Type NM (Romex), conduit and the NEC

Reply

  #1  
Old 02-02-13, 12:15 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 126
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Type NM (Romex), conduit and the NEC

I know this is an old thread, but to add a question to it:

Would it be better to skin the outer insulation off the section of romex that will be running inside the metal conduit when using the transition fitting?

I was explained ti once before that the reason you don't run romex in pipe is because the insulation is not rated for it.

Thanks

Mod Note: Separated from Transition NM Romex to EMT conduit
 

Last edited by Nashkat1; 02-03-13 at 09:20 PM.
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 02-02-13, 12:30 PM
Tolyn Ironhand's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 12,967
Received 59 Votes on 52 Posts
The main reason you do not use Romex in pipe is it is a pain in the butt to install. Codewise you may install it in pipe to protect the cable.

You can not strip off the outer jacket of Romex, and use the conductors in place of THHN wire, because it is not marked as THHN even though the insulation is the same as THHN. Kind of confusing, I know, but code requires individual conductors to be marked on the outer jacket.
 
  #3  
Old 02-02-13, 12:36 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 126
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
There's always a reason ;-) Thanks!
 
  #4  
Old 02-02-13, 01:16 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
hi guys -

I was going to post that same question one of these days, because of the paragraph below. This is from a really old NEC version (2002), but it is one of those annotated versions where the author(s) of the NEC make helpful comments. This is the comment below section 300.15 (F):



Where a cable system makes a transition to a raceway to provide mechanical protection against damage, 300.15 (F) permits the use of a fitting instead of a box. For example, where nonmetallic sheathed cable that runs overhead on floor joists and drops down on a masonry wall to supply a receptacle needs to be protected from physical damage, a short length of raceway is installed to the outlet device box. The cable sheath is removed for the length of the raceway. The cable is then inserted in the raceway and secured by a combination fitting that is fastened to the end of the raceway.
 
  #5  
Old 02-02-13, 05:53 PM
CasualJoe's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 10,051
Received 26 Votes on 20 Posts
This is from a really old NEC version (2002),
Hey now! It's not THAT OLD!

Are you getting that from a NEC Handbook? I only ask because that isn't exactly what the 2002 NEC says. The actual language doesn't address whether you can or cannot strip the sheathing.
 
  #6  
Old 02-02-13, 06:56 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Hi joe –

It’s from the “NEC 2002 Handbook”.

Under section 300.15 “ Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings- Where Required” there is a paragraph (F) as follows:

….(F) Fittings. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall be accessible after installation.
Then immediately following the above paragraph there is Exhibit 300.13 which has a picture of a receptacle and the following supposedly explanatory shaded background note for 300.15 (F) added by the author:

Where a cable system makes a transition to a raceway to provide mechanical protection against damage, 300.15 (F) permits the use of a fitting instead of a box. For example, where nonmetallic sheathed cable that runs overhead on floor joists and drops down on a masonry wall to supply a receptacle needs to be protected from physical damage, a short length of raceway is installed to the outlet device box. The cable sheath is removed for the length of the raceway. The cable is then inserted in the raceway and secured by a combination fitting that is fastened to the end of the raceway.
 
  #7  
Old 02-02-13, 08:13 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 126
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
If I am not mistaken, the NEC does view raceway and conduit as separate items. Raceway is more likely treated as a box or end device - i.e. - Legrand Plugmold - its a raceway with plugs, romex goes into the raceway via a pushin, which you strip the romex down to practically the entry point inside the raceway. Because you can see some sheathing you can i.d. the wires - therefore what Tolyn mentioned earlier doesn't affect this scenario.
 
  #8  
Old 02-02-13, 09:46 PM
Nashkat1's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 8,470
Received 1 Vote on 1 Post
From the 2011 NEC:

300.15 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings —Where Required.

(C) Protection. A box or conduit body shall not be required
where cables enter or exit from conduit or tubing
that is used to provide cable support or protection against
physical damage. A fitting shall be provided on the end(s)
of the conduit or tubing to protect the cable from abrasion.
I've used transition connectors and knock-on bushings. When we've used the transition connectors, we's stripped the jacket off the wiring beyond the clamp. When we've used the knock-on bushings, we've pulled the cable through with the jacket still in place.

