# Excessive routing of cables



## Hotlegs (Oct 9, 2011)

This home inspector wants every romex placed in a romex connector and the 2" PVC MA removed. Does the NEC allow the 2" PVC MA to be used in such a manner for multiple romex cables?


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

For years it was allowed, but now it is considered bundling and you would have to derate. I've never heard of the firestopping issue.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

110.3(b).


----------



## doogie (Feb 16, 2011)

where I live not sure about panel .But have been told 2 1/2 inch in wood with more then 5 wires is bundling by inspector.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Unless it runs for more than 24" it's not bundling. I don't know if bushings actually have to be listed...?

But I'd definitely say it's a violation of 312.5(C), which even reads as though it was worded specifically to prevent this type of installation.

-John


----------



## rlc3854 (Dec 30, 2007)

Hotlegs said:


> View attachment 19874
> 
> 
> This home inspector wants every romex placed in a romex connector and the 2" PVC MA removed. Does the NEC allow the 2" PVC MA to be used in such a manner for multiple romex cables?


 
Is this new work? The way the OP stated "Home Inspector" I took it as a pre-sale home inspector's report.


----------



## Hotlegs (Oct 9, 2011)

rlc3854 said:


> Is this new work? The way the OP stated "Home Inspector" I took it as a pre-sale home inspector's report.


No, the house was built 6 years ago. The 2" MA is the only way I have ever seen an indoor panel trimmed out, even on homes in my neighborhood being built. I have never seen romex connectors used on the top of a residential panel in the manner the home inspector is requesting. I'm going to look into the NEC more when I get my copy in front of me. 

Where is the listing for the number of romex cables you can run through say a 3/4", 1", 1 1/4", etc. romex connector? I don't remember seeing such a listing on the box they come in or the NEC.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Big John said:


> Unless it runs for more than 24" it's not bundling. I don't know if bushings actually have to be listed...?
> 
> But I'd definitely say it's a violation of 312.5(C), which even reads as though it was worded specifically to prevent this type of installation.
> 
> -John


I was assuming that there was a section of 2" PVC attached to this male adapter, that's why I brought up bundling.


All the connectors I use have max cables listed on the box. If I'm not mistaken, I thought there was a code about each cable needing a listed connector, but I can only seem to find it concerning boxes, not panelboards.


----------



## Hotlegs (Oct 9, 2011)

So do you see the 2" MA used like this in your area? I'm in Ft.Worth , T.X. And they, as well as about 30 surrounding cities , will pass the 2" MA all day long. Not saying its right, just that until this inspection report, it's all I've ever seen.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

A lot of guys do it. I wouldn't choose to install it, but I definitely wouldn't lose any sleep if that's how my panel was done.

The only argument I could make against it is possibly flame spread into the wall cavity in the event of a panel fire.

-John


----------



## Service Call (Jul 9, 2011)

I've been nailed by the same thing. It's to prevent fire spread into the wall and attic.


----------



## rlc3854 (Dec 30, 2007)

Since the house was built 6 years ago and assuming it was permitted and inspected for the then current building codes and passed the home inspector is not being reasonable in stated that it must/shall be changed to be compliant. This board has had many questions/answers and the way it is done regarding similar issues. Surface mounted exterior panels and NM passing through into panel without a chase nipple-wet/damp location failure of listed use of NM. Like others have said in residential work there are more serious issues than using a MA to chase your home runs to the panel.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

rlc3854 said:


> Since the house was built 6 years ago and assuming it was permitted and inspected for the then current building codes and passed the home inspector is not being reasonable in stated that it must/shall be changed to be compliant....


 I don't think I agree with this. Passing an inspection does not pardon non-compliant work.

If this was in violation when it was installed, then the HI was right to flag it, and it's reasonable for the homeowner to expect it to be repaired.

-John


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

If it is only about fire spread could you not fire caulk it? Or even duct seal.


----------



## ceb58 (Feb 14, 2009)

rlc3854 said:


> Since the house was built 6 years ago and assuming it was permitted and inspected for the then current building codes and passed the home inspector is not being reasonable in stated that it must/shall be changed to be compliant. This board has had many questions/answers and the way it is done regarding similar issues. Surface mounted exterior panels and NM passing through into panel without a chase nipple-wet/damp location failure of listed use of NM. Like others have said in residential work there are more serious issues than using a MA to chase your home runs to the panel.


