of the law" in violation.

 

[infinity]

Thanks for the response. I've read many threads here that have argued that because the disconnect is on the outside of the building it would be "by the letter of the law" in violation.

Have you ever seen a panel on the outside of a house? If the inside of the enclosure was a wet location then those would not be permitted to have NM cable inside of them either. There is no letter of the law that I've seen that states that the inside of the enclosure is a damp or wet location.

 

[GMc]

Yes, I seen many of them. I agree 100% that it shouldn't be considered a violation but just read some of the responses from this old thread..

https://forums.mikeholt.com/threads/nm-terminating-in-exterior-box-here-we-go-again.71020/

 

[Greentagger]

If disconnect is mounted on exterior a sleeve will be required since nm is not permitted in damp or wet locations per 334.12(A)(4). Also not permitted to be embedded in masonry 334.12(2). Exterior enclosures will have 1/4” gap per 404.4 and to comply with 312.2. So without a sleeve your nm will be in a damp or wet location.