With very few exceptions, we use the transition connectors to go into pipe that is heading into a panel or splice box. The knock-on bushings go on pipe that is only a sleeve - it is open on both ends.
 
  #9  
Old 02-03-13, 09:20 AM
pcboss's Avatar
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 14,946
Received 31 Votes on 27 Posts
Once the sheath is stripped off the wiring is no longer a listed method unless the conductors inside are labeled. Type NM cable conductors are not labeled under the sheath.
 
  #10  
Old 02-03-13, 10:36 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
hi chop-

If I am not mistaken, the NEC does view raceway and conduit as separate items....

This is the first part of the definition “Raceway” from the 2002 NEC Handbook. It seems to me EMT clearly falls under the heading of raceway. The reason I’m posting all this stuff is because I had the same question when I wanted to run my romex down from the joists in my unfinished basement through EMT to a receptacle outlet box.

Raceway. An enclose channel metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars, with additional functions as permitted in this Code. Raceways include, but are not limited to, rigid metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, intermediate metal conduit, liquidtight flexible conduit, electrical nonmetallic tubing, electrical metallic tubing…
 
  #11  
Old 02-03-13, 11:00 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
hi pcboss

-the reason I posted the quotes from the 2002 NEC Handbook is because it appears that the guys who wrote the code say you can strip the sheathing off romex. In other words doesn’t the part I highlighted below in red say that?

I guess maybe the example the author gives contradicts some other section, and maybe that’s what you are referring to, and I guess it also matters what “short” means. But it seems as though short would have to me at least ceiling to floor.

Wow, this NEC sure makes it hard for us newbie’s. If that book is full of contradictions what is a guy to do?

Where a cable system makes a transition to a raceway to provide mechanical protection against damage, 300.15 (F) permits the use of a fitting instead of a box. For example, where nonmetallic sheathed cable that runs overhead on floor joists and drops down on a masonry wall to supply a receptacle needs to be protected from physical damage, a short length of raceway is installed to the outlet device box. The cable sheath is removed for the length of the raceway. The cable is then inserted in the raceway and secured by a combination fitting that is fastened to the end of the raceway.
 
  #12  
Old 02-03-13, 12:30 PM
CasualJoe's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 10,051
Received 26 Votes on 20 Posts
-the reason I posted the quotes from the 2002 NEC Handbook is because it appears that the guys who wrote the code say you can strip the sheathing off romex. In other words doesn’t the part I highlighted below in red say that?
I don't agree with everything in the NEC and also don't agree with all of the comments in the NEC Handbook. In this case, whoever wrote the comments for the handbook has elaborated and written something that drastically alters the wording in the actual code which has been discussed, debated and voted on by the code panel. When it comes to interpretting the NEC, the handbook is a useful tool, but you must remember that the handbook is the opinion of the author and does not supercede the written word of the code.

Wow, this NEC sure makes it hard for us newbie’s. If that book is full of contradictions what is a guy to do?
Yes, it reads like a law book. Just remember that the handbook is a useful too, but not the gospel.
 
  #13  
Old 02-03-13, 01:00 PM
pcboss's Avatar
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 14,946
Received 31 Votes on 27 Posts
The cable sheath does not need to be removed. While I don't see the harm in doing so it would be technical violation to remove the sheath. That is the first time I have seen that section in print form the Handbook.
 
  #14  
Old 02-03-13, 05:12 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
In this case, whoever wrote the comments for the handbook has elaborated and written something that drastically alters the wording in the actual code


OK Joe - you got me scurrying around now. I thought the people writing the comments were the people who worded the code! That's why it struck me as so important! Are you sure you are correct and the writer was some third party? I look again to see what my book says.



ok
 
  #15  
Old 02-03-13, 05:15 PM
pcboss's Avatar
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 14,946
Received 31 Votes on 27 Posts
The different sections of the NEC are written by commitees. The Handbook is written by people that may not even be involved in the actual writing. The Handbook is their opinion based on interpretation.

The commentary is not enforceable.
 
  #16  
Old 02-03-13, 06:11 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
The different sections of the NEC are written by commitees. The Handbook is written by people that may not even be involved in the actual writing. The Handbook is their opinion based on interpretation.


Gotcha pcboss! But as an aside, management 101 tells us a committee can’t be responsible for anything. An individual is needed for responsibility.

