# sleeving romex thru roof



## Power21 (Jan 26, 2010)

Hey fellas, running 14/2 romex for the required service receptacle withing 25 feet of hvac equipment which is located on the rooftop. Anybody have another idea other than changing over to liquitite before breeching the roofline to the exterior. Thanks again.


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

lead roof jack.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

It is an NEC violation to run NM outdoors even in a raceway.

Find another plan.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> It is an NEC violation to run NM outdoors even in a raceway.
> 
> Find another plan.


I know you are correct here. But is it because of the possible moisture in the pipe or some other problem?


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> It is an NEC violation to run NM outdoors even in a raceway.
> 
> Find another plan.


 
:sleep1:


----------



## Jim Port (Oct 1, 2007)

The problem is listed under 334.12 Uses not permitted. Section (B)(4) in wet or damp locations.

Conduit outside is a wet location.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

NolaTigaBait said:


> :sleep1:


Truth and knowledge make you sleepy?

That has to suck. :whistling2:


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> Truth and knowledge make you sleepy?
> 
> That has to suck. :whistling2:


 
.........


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Jim Port said:


> The problem is listed under 334.12 Uses not permitted. Section (B)(4) in wet or damp locations.
> 
> [Conduit outside is a wet location.


 Well, I was hoping for an explanation why, other than just a code reference. Most likely it is because of the freeze/thaw damage to the jacket of the NM if surrounded from condensation inside the conduit. Was just asking.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> Well, I was hoping for an explanation why, other than just a code reference. Most likely it is because of the freeze/thaw damage to the jacket of the NM if surrounded from condensation inside the conduit. Was just asking.



I would say most likely it is because NM is not rated for wet locations and regardless of freeze thaw cycles the NEC considers the inside of conduits installed in wet locations to be a wet location.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

I can see why under some circumstances....how many time have I pulled apart some tubing or whatever and find it full of water?....plenty...But, to come from say the attic to an outdoor panel maybe 2 or 3 feet, I don't see what the big deal is...I know it is a violation, but one that is accepted to some degree here...


----------



## Power21 (Jan 26, 2010)

thanks...so what do you guys use then for a rooftop recept then. sunlight res uf cable?


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> It is an NEC violation to run NM outdoors even in a raceway.
> 
> Find another plan.


You can skin it though and make a transition of a rx conn, 1/2 gal coupling and sealtite connector. I like to install the receptacle directly on the skirt of the unit and snake/pull in the cable from behind on the sealed side .


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Power21 said:


> thanks...so what do you guys use then for a rooftop recept then. sunlight res uf cable?


If you remove the complete outer jacket and paper it is permisible to use inside sealtite as long as you use an approved transition.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Shockdoc said:


> You can skin it though and make a transition of a rx conn, 1/2 gal coupling and sealtite connector. I like to install the receptacle directly on the skirt of the unit and snake/pull in the cable from behind on the sealed side .


 
No hack....you can not skin it.......:whistling2:


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

jwjrw said:


> No hack....you can not skin it.......:whistling2:


And why not? you are changing raceways . The code specifically states not to incorporate more than one wiring method such as cable inside conduit, as long as the sealtite is used as a raceway and not a sleeve it is completely compliant.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

Shockdoc said:


> If you remove the complete outer jacket and paper it is permisible to use inside sealtite as long as you use an approved transition.


I think the conductors need to be marked in order to that.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Shockdoc said:


> And why not? you are changing raceways .


 
The conductors inside romex are not marked to be in a wet location. I originally thought you were someone else. Sorry,I didn't mean to sound like an a**. Even though I am usually one.:laughing:


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

jwjrw said:


> The conductors inside romex are not marked to be in a wet location. I originally thought you were someone else. Sorry,I didn't mean to sound like an a**. Even though I am usually one.:laughing:


 Romex is THHN/THWN. I don't see why that's not acceptable


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Shockdoc said:


> Romex is THHN/THWN. I don't see why that's not acceptable


 

It IS NOT thhn/thwn.
Not only is the outer covering different it also is not identified as such. I used to think the same thing.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Shockdoc said:


> Romex is THHN/THWN.


Officially it is not THHN or any other NEC insulation type.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

jwjrw said:


> It IS NOT thhn/thwn.
> Not only is the outer covering different it also is not identified as such. I used to think the same thing.


I incorporated that method w/ type mc since normally my transitions are over a susp. ceiling on a commercial job. The conductors are clearly marked wet locations thhn/thwn. agreed that romex conductors appears to be thhn/thwn but is not clearly indentified for use.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Shockdoc said:


> I incorporated that method w/ type mc since normally my transitions are over a susp. ceiling on a commercial job. The conductors are clearly marked wet locations thhn/thwn. agreed that romex conductors appears to be thhn/thwn but is not clearly indentified for use.


 
Yea I do that with MC as well.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

It would be hard to convince anyone the ground conductor in Romex is covered with an invisible THHN insulation.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

drsparky said:


> It would be hard to convince anyone the ground conductor in Romex is covered with an invisible THHN insulation.


