Sleved romex with rigid pvc

[Smart $]

I agree with Don and Rob, sleeves can be made out of anything you want. There is no requirement that a sleeve be made of listed conduit.

While I agree with any sleeve material being permitted, one may run into a problem with securing and supporting, such as NM under 334.30, last sentence of general statement...

Sections of cable protected from physical damage by raceway
shall not be required to be secured within the raceway.

Also see 300.18 Exception.

 

[iwire]

While I agree with any sleeve material being permitted, one may run into a problem with securing and supporting, such as NM under 334.30, last sentence of general statement...

Which tells me I don't have any issues if don't use conduit.

 

[Smart $]

Which tells me I don't have any issues if don't use conduit.

I see the smiley, but I don't want others misled...

How would you comply with the securing requirement for say a 14/2 NM cable run through a 6' long PVC plumbing pipe.

 

[big john]

How would you comply with the securing requirement for say a 14/2 NM cable run through a 6' long PVC plumbing pipe.

334.30(B)(1). How is fishing through a sleeve any different than fishing through a 6' drywall chase?

 

[MasterTheNEC]

I think the seeing the forest for the trees is a good line on this one.

While the NEC permits Type NM-B to be protected where subject to physical damage per Section 334.15(B), which subsequently provides a listed of acceptable materials, all of which are listed in accordance with their respective Articles.

Unless of course you think an AHJ will elaborate on the "other approved means". The intent is to use protective methods listed within the NEC that are for use with electrical installations and equipment.

In terms of the question about 334.30 which is not really the correct reference for the concern, I would more so look at the requirements of Section 312.5(C), not considering the exception in this case and 314.17(B) or (C), which I am more than sure you all are aware of regarding termination to enclosures and junction boxes, etc.

If installing the cable in a raceway (where permitted) it is considered supported and as someone else stated quite secure as well so I fail to see the concern on that aspect. Ironically, Section 334.10(5) permits me to instal Type NM-B in raceways that are listed for Type I and II Construction where applicable to the requirements....however, the notion that complete systems (300.18(A)) would permit Type NM-B installed without complying with Section 312.5(C) or 314.17(B) and (C) in a Type I and/or II Construction is a misnomer since the systems would have to be complete runs to meet the requirements of the installation.

.....and clearly people like to reach outside of the boundary of common sense, I would be hard pressed to see a certified electrical inspector accept plumbing PVC for any protection aspects demanded of Section 334.15(B), where applicable....thats just my opinion and we know how some like to play with the semantics of the NEC. Fact is, the protective elements given in 334.15(B) are all listed products (PVC-352.6,RMC-344.6,IMC-342.6,EMT-358.6,RTRC-355.6) with the exception of the AHJ possibly permitting (90.4) "something else" based on the "other approved means"...yeah I am sure they will hang their certification on PVC Plumbing Conduit....:roll:

FYI- It's Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable....not the "R" word.....but those who dislike me will relish in that statement:angel:

 

[Smart $]

334.30(B)(1). How is fishing through a sleeve any different than fishing through a 6' drywall chase?

See 334.30(B)(2).

 

[Smart $]

334.30(B)(1). How is fishing through a sleeve any different than fishing through a 6' drywall chase?

Answer No. 2:

Note that only permits the fishing in spaces of finished buildings and structures... and the interior of a sleeve or chase is not a concealed space.

Concealed. Rendered inaccessible by the structure or finish
of the building.

Informational Note: Wires in concealed raceways are considered​

concealed, even though they may become accessible​

by withdrawing them.​

 

[big john]

...While the NEC permits Type NM-B to be protected where subject to physical damage per Section 334.15(B), which subsequently provides a listed of acceptable materials, all of which are listed in accordance with their respective Articles.Unless of course you think an AHJ will elaborate on the "other approved means". The intent is to use protective methods listed within the NEC that are for use with electrical installations and equipment.

I get your point, especially seeing how they went through the trouble to list specific types of protection. But you know the most common way to protect a piece of Romex? Put it behind 1/2" sheetrock.

I don't really believe the intent of the code is to suggest that only raceways are capable of protecting wiring from damage.

See 334.30(B)(2).

That's a separate instance where cables are allowed to go unsupported, not an additional criteria that must be met

Answer No. 2:Note that only permits the fishing in spaces of finished buildings and structures... and the interior of a sleeve or chase is not a concealed space.

So if the plumbing pipe sleeve exists after I come into a finished building to add a circuit, I'm allowed to fish through it? But if I personally install that sleeve during construction it becomes illegal?

And of course the interior of a sleeve or chase is concealed. Your definition plainly explains why.

 

[Smart $]

...That's a separate instance where cables are allowed to go unsupported, not an additional criteria that must be met

I was just trying to point out that all other instances require securing/support at not more than 4.5'.

So if the plumbing pipe sleeve exists after I come into a finished building to add a circuit, I'm allowed to fish through it? But if I personally install that sleeve during construction it becomes illegal?

And of course the interior of a sleeve or chase is concealed. Your definition plainly explains why.

You can use a sleeve or chase at less than 4.5' or in any manner which the cable is secured at intervals not exceeding 4.5'. To have a sleeve or chase longer than the preceding and not secure the cable at intervals exceeding 4.5', you must use an NEC-recognized raceway.