You certainly may be correct in that the Handbook interpretation is in fact not that of the code writers. I may have misinterpreted what the Handbook says about the source of its illuminating comments. I thought the comments were in fact those of the code writers. So yes I may be wrong, I will have to look carefully at the Handbook’s disclosure about its authors. However those comments are from at the least, respected, knowledgeable, notable, credentialed interpreters.

So we would have to say those interpreters are just plain wrong if we discard their interpretations. Not out of the question, but a pretty profound statement.

The commentary is not enforceable.
But in a court of law (i.e., a reasonable interpretation someplace somewhere ), whose interpretation would supersede theirs?
 
  #17  
Old 02-03-13, 06:13 PM
CasualJoe's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 10,051
Received 26 Votes on 20 Posts
The different sections of the NEC are written by commitees. The Handbook is written by people that may not even be involved in the actual writing. The Handbook is their opinion based on interpretation.

The commentary is not enforceable
pcboss, I couldn't have said it any better than that. I cannot check the handbook to see who writes the commentary because I quit buying them many years ago when the price got outrageous. Overall I think the handbooks is great, but you have to watch out for comments that may change the actual wording of the code.
 
  #18  
Old 02-03-13, 06:21 PM
CasualJoe's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 10,051
Received 26 Votes on 20 Posts
But in a court of law (i.e., a reasonable interpretation someplace somewhere ), whose interpretation would supersede theirs?
A recognized code expert is what comes to my mind. Just having experience with the code or studying the code doesn't make one a recognized expert unless you also have credentials and a PE after your name. The only recognized code expert that quickly comes to mind is Charlie Trout who writes "Code Question of the Day" (I read it daily).
 
  #19  
Old 02-03-13, 06:52 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
...but you have to watch out for comments that may change the actual wording of the code.
OK Joe I don’t want to beat this to death, but my point is the interpretation of the actual wording of the code is what’s at stake here. Saying that the comments in the Handbook may change the actual wording assumes somehow we (well you anyway) already know what the actual wording means!

Where does your confidence come from?

(BTW The people writing the Handbook are PE’s. )

In other words what I am trying to say subtly, but apparently unsuccessfully, without whacking you on the head with a big stick is:

Who are we to believe, you or the people who wrote the Handbook? Somehow you think you could help them out with interpretation.
 
  #20  
Old 02-03-13, 08:27 PM
pcboss's Avatar
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 14,946
Received 31 Votes on 27 Posts
The only official interpretation will come from NFPA.
 
  #21  
Old 02-03-13, 08:38 PM
Nashkat1's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 8,470
Received 1 Vote on 1 Post
The only recognized code expert that quickly comes to mind is Charlie Trout who writes "Code Question of the Day" (I read it daily).
Charlie Trout is certainly a reliable authority. Mike Holt also comes to mind.
 
  #22  
Old 02-03-13, 08:41 PM
Nashkat1's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 8,470
Received 1 Vote on 1 Post
Wow, this NEC sure makes it hard for us newbie’s. If that book is full of contradictions what is a guy to do?
The same thing the rest of us do. Ask the only expert that matters: the Authority Having Jurisdiction.

BTW, what are you a newbie at? Have you joined an apprenticeship program?
 
  #23  
Old 02-03-13, 09:00 PM
Nashkat1's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 8,470
Received 1 Vote on 1 Post
You certainly may be correct in that the Handbook interpretation is in fact not that of the code writers. I may have misinterpreted what the Handbook says about the source of its illuminating comments. I thought the comments were in fact those of the code writers. So yes I may be wrong, I will have to look carefully at the Handbook’s disclosure about its authors. However those comments are from at the least, respected, knowledgeable, notable, credentialed interpreters.

So we would have to say those interpreters are just plain wrong if we discard their interpretations. Not out of the question, but a pretty profound statement.
Credentialed by whom? And what difference does it make who wrote them? They have no regulatory strength.

The NEC, a.k.a. NFPA 70, is a reference that is written by committees made up of people believed to be knowledgeable in the field. It has no authority, and is not enforceable, until and unless it is adopted as a regulation by an AHJ. The various jurisdictions adopt it, or don't, on their own schedules and in their own ways. Many adopt it along with locally drafted provisions that expand, restrict, interpret or limit some of the provisions in the national code.

