# Romex in conduit



## dronai (Apr 11, 2011)

Wanted to avoid a splice in a run, so I stripped the romex where it entered the conduit. What code violation is this ?


----------



## 8V71 (Dec 23, 2011)

No wet location identification on the conductors. Maybe ground should be insulated?


----------



## dronai (Apr 11, 2011)

This was a 50' run with 14' in 1 1/4" emt on the outside of the apartment to the new meters. #2cu wire. Attic really small to get in there and set a box, or convert to flex, so we went LB and nipple into the attic to a new sub-panel.


----------



## Cow (Jan 16, 2008)

dronai said:


> Wanted to avoid a splice in a run, so I stripped the romex where it entered the conduit. What code violation is this ?


You would of been legal if you hadn't stripped it assuming it's not outside and doesn't exceed the fill requirements for one cable in conduit.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

As long as it's not a damp or wet location and you leave the sheath on, it's legal.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

480sparky said:


> As long as it's not a damp or wet location and you leave the sheath on, it's legal.


I'd say if it runs outside the apartment, it's in a wet location.


----------



## dronai (Apr 11, 2011)

wendon said:


> I'd say if it runs outside the apartment, it's in a wet location.


 It's in Southern California, that's considered a very dry location. 


Must be a local amendment, we are not allowed to run jacketed romex inside a conduit exceeding a 1' sleeve.


----------



## gilbequick (Oct 6, 2007)

dronai said:


> It's in Southern California, that's considered a very dry location.
> 
> Must be a local amendment, we are not allowed to run jacketed romex inside a conduit exceeding a 1' sleeve.


Outside is a wet location.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

wendon said:


> I'd say if it runs outside the apartment, it's in a wet location.


It's actually considered a "damp" location. I'm talking about the NM being in conduit. Code considers the inside of conduit run outside a damp location. NM is not permitted in wet or damp locations.
That is the violation along with stripping the sheath because there are no markings on the conductors.
Although we all know what those conductors are!


----------



## dronai (Apr 11, 2011)

So the only thing that makes this unsafe is that the wire is not marked ? If you don't know, you shouldn't be touching.


----------



## Fibes (Feb 18, 2010)

dronai said:


> So the only thing that makes this unsafe is that the wire is not marked ? If you don't know, you shouldn't be touching.


I agree with post #9, it's not an issue of "wet location" or "if you don't know" it's a code violation of 310.120(A) (2011) When the sheath is removed there are no markings on the individual conductors.


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

A Little Short said:


> It's actually considered a "damp" location





> *Location, Wet.* Installations underground or in concrete
> slabs or masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations
> subject to saturation with water or other liquids, such
> as vehicle washing areas; and in unprotected locations exposed
> to weather.





> *300.9 Raceways in Wet Locations Above Grade.* Where
> raceways are installed in wet locations abovegrade, the interior
> of these raceways shall be considered to be a wet
> location. Insulated conductors and cables installed in raceways
> ...


:whistling2:



A Little Short said:


> Although we all know what those conductors are!


What are they?


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

A Little Short said:


> It's actually considered a "damp" location. I'm talking about the NM being in conduit. Code considers the inside of conduit run outside a damp location. NM is not permitted in wet or damp locations.
> That is the violation along with stripping the sheath because there are no markings on the conductors.
> Although we all know what those conductors are!


I believe the NEC considers the interior of an outdoor raceway, that is exposed to the weather, a wet location:

*Location, Wet.* Installations underground or in concrete slabs or masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations subject to saturation with water or other liquids, such as vehicle washing areas; and in *unprotected locations exposed to weather.*

*300.9 Raceways in Wet Locations Abovegrade.* Where raceways are installed in wet locations abovegrade, the interior of these raceways shall be considered to be a wet location. Insulated conductors and cables installed in raceways in wet locations abovegrade shall comply with 310.10(C)

So, IMHO, two violations exist; stripping the jacket off of the NM and routing the conductors through a raceway exposed to the weather.

Do I think it's a grave hazard? No. 

Could I approve it? No.

Pete


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Is there an echo?


----------



## dronai (Apr 11, 2011)

Barjack said:


> Is there an echo?


 Yeah, but Pete is an inspector :laughing: 

I think I will sleep at night with this installation considering the alternative.


----------



## Fibes (Feb 18, 2010)

Barjack said:


> :whistling2:
> 
> 
> 
> What are they?


Read 334.112, the kicker is that you wouldn't know which of the types was used.


----------



## dronai (Apr 11, 2011)

Type Thhn is all that is used here for building wire. Size is very common to those who work with this daily.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

dronai said:


> Type Thhn is all that is used here for building wire. Size is very common to those who work with this daily.


Most of the "THHN" I see anymore is dual rated as THHN/THWN-2. I can't think of the last time I saw straight THHN.

Pete


----------



## dronai (Apr 11, 2011)

In the load center, the wire would be stripped, and you wouldn't be able to see the markings as well, so what's the difference ?


----------



## Fibes (Feb 18, 2010)

dronai said:


> Type Thhn is all that is used here for building wire. Size is very common to those who work with this daily.