There is no requirement concerning an insulated ground. In fact, less than six feet at 15 or 20 amps does not require a grounding conductor.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

drsparky said:


> It would be hard to convince anyone the ground conductor in Romex is covered with an invisible THHN insulation.


Yeah that would be hard unless the inspector was drunk, high, or had just been born yesterday or all 3.

On second thought would an insulated ground be required here?


----------



## rbj (Oct 23, 2007)

Power21 said:


> Hey fellas, running 14/2 romex for the required service receptacle withing 25 feet of hvac equipment which is located on the rooftop. Anybody have another idea other than changing over to liquitite before breeching the roofline to the exterior. Thanks again.


The HVAC equipment on the roof requires a disconnect to the unit. 

Possible other method: Run SER through Liquitite through a roofjack all properly sized for a feeder to the Disconnect Box mounted on the HVAC unit. Install a 20A breakered BC to a WP FS box w/GFCI receptacle attached to the DB.


----------



## rbj (Oct 23, 2007)

*GFCI receptacle*

Also needs to be Weather and Tamper proof.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

I just want someone to explain why a plastic bottle exposed in dirt in a landfill will last for 600 years.

BUT.. take that same plastic bottle, make it into a wire, run a copper conductor through it, keep it out of the ground and it created a fire or electrical shock hazard. 

Oh yea.. beside telling me "its code"


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

rbj said:


> The HVAC equipment on the roof requires a disconnect to the unit.
> 
> Possible other method: Run SER through Liquitite through a roofjack all properly sized for a feeder to the Disconnect Box mounted on the HVAC unit. Install a 20A breakered BC to a WP FS box w/GFCI receptacle attached to the DB.


It is cheaper to run romex 14/2 and the sized two or three wire feed for the unit into a 5" box and pull one sealtite to unit to disconnect w/ a t box nippled off the disconnect. No need for that large neutral wire just for a service outlet. Just splice over to conducters clearly marked "wet locations" .


----------



## rbj (Oct 23, 2007)

Shockdoc said:


> It is cheaper to run romex 14/2 and the sized two or three wire feed for the unit into a 5" box and pull one sealtite to unit to disconnect w/ a t box nippled off the disconnect. No need for that large neutral wire just for a service outlet. Just splice over to conducters clearly marked "wet locations" .


I believe Romex still is not permitted in a wet location, and it is cheaper to use a standard breaker to GFCI receptacle on the roof. What is the 5" box for when a DB and feeder is still required? (Especially when the HVAC is a 4 ton unit. Hypothetical size used.):whistling2:


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

Shockdoc said:


> 1. There is no requirement concerning an insulated ground. 2. In fact, less than six feet at 15 or 20 amps does not require a grounding conductor.


1. No, but it is a dead giveaway that it is not THHN. 
2. What you talking about Willis?


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

NolaTigaBait said:


> I can see why under some circumstances....how many time have I pulled apart some tubing or whatever and find it full of water?....plenty...But, to come from say the attic to an outdoor panel maybe 2 or 3 feet, I don't see what the big deal is...I know it is a violation, but one that is accepted to some degree here...


Wow, it's so common there I never really considered it a violation.

Good ol' New Or-leens.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

Frasbee said:


> Wow, it's so common there I never really considered it a violation.
> 
> Good ol' New Or-leens.


I had no idea it was a violation, until I read the book. My old boss actually pulled it through pvc underground on a few jobs...and you people wonder where I get my hackedness from....I really don't think its a big deal to run from the attic to an outdoor panel, though.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

It just changed in 2008. I think its stupid to have to run uf or thhn out the bottom of the panel thru an lb under the house. Been doing it that way for as long as 480's been a sparky. If not longer.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> It just changed in 2008. I think its stupid to have to run uf or thhn out the bottom of the panel thru an lb under the house. Been doing it that way for as long as 480's been a sparky. If not longer.


Just look at all the people who received electric shock from NM run in PVC above ground outside.. :no:

The "CODE" defies common sense sometimes... this is one of them


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> It just changed in 2008. I think its stupid to have to run uf or thhn out the bottom of the panel thru an lb under the house. Been doing it that way for as long as 480's been a sparky. If not longer.


They had romex back in year 1?

I think it suck too, we do it here all the time, romex through conduit to j box then out the back through a snap in bushing and into the attic.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Black4Truck said:


> Just look at all the people who received electric shock from NM run in PVC above ground outside.. :no:
> 
> The "CODE" defies common sense sometimes... this is one of them


 

You know you are starting to sound a lot like Riveter!:laughing:
I agree it should not be ran outdoors but how about an exception for LB ing from the bottom of the panel to crawl.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> You know you are starting to sound a lot like Riveter!:laughing:
> I agree it should not be ran outdoors but how about an exception for LB ing from the bottom of the panel to crawl.


What is the safety hazard the "CODE" is trying to save us all from?? 

Riveter uses common sense for some of his posts on here.. why is that "challenging" to some of you? :jester:


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Black4Truck said:


> What is the safety hazard the "CODE" is trying to save us all from??
> 
> Riveter uses common sense for some of his posts on here.. why is that "challenging" to some of you? :jester:


i SEE YOUR THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX.


----------