The Handbooks are interesting aids in understanding the NEC, for people working in the field. They do not address any local regulations. To the best of my knowledge, none has ever been adopted by a local jurisdiction.

But in a court of law (i.e., a reasonable interpretation someplace somewhere ), whose interpretation would supersede theirs?
The writers of the Handbooks have no standing in court. Neither do the writers of the National Electrical Code.
 
  #24  
Old 02-03-13, 09:08 PM
Nashkat1's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 8,470
Received 1 Vote on 1 Post
the interpretation of the actual wording of the code is what’s at stake here.
The interpretation of the Code is always what's at stake. Want to start a "heated discussion?" Ask any three electricians to give you their preferred method for doing something, the sections they relied on, and their reasons for relying on those sections.
 

Last edited by Nashkat1; 02-03-13 at 10:03 PM.
  #25  
Old 02-03-13, 10:49 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,493
Received 33 Votes on 25 Posts
Read this carefully!

The NEC, a.k.a. NFPA 70, is a reference that is written by committees made up of people believed to be knowledgeable in the field. It has no authority, and is not enforceable, until and unless it is adopted as a regulation by an AHJ. The various jurisdictions adopt it, or don't, on their own schedules and in their own ways. Many adopt it along with locally drafted provisions that expand, restrict, interpret or limit some of the provisions in the national code.
This applies to ALL the "Model" (national) codes including plumbing, electrical, mechanical and the like. No code of any kind has any power of enforcement until it is adopted on a state, regional or local level by a legislative body. It then becomes LAW for that area and all matters of interpretation are done by officials in that area designated by the enabling legislation. In short, national codes mean nothing, LOCAL codes mean everything.

That stated, most state, regional and local codes ARE based upon the national codes, often verbatim, but just as often with additions and/or deletions. It is incumbent on the person doing the work to know and understand the LOCAL codes.
 
  #26  
Old 02-04-13, 02:51 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
My township has in fact officially adopted the NEC verbatim, along with other unrelated national codes. This is something I checked before doing anything and I will give most people credit for doing the same thing. My understanding is that adopting the code verbatim is in fact common.

Otherwise why worry about the NEC? I see the NEC referenced many times on this forum by the experts. Thus it seems there is a tacit assumption by the experts on this forum that the NEC is in fact extremely relevant most places most times. But if we are saying interpreting the NEC is not mandatory then that is an entirely different story.
 
  #27  
Old 02-04-13, 03:02 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Wow, this NEC sure makes it hard for us newbie’s. If that book is full of contradictions what is a guy to do?

The same thing the rest of us do. Ask the only expert that matters: the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
Then why are you giving advice on this forum? Obviously you think your method/interpretation has a high probability of being “code compliant”, and thus a high probability of being acceptable to an expert AHJ, otherwise you would just be muddying the waters?

If I’m not mistaken isn’t the term “code compliant” used repeatedly by the experts on this forum? What are you all talking about if not the NEC? Isn’t the NEC tacitly assumed?

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the expert advice given on this forum, and I’m sure all the others who frequent the forum do as well. The advice is extremely valuable and much appreciated.

But I started by simply pointing out that the advice given in this particular case on this particular thread, was obviously different than the interpretation given in the 2002 NEC Handbook. What I thought would happen is that because the 2002 NEC Handbook is in fact respected (so I thought) someone here would explain in technical terms (references, etc.) why they think their interpretation was the better?

After all, when someone makes an interpretation, one has to assume the interpreter has something in mind (sections, paragraph, definitions, etc.) when they make that interpretation. If you look back at the responses on this thread there is no doubt that folks are alluding to a set of rules. But I had no expectation that anyone here has to “defend” their interpretation.

BTW, what are you a newbie at? Have you joined an apprenticeship program?

No apprenticeship. Newbie at electrical.

But absolutely not a newbie when it comes to the direct involvement in disputes centered around conflicting interpretations and implementation of written system technical requirements and the legal interpretation of those requirements (i.e., opposing “engineer-lawyer” teams doing battle over different interpretations of requirements). Thus my experience is such that I do not believe and have never believed that written “comments” about the NEC would ever have any legal standing.

But in a court of law (i.e., a reasonable interpretation someplace somewhere ), whose interpretation would supersede theirs?