The typical sleeve or chase is NOT concealed. Concealed essentially means all is behind a finished surface of the building or structure. You'll get into some debates on this one, just as you are with me... :happyyes:

 

[MasterTheNEC]

I get your point, especially seeing how they went through the trouble to list specific types of protection. But you know the most common way to protect a piece of Romex? Put it behind 1/2" sheetrock.

It's Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable...lol....sorry I can't help but always do that.

The reference I was referring to is in "exposed" applications where the physical damage is subject. In concealed spaces I am in agreement with that statement.

 

[big john]

I was just trying to point out that all other instances require securing/support at not more than 4.5'.

It's not another instance, it's a totally unrelated circumstance. There are no securing or supporting requirements for fished cables.

You can use a sleeve or chase at less than 4.5' or in any manner which the cable is secured at intervals not exceeding 4.5'. To have a sleeve or chase longer than the preceding and not secure the cable at intervals exceeding 4.5', you must use an NEC-recognized raceway.

The length of allowed unsupported cable has nothing to do with what it's installed in, only if it's fished or not.

The typical sleeve or chase is NOT concealed....

The interior of a sleeve or chase sure is, and that's why you aren't required to secure cables run inside them.

 

[GoldDigger]

It's not another instance, it's a totally unrelated circumstance. There are no securing or supporting requirements for fished cables.

On the other hand, in new construction where you could rough the cable into the chase before it is closed I don't think the inspector will be happy if you instead choose to wait until the chase is enclosed and then fish the cable through.
Inside a pipe your argument is more convincing.

"Outside of a dog, a book is Man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it is too dark to read."

---G. Marx

 

[big john]

On the other hand, in new construction where you could rough the cable into the chase before it is closed I don't think the inspector will be happy if you instead choose to wait until the chase is enclosed and then fish the cable through.

It's very common to have circumstances in new construction were wires end up being fished after the walls are up.

I have a hard time seeing why an inspector would care: Either way is code legal. If the EC wants to make more work for himself fishing wires that's not the inspectors concern.

 

[GoldDigger]

It's very common to have circumstances in new construction were wires end up being fished after the walls are up.

I have a hard time seeing why an inspector would care: Either way is code legal. If the EC wants to make more work for himself fishing wires that's not the inspectors concern.

But following 334.30(B)(1) you would have to wait for the building to be finished (or is just for the surface "finish" to be applied?) before that section becomes applicable.

 

[big john]

But following 334.30(B)(1) you would have to wait for the building to be finished (or is just for the surface "finish" to be applied?) before that section becomes applicable.

Seems to me the intent is "secure it and support it if you can get to it without damage." If the wall is up and the architect says they want another outlet on it, the wire gets fished in unsupported and it would be legal regardless of the condition of the rest of the building.

 

[Smart $]

... The interior of a sleeve or chase sure is, and that's why you aren't required to secure cables run inside them.

Plain and simple...

If you do not have to remove building or structure finish to get to the end of the sleeve or chase, it is NOT CONCEALED. The major portion of the run may be CONCEALED... but if one or both ends are not behind a finished surface that has to be removed to access the sleeve or chase, the sleeve or chase is EXPOSED as far as the fish rule is concerned. The fish rule applies only where you have to remove some of the building or structure finished surface in order to fish the cable. A built-in sleeve or chase is just does not meet that criteria. It [typically] already has access to one or both ends; no building or structure finish has to be removed for access. You cannot run NM in that sleeve or chase unless you secure it at intervals not exceeding 4.5'. Doesn't matter whether you fish it through or not.

 

[Smart $]

Seems to me the intent is "secure it and support it if you can get to it without damage." If the wall is up and the architect says they want another outlet on it, the wire gets fished in unsupported and it would be legal regardless of the condition of the rest of the building.

Seems to me the intent is secure the cable whenever practicable... at intervals not exceeding 4.5'.

 

[big john]

Seems to me the intent is secure the cable whenever practicable... at intervals not exceeding 4.5'.

Right. So please explain how it is practicable to secure a conductor fished inside a sleeve or chase.

You seem to be arguing--whether you intend to or not--that Romex can't be fished through a building because it couldn't be secured at 4.5' intervals.

Fishing cable is a universally accepted practice so I really don't see how you're drawing this conclusion.

 

[Smart $]

Right. So please explain how it is practicable to secure a conductor fished inside a sleeve or chase.

It isn't...

...that's why Code excepts the securing requirement when the sleeve or chase is a raceway. If the sleeve or chase is not a raceway, there is no guarantee of the protection afforded. Consider yourself fortunate that you can fish a cable down a wall cavity without having to secure the cable amid the run.

Fishing cable is a universally accepted practice so I really don't see how you're drawing this conclusion.

I'm not contesting the fishing of a cable... when it truly needs to be fished. Having to fish a cable in this sense is NOT by design.

 

[big john]

It isn't... ...that's why Code excepts the securing requirement when the sleeve or chase is a raceway.

Where does the code make any such distinction about what the wire is fished in?

If the sleeve or chase is not a raceway, there is no guarantee of the protection afforded.

There is never a guarantee of protection, even if a raceway is used. Neither does the code make a distinction about what constitutes protected, which is why their is no listing requirement for sleeves.

I'm not contesting the fishing of a cable... when it truly needs to be fished. Having to fish a cable in this sense is NOT by design.

Thankfully the code isn't this arbitrary: It's either fished and legally unsecured, or accessible and must be secured.