I agree, if it was inspected and passed at the original inspection then that's it. A home inspector is working for the buyer. Any thing he can come up with to help the buyer negotiate a lower price is what he is after. 98% of the home inspectors I have seen and dealt with don't know their a** from a hole in the ground in the first place.


----------



## Auselect (Dec 2, 2011)

sbrn33 said:


> If it is only about fire spread could you not fire caulk it? Or even duct seal.


I agree, just fill it with fire caulk and be done, unless you want the money to add connectors then go for it.
I have seen it a few times around here, i wouldnt do it myself but I dont think it's that big of an issue, some panels have holes all over them for mounting purposes that you might not use, I have never worried about caulking them over, HI is wasting your time, unless, like I said, you want the work....
As for a code violation, each cable needs to be in a connector was my understanding, too late to look it up in NEC tonight.....


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Guys, John gave you the code section it violates. 

Adding fire caulk will only make the violation messy.

Pull the cables out and use connectors as the code requires.


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

Every single panel swap I put 1-2 cables per romex connector. Id never jam all the cables through a male adapter, its a blatant violation of the NEC.


----------



## denny3992 (Jul 12, 2010)

So the 2" pvc with a min 18"max 24" length was legal is it still?


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Hotlegs said:


> So do you see the 2" MA used like this in your area? I'm in Ft.Worth , T.X. And they, as well as about 30 surrounding cities , will pass the 2" MA all day long. Not saying its right, just that until this inspection report, it's all I've ever seen.


It's wrong. And your surrounding 30 cities are all wrong as well.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

denny3992 said:


> So the 2" pvc with a min 18"max 24" length was legal is it still?


Yes, if it is duct sealed and exposed, it can't be in the wall.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

It still is legal if you meet all the criteria.



> (C) Cables. Where cable is used, each cable shall be secured
> to the cabinet, cutout box, or meter socket enclosure.
> Exception: Cables with entirely nonmetallic sheaths shall
> be permitted to enter the top of a surface-mounted enclosure
> ...


----------



## Hotlegs (Oct 9, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> It still is legal if you meet all the criteria.


Well it looks like all of this criteria is met after reading this. A-G are all being met.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Hotlegs said:


> Well it looks like all of this criteria is met after reading this. A-G are all being met.


 It does not appear that the panel in post 1 is sufaced mounted. You can't use that section for a recessed panel.


----------



## Jim Port (Oct 1, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It does not appear that the panel in post 1 is sufaced mounted. You can't use that section for a recessed panel.


Agreed, but how would surface mounting be any safer than the same installation in a finished wall with the sleeve extending to allow future access to the panel?

Why is the sleeve allowed to only extend upward? I know what the rules say, but was looking to see the reasoning behind the rule.


----------



## Hotlegs (Oct 9, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It does not appear that the panel in post 1 is sufaced mounted. You can't use that section for a recessed panel.


You are correct sir, I missed the surface mount requirement. It is indeed a recessed panel.


----------



## Hotlegs (Oct 9, 2011)

What if I used a 2" romex connector and routed all the wires through it instead of the MA?


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Hotlegs said:


> What if I used a 2" romex connector and routed all the wires through it instead of the MA?


That would not be code compliant either as the listing of the connector will specify the number of cables permitted to be run through the connector. I have never seen a connector that permitted more than 2 NM cables to be installed in the connector. 110.3(B).

Chris


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Hotlegs said:


> Well it looks like all of this criteria is met after reading this. A-G are all being met.


Other than knowing this is a recessed panel how do you know the other criteria is met?


----------



## rlc3854 (Dec 30, 2007)

raider1 said:


> That would not be code compliant either as the listing of the connector will specify the number of cables permitted to be run through the connector. I have never seen a connector that permitted more than 2 NM cables to be installed in the connector. 110.3(B).
> 
> Chris


 

480 beat you to it but glad to see you posting. Maybe I have missed any of your recent postings but it seems that it has been a while. I count on you for the code references.


----------



## Hotlegs (Oct 9, 2011)

2 NM cables max per connector. I didn't know that. Good info.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

rlc3854 said:


> 480 beat you to it but glad to see you posting. Maybe I have missed any of your recent postings but it seems that it has been a while. I count on you for the code references.


I have been slammed this last little while. Since I was selected to sit on CMP 10 and all the teaching I have done I have not had much of a chance to post here. Things have slowed down and I hope to be on this forum more.:thumbup:

Chris


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Hotlegs said:


> 2 NM cables max per connector. I didn't know that. Good info.


That is something a lot of people are not aware of. I write it up as a violation on a regular basis in my area.

Chris


----------

