I got into a lively debate with one of the guys this morning over whether or not you can run romex in a conduit. He insisted that you could run it in conduit as a complete raceway system. I said that while you may use it to sleeve the romex for physical protection, it can't be run as a complete raceway system.
I remember reading somewhere that its not allowed because the ground wire has to be insulated in a raceway, but I couldn't find it in the code book. I was hoping that someone could point me in the right direction.
thanks

scameron81, it is allowed and was cleared up in the 05 cycle.


All the xxx.22 conduit sections are the same.

Roger

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 01-12-2006).]

just have to play the devils advocate here...

358.22 - 'cables shall be permitted to be installed where such use is permitted bythe respective cable articles.'

Art. 334
334.15(B) Protection from Physical Damage -
NM is permitted in a raceway system to protect it from physical damage...

However... where protection from physical damage is not the issue - how do you comply with 334.30? ....Securing & Supporting every 4-1/2 ft. and within 12" of every cabinet, box....

312.5(C) - Cabinet... - 'where cable is used, each cable shall be secured to the cabinet....'

How are these requirements achieved when using a raceway system?

again, just play the advocate and using previous arguments against NM in conduit.

This seems to be one of those arguments that have advocates on both sides of the issue.

Personally, as an electrician I do not install NM in conduit systems; as an inspector I don't get overly excited about someone doing so...I do give the electricians a heads-up that many jurisdictions in the area do not permit NM in conduit.

Maybe I'm being a bit unfair, but when I fee romex run inside pipe, for no apparent reason, my first thought is "well, let's see what else this homeowner did wrong."

Even if the case is made that this is something allowed by the code, running romex in pipe is a lot of extra work, and a lot of expense, for very little gain.

So, if you want everyone to think "amateur" when they see your work, go ahead. Just quit beating this dead horse, please!

Dana, take a look at the 2005 version of that section. The last sentance reads "SEctions of cable proteceted from physical damage by a raceway shall not be required to be secured within the raceway".

That may be your opinion, but opinions shouldn't come into play if you want to offer a fair inspection. If the HO wants to bear the extra expense and work to go above the NEC's minimum requirements, why should it matter to you? It's not prohibited to run NM in conduit. As long as all of the requirements are met, conduit fill, derating, etc., who cares?

I agree with reno's opinion on this. It is clearly allowed, but should raise the 'amateur' flag, along the lines of taping wirenuts. Nothing wrong with taping wirenuts...but it should make you wonder if the wirenuts were properly applied.

IMHO, it is all for the better for someone to go above and beyond the NEC minimum requirements, but there are recognized good and bad approaches to getting a job done. If NM is permitted in an application, but the customer wants 'better', I would use MC, THHN in EMT, or THHN in NMC as the situation requires.

-Jon

I agree to a point but IMO one should consider the whole installation before passing judgment.

I run a lot of MC and still some NM, I often end up with both these cables in raceways.

A very typical situation is the following.

I have to run a circuit from a panel in an electrical room across a suspended ceiling then down a wall to utilization equipment.

Many of our customers only want to pay for cable for the concealed portions but want raceways in exposed areas.

I run a raceway out of the panel through the exposed electrical room until I get into the concealed suspended ceiling, if the other end at the utilization equipment is not going to be fished I run raceway there as well.

Now I pull a cable through the ceiling, use a change over fitting at the raceways and pull the cable through the raceways.

I can see no point in adding splice points at each end simply to avoid pulling the cable through the raceway.

It is code compliant, it is safe, it is economical and leaves less terminations which are generally the source of problems.

I accept NM cable in a raceway to a box especially for a surface mounted switch or receptacle in a basement.
However, AC or MC cable without a bushing or listed connector could create some problems with the jacket cutting the conductors, or extending into the box and contacting live parts.
I have seen Ac cable used with NM connectors and the metal jacket was hanging next to the bus bars in the panel. Not good.
Usually NM in a conduit run except as noted above indicates a non-electrician did the work.
Alan--

Alan


MC is never required to have a bushing.

AC is always required to have a bushing.

Regardless MC, NM, AC are all required to use a fitting designed and listed for the use.

I know you are supposed to use a fitting where a cable enters a raceway but if the cable is strapped and the conduit is deburred I have a hard time seeing the hazard. I never saw a romex to EMT fitting before the 80s and there are millions of houses with sleeved romex that are not bursting into flames. In Florida that was the defacto code on all outside walls. They didn't allow the stacker that gets the wire 1.25" to the side of the furring. It had to be in EMT if it was up against a block wall without 1.25" of space BACK from the wall. I still prefer that approach. (all it takes is a slight miss, hanging pictures, to have a direct hit on the cable) I never saw a fitting where the romex went in. They were more careful about deburring.

A fitting on PVC makes no sense to me at all.

Don't forget NEC is the minimum. Putting NM in conduit is above the minimum.
IMO It's Like pulling Direct Burial Wire into Buried conduit.