As Pete says, I don't think there is any straight THHN anymore. And even though we all know the conductors in NM are probably THHN/THWN the fact that they are not marked leaves us where we are. The truth is that it helps the manufacturers sell more wire this way.


----------



## Fibes (Feb 18, 2010)

dronai said:


> In the load center, the wire would be stripped, and you wouldn't be able to see the markings as well, so what's the difference ?


 
There is no real difference and in 2017 it will be illegal to terminate NM in a panel. 










JK


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

dronai said:


> So the only thing that makes this unsafe is that the wire is not marked ? If you don't know, you shouldn't be touching.


Not necessarily unsafe but a Code violation nonetheless. It's one of those Stupid Codes that's supposed to protect DIYers.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Fibes said:


> As Pete says, I don't think there is any straight THHN anymore. And even though we all know the conductors in NM are probably THHN/THWN the fact that they are not marked leaves us where we are. The truth is that it helps the manufacturers sell more wire this way.


I agree with you mostly but I don't think the conductor insulation inside romex is THHN.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

ponyboy said:


> I agree with you mostly but I don't think the conductor insulation inside romex is THHN.


You could be right but it must be some insulation that has a 90 degree rating. Otherwise, you couldn't begin your deration from the 90 degree ampacity.

Pete


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Pete m. said:


> You could be right but it must be some insulation that has a 90 degree rating. Otherwise, you couldn't begin your deration from the 90 degree ampacity. Pete


And romex ampacity is rated at the 60° Column correct? But it's derated from the 90° column? I'm just curious as I never really work with it


----------



## Fibes (Feb 18, 2010)

ponyboy said:


> And romex ampacity is rated at the 60° Column correct? But it's derated from the 90° column?


Correct.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Fibes said:


> Correct.


Then you might be right about the THHN but it sure don't look/feel like it


----------



## Fibes (Feb 18, 2010)

ponyboy said:


> Then you might be right about the THHN but it sure don't look/feel like it


 
To me it seems like THHN/THWN without the nylon covering.

I must say I'm like you and don't work with it much.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Fibes said:


> To me it seems like THHN/THWN without the nylon covering....


 If it has a nylon jacket, it's basically THHN, if it doesn't it's basically TW. This is from UL 719 which is the listing standard for NM cable:


> *6.1* Both before and after assembly into finished cable, the insulation employed on the circuit conductors shall comply with (a) or (b):
> 
> a)THHN Construction – Jacketed insulation for a Type NM or NMC cable shall have a nylon or similar jacket and shall comply with the thickness and other applicable requirements for Type THHN thermoplastic-insulated wire without (see 25.18) any surface marking of “THHN”, “-B” or any ampacity or temperature rating.
> 
> b)TW Construction – Insulation without a nylon jacket shall comply with the thickness requirements for a Type TW thermoplastic insulated wire. The insulation material shall comply with (1) or (2):


 That said, it's still a technical code violation to use it free of the cable jacket.


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

Pete m. said:


> You could be right but it must be some insulation that has a 90 degree rating. Otherwise, you couldn't begin your deration from the 90 degree ampacity.
> 
> Pete


Pretty sure romex is rated 90 degrees. Will check in a bit. Pulling thhn/thwn/MTW right now.


----------



## Fibes (Feb 18, 2010)

Going_Commando said:


> Pretty sure romex is rated 90 degrees. Will check in a bit. Pulling thhn/thwn/MTW right now.


The conductors are 90 degree conductors see the aforementioned 334.112 however, you can not use it above 60 degree, see 334.80


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Going_Commando said:


> Pretty sure romex is rated 90 degrees. Will check in a bit. Pulling thhn/thwn/MTW right now.





> *334.112 Insulation.*The insulated power conductors shall be one of the types listed in Table 310.104(A) that are suitable for branch-circuit wiring or one that is identified for use in these cables. Conductor insulation shall be rated at 90°C (194°F).


Pick *any* 90°C conductor from T310.104(A) and you can use it in NM.

Not _just_ THHN can be used. *ANY* 90° conductor can be in NM.

And since it's not marked by the manufacturer, you can never know what's in it.


----------



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

This may not apply but for years romex was ran under the slab in pvc and stubbed up for the kitchen island. Now here it has to be uf or a wet location type conductor.

learning to learn


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

Pete m. said:


> I believe the NEC considers the interior of an outdoor raceway, that is exposed to the weather, a wet location:
> 
> *Location, Wet.* Installations underground or in concrete slabs or masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations subject to saturation with water or other liquids, such as vehicle washing areas; and in *unprotected locations exposed to weather.*
> 
> ...


Yeah, I should have said "wet" but regardless, NM is not permitted in wet or damp locations. Actually it says permitted in "normally dry locations", to be perfectly correct!:whistling2:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Actually the bag that comes shrink wrapped over the 250 ft rolls says ''indoor wire''. Now outside of some panic hardware and maybe an Aiphone or something like it, I don't know of a single other use for running wiring in doors, and I know damn near everything. What I can't figure out is how come Home Depot sells so much of it when the manufacturer states that it is to be only used in doors. .......


----------