I meant the word “court” in a figurative sense, indicated by the statement following it in parentheses. This is not about any legal battle or legal footing. It was curiosity, but with also some utilitarian value, about what seems to me to be varying interpretations among experts (experts here and the NEC Handbook experts).

p.s. CasualJoe sorry about the whack on the head comment. I think that came out the wrong way. I know you are a savvy guy!
 
  #28  
Old 02-04-13, 04:16 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,493
Received 33 Votes on 25 Posts
The vast majority of the text of all models codes is retained when enacted into law by an "Authority Having Jurisdiction" and it is fairly rare for the AHJ to vary much from the model code. Most differences are fairly minor and pertain to dates of effectiveness or adding a certain requirement to be general rather than specific and sometimes to delete specifics altogether. For instance, some AHJs removed the requirement for all circuits to have AFCI as specified in the (I think) 2008 NEC cycle.

I think the main thing to keep in mind is that the codes have to be looked at in their entirety rather than as isolated sections. The example you are using concerning stripping the outer sheath of type NM cable when it is used in conduit is a good one. Don't ask me where (I'm NOT a code expert) but somewhere there is an article pertaining to using individual conductors that requires those conductors to be permanently marked in some specific manner. Using conductors that are not marked in that specified manner would be a code violation, albeit not a serious one in my opinion. THAT would be the section that would prevail, not an Article about using type NM in conduit. Many things in all codes will not be immediately apparent from reading only a few Articles or paragraphs of the code but MUST be in compliance with ALL Articles to be fully compliant.

There are also the special provisions that will sometimes supersede more general Articles. One that comes to mind is that generally conductors smaller than 1/0 may NOT be paralleled but there IS a special provision that applies to certain "traveling cables" on elevator cars that DOES allow paralleling of fairly small conductors. Another is that certain applications, including welders, cranes and hoists may ignore the Ampacity limits that generally apply to the various conductor sizes and substitute a different formula for calculating Ampacity. Another similar mistake is made by people who use the maximum Ampacities listed in table 3-16 (I think that is correct) for calculating the needed conductor size for any given circuit. I have found the "big box" stores to be notorious for advertising these Ampacities, which are used ONLY for derating purposes, as proper working figures.
 
  #29  
Old 02-04-13, 04:54 PM
Nashkat1's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 8,470
Received 1 Vote on 1 Post
If I’m not mistaken isn’t the term “code compliant” used repeatedly by the experts on this forum? What are you all talking about if not the NEC? Isn’t the NEC tacitly assumed?
The NEC isn't tacitly assumed. It's explicitly stated to be the reference we use. If you read the threads carefully, you'll see phrases such as "the 2011 edition of the NEC" used.

Let me ask this question a different way: "Why do we use the NEC, and the latest edition, at that?" Because it is the best guideline for safe electrical work in the United States, and is also followed as a model in many other countries. And, as you said,
My understanding is that adopting the code verbatim is in fact common.
There is no better reference for what is, or isn't, code compliant - after all, it is the code in most jurisdictions, as you said.

In the replies here, you'll also see phrases such as "All codes is local" and "check with your AHJ" or "check with your inspector." No one is holding out that the replies here are definitive. They are best advice, given by volunteers.

You can also find, in many threads, cross-checking and correcting. In fact, this thread is an example of that.

But in a court of law (i.e., a reasonable interpretation someplace somewhere ), whose interpretation would supersede theirs?
I meant the word “court” in a figurative sense, indicated by the statement following it in parentheses. This is not about any legal battle or legal footing. It was curiosity, but with also some utilitarian value, about what seems to me to be varying interpretations among experts (experts here and the NEC Handbook experts).
Interesting. This is the first I've heard that you weren't actually talking about a court of law. And I don't see anything in your original statement to suggest that you weren't.

Your earlier post in this thread is also the first time I've seen any material from an NEC Handbook suggested as authoritative in this forum. I think we've answered why it isn't.

Simply put,
  • Adopted regulations are authoritative, especially in anything resembling litigation. No other material is;
  • The current edition of the NEC is the best available reference for guidance for safe electrical work;
  • The current edition of the NEC is the best available reference for guidance to what an AHJ is likely to find acceptable; and
  • All codes is local.
 
  #30  
Old 02-04-13, 05:06 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,493
Received 33 Votes on 25 Posts
Thank you, Nashkat1, very well stated.
 
  #31  
Old 02-04-13, 05:32 PM
Nashkat1's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 8,470
Received 1 Vote on 1 Post
Thanks, Furd. And I meant to thank you, earlier, for this comment:
This applies to ALL the "Model" (national) codes including plumbing, electrical, mechanical and the like.
"Model" is the exact word I was reaching for, and couldn't quite grasp, when I wrote the post you were replying to! It's what they're actually called, and it nails down their status in a single word.

 
  #32  
Old 02-04-13, 05:56 PM
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 6,130
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
The term adopted Model Codes is a good definition. Any state, county or jurisdiction has the ability to modify a model if it does lessen the requirement since a model is the minimum, but local situations can over-ride the models based on conditions or local problems.

A prime example is the structural portions of codes where the requirements are based on the generally expected conditions. Winds, snow, seismic can even be different in some counties resulting in radically different designs for identical structures in different locations. To compound that, often local materials can vary and require different treatment and inspection the AHJ or inspector.

I have been on numerous "code and code standards committees" and found that when when you get people from different areas of the country with different interests, it like a cat-fight between manufacturers, users, designers and contractors and interested parties. That is why there are "model codes" that can be modified or tightened depending on local situations.

Dick
 
  #33  
Old 02-04-13, 06:59 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
I think the main thing to keep in mind is that the codes have to be looked at in their entirety rather than as isolated sections.
Furd I think you insult the intelligence of many people here, me for sure. I don’t think you mean to since I know you are a guy who is honest, very smart, straightforward, and a stickler for the truth (A rare breed).

Obviously you have to look at the totality. I do in fact have experience as an ancillary function in aiding a legal arm and looking at rules and specifications in their entirety, and believe it or not with sets of documents much larger and much more complex than the NEC. This would include arguments that tie together many different sections and paragraphs of many different documents.
 
  #34  
Old 02-04-13, 07:08 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Interesting. This is the first I've heard that you weren't actually talking about a court of law. And I don't see anything in your original statement to suggest that you weren't.

Now Nashkat I think maybe (and hopefully) you are trying to be funny? I wasn’t talking about Martians either in my first posts but I didn’t think I needed to explicitly say so. There was no mention of law, courts, or anything like that in my first posts.

Your earlier post in this thread is also the first time I've seen any material from an NEC Handbook suggested as authoritative in this forum. I think we've answered why it isn't.
I never used the word authoritative but I do admit I did imply that in competing interpretations the NEC Handbook might certainly have the stronger hand more often than not. Why? Maybe because it’s a very professionally done interpretation where no others exist because of the enormous effort involved? Who can afford that effort? But I think that’s off the point.

I posed the challenge as to why one should take the interpretation of the experts on this forum for this specific case over the NEC Handbook? That seems like a healthy challenge to me and one you should welcome. It is not a criticism of the experts on this forum.

The answer it seems to me should have been a “technical interpretation” not an ad hominem argument that addresses the relative credibility or authority of the NEC Handbook.

In other words, why don’t you just tell us why the NEC Handbook interpretation is wrong and be done with it?
 
  #35  
Old 02-04-13, 07:46 PM
CasualJoe's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 10,051
Received 26 Votes on 20 Posts
I had no intent on starting a heated exchange on the NEC. My only point was to say that the actual verbage of the code does not address whether it is compliant to strip the sheathing of the NM cable within the conduit raceway.

Where a cable system makes a transition to a raceway to provide mechanical protection against damage, 300.15 (F) permits the use of a fitting instead of a box. For example, where nonmetallic sheathed cable that runs overhead on floor joists and drops down on a masonry wall to supply a receptacle needs to be protected from physical damage, a short length of raceway is installed to the outlet device box. The cable sheath is removed for the length of the raceway. The cable is then inserted in the raceway and secured by a combination fitting that is fastened to the end of the raceway.
The author of the comment seems to think it is compliant to strip the sheathing. In my opinion, it is the local AHJ who shall make that decision.
 
  #36  
Old 02-04-13, 11:26 PM
Nashkat1's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 8,470
Received 1 Vote on 1 Post
I did imply that in competing interpretations the NEC Handbook might certainly have the stronger hand more often than not. Why? Maybe because it’s a very professionally done interpretation where no others exist because of the enormous effort involved? Who can afford that effort? But I think that’s off the point.
Yes, that is off the point. The point is that "all codes is local." Your choosing to ignore that point will not make it any less true.

I posed the challenge as to why one should take the interpretation of the experts on this forum for this specific case over the NEC Handbook? That seems like a healthy challenge to me and one you should welcome. It is not a criticism of the experts on this forum.
That's not a challenge. That's an open-and-shut, slam-dunk closed case. The answer is that no one should take the interpretation of the members on this forum for any specific case over the NEC Handbook, or any number of other sources they might consult.

There are no "experts" on this forum. There are members who share their experience with other members. If you want an expert interpretation of the proper way to do something in your jurisdiction, you must
Originally Posted by Nashkat1
Ask the only expert that matters: the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
The answer it seems to me should have been a “technical interpretation” not an ad hominem argument that addresses the relative credibility or authority of the NEC Handbook.
An interesting characterization. Can you quote the ad hominem argument that I posted? What I have said, consistently, is that
Originally Posted by Nashkat1
The Handbooks are interesting aids in understanding the NEC, for people working in the field. They do not address any local regulations. To the best of my knowledge, none has ever been adopted by a local jurisdiction.
That doesn't make the information in them right or wrong. It just makes it not decisive in a decision on compliance and not germane to that discussion. The closest analogy that comes to mind is the Talmud, but the Handbooks have even less authority in its field than that storied set of marginalia has in its.
 
  #37  
Old 02-05-13, 01:52 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,493
Received 33 Votes on 25 Posts
Furd I think you insult the intelligence of many people here, me for sure.
No insult intended towards you or anyone else. While I cannot remember any case with you specifically I have read many times in this forum of someone taking one tiny snippet of the NEC and applying it (erroneously) to justify their actions. I made the reference to paralleled cables and elevator cars because there was a poster that was trying to use that specific item to justify his action of paralleling some POWER conductors. Perhaps you DO read all the applicable Articles, paragraphs, subsections and Fine Print Notices but if you do you are the exception rather than the rule. Very few outside "the trade" will ever do any in-depth research into codes, our young friend Justin, excepted.

This is why I often do not respond to questions pertaining to electrical work and code compliance. By the very way that some posters word their questions it is obvious to me that they do not possess the necessary skills to safely work with electrical systems AND they often do not even want to properly educate themselves. I remember one in particular that I'm pretty sure wanted to punch me in the nose when I suggested that he read a few DIY books on the subject before he killed himself or a loved one. I won't "help" anyone do that.

As has been stated repeatedly in this thread the ONLY opinion that matters is the Authority Having Jurisdiction. This normally will be the inspector that looks at your work and signs off the permit as approved. If you disagree with the inspector's interpretation of the code you usually can request a higher authority (the inspector's supervisor) to make a ruling. Sometimes there is another authority over the field inspector's supervisor but eventually you come to the end of the line, the supreme court, so to speak. I will tell you this, it is EXTREMELY rare that a field inspector is not "backed up" all the way to the top so if the field inspector says you must do something differently than what you did it is best to humor him no matter what YOU might think or how many "expert opinions" you can cite. I'm not trying to be argumentative or mean-spirited, just telling it the way it is in the real world.

Just like many others here there are portions of the NEC (and other codes) that I disagree with and I often think that the codes go too far in their requirements and/or prohibitions. BUT, no one has ever invited me to sit on any code-making panel, or at least not in the last thirty-five years or so. That time I was asked, but dismissed for not being "tactful" and for that I am truly grateful.
 
  #38  
Old 02-05-13, 09:21 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,947
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
There are no "experts" on this forum. There ar members who share their experience with other members. If you want an expert interpretation of the proper way to do something in your jurisdiction, you must
Ask the only expert that matters: the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
If anyone offers an opinion as to whether something “meets code or not” they should be able and willing to point to the “code” that supports their position. I just don’t see how that could not be true.

So let me just take a guess in the following excerpts from the NEC Handbook as to what earlier in this thread was probably or possibly being alluded to as relevant to code compliance:

Article 310 “Conductors for General Wiring”
310.11 Marking.
(A) Required Information.
….
(B) Method of Marking.

(1) Surface Marking. The following conductor and cables shall be durably marked on the surface. The AWG size or circular mil area shall be repeated at intervals not exceeding 610 mm (24 in.) all other markings shall be repeated at intervals not exceeding 1.0 m (40 in.)

(1) Single – and multiconductor rubber – and thermoplastic-insulated wire and cable.
(2) Nonmetallic-sheathed cable
(3) Service-entrance cable
(4) Underground feeder and branch-circuit cable
(5) Tray cable
(6) Irrigation cable
(7) Power-limited tray cable
(8) Instrumentation tray cable
I can only guess that some of the folks here, look at the above, and see that if the sheathing were removed from the Romex, then B(1)(1) would apply. And since the conductors inside the Romex sheathing are not marked, then that would indeed be a violation of "B(1) Surface Marking" above.

But my guess is that the folks who wrote the NEC Handbook, in their interpretation of section 300.15(F) ( post #6), felt that stripping back the sheathing for the “short length of raceway”, is NOT a violation of section "B(1) Surface Marking" above, because the cable still exists, and is fastened to the entrance of the raceway, and is still marked, and hence there would be no question as to the type of conductors in the raceway.

Hence there would be no violation of “B(1)Surface Marking” above in any way. B(1)(2) would be satisfied. You are not removing ALL the sheathing which would then violate "B(1) Surface Marking" above. So wouldn’t the intent of "B(1) Surface Marking" still be clearly met?

Now this could be all wrong and the folks here may have other sections of code in mind when they believe that stripping back the sheathing for the length of the raceway is a violation. And by the way I know there are other knowledgeable folks on other forums who also say it’s a violation. That’s why I posted my question in the first place. But my guess is that many people misinterpret "B(1)Surface Marking" above and think that stripping back the sheathing over many feet is a violation. That would seem like a wrong interpretation to me.

But for the life of me I can’t figure out why you don’t think it is incumbent upon any people anywhere offering opinions about meeting code compliance, if questioned, to at least refer to the specific sections of code they, themselves, and no others, have in mind?

It has nothing to do with inspectors, authorities, or anyone else’s interpretation.

OK, I beat this to death so now I’ll leave it alone.
 
  #39  
Old 02-05-13, 11:22 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,493
Received 33 Votes on 25 Posts
As I previously wrote, I am not an expert on the NEC. Your example confuses me in that you mention " a short length of raceway" yet you fail to define the term, short. My personal opinion is that if a person were to strip a foot of NM sheathing very few, if any, inspectors would find fault but if a person stripped back ten, fifteen, twenty or more feet of sheathing there comes a point where almost all inspectors would question the practice. The question of course is where does the inspector draw the line? The answer is that it is up to the individual inspector to determine where that line stops and NO ONE but the inspector on the jobsite can make an absolute ruling. The code gives the inspector a fair amount of latitude in matters that are not explicitly defined within the code.

I'm not going to spend hours of my time researching a "thought problem" in trying to determine what the applicable code sections may be for any variation of length of unmarked conductors. If I remember correctly, in some section of the code it uses the wording that conduit fill rules (number of allowable conductors in any particular size of conduit) may be ignored for "short sections" of conduit as long as the conductors can be installed without physical damage. The definition of "short" is NOT included in that Article or subsection but in another Article it is made plain that such a "short" section is in fact a section 24 inches or less in length. This same definition of "short" also applies to the derating requirements for conductor Ampacities such that multiple conductors running through a conduit 24 inches or less in length do not need to have derating applied. The result is that you may cram 100 conductors through a 12 inch long nipple and not worry about either conduit fill or derating requirements as long as you can get those 100 conductors through the nipple without any physical damage to the conductors. This does NOT mean that you can do the same on a five foot long "short" (shorter than standard ten foot length) piece of conduit even though some might consider the conduit to be a "short" piece.

It is all well and good to ask the AHJ for code citations but to ask a volunteer to do your research and cite specific code Articles, sections, subsections, paragraphs and FPNs is a bit much in my opinion.
 
  #40  
Old 02-06-13, 06:35 AM
Halton's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 337
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
.


Nashkat1 wrote.....

and not germane to that discussion
.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyWVPHoFGJA
.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: