Can you strip romex and use changeover with small length of conduit

[ptonsparky]

I had an inspector site me for the same thing. He stated that the ground wire needs insulation inside a conduit & that stripping sheathing off leaves a bare ground wire. We had to jbox and run an insulated ground wire then he passed it.

Simple case of HUA Syndrome.

 

[Hoodood]

That's what we thought until another inspector checked for the same. We learned to comply and he smiled while passing it.

 

[electrofelon]

I had an inspector site me for the same thing. He stated that the ground wire needs insulation inside a conduit & that stripping sheathing off leaves a bare ground wire. We had to jbox and run an insulated ground wire then he passed it.

That is flat out wrong. See 250.118 (1)

 

[goldstar]

With what were all now paying for romex they should print the "THHN 600V" stuff required by article 310 like they did back in the day LOL.

BINGO !!! It's all about the $$$$$. A lot of these mfr's are on CMP's and always ask "If we do this what's in it for us"?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

BINGO !!! It's all about the $$$$$. A lot of these mfr's are on CMP's and always ask "If we do this what's in it for us"?

The printing on the conductors of NM is not something that the NEC addresses...that is addressed by the organization that writes the product standard that applies to NM.

Also, there is no case where manufacturer's reps have more than one third the votes on a CMP and it takes a minimum of a 2/3s majority to create a code change.

 

[goldstar]

Also, there is no case where manufacturer's reps have more than one third the votes on a CMP and it takes a minimum of a 2/3s majority to create a code change.

Interesting. I didn’t know that. But, even if that’s the case I don’t believe the CMP’s can compel a mfr. to make a product or change its characteristics if there’s nothing in it for them. For example, if they started marking the wires in NM cable or made them THHN-2 that would mean that EC’s would start using these as conductors inside ab AC whip instead of buying rolls of single conductor wire. Good for the EC but not the mfr. IMHO.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Interesting. I didn’t know that. But, even if that’s the case I don’t believe the CMP’s can compel a mfr. to make a product or change its characteristics if there’s nothing in it for them. For example, if they started marking the wires in NM cable or made them THHN-2 that would mean that EC’s would start using these as conductors inside ab AC whip instead of buying rolls of single conductor wire. Good for the EC but not the mfr. IMHO.

The ANSI rules that apply to consensus standards like the NEC is where the no more than one third of the group members can be from the say interest category.

As far as the code driving manufacturers that does happen as once there is an enforceable code rule that manufacturers have to supply a product that meets that code rule. Typically such code rules have a future effective date to make it possible for the product standards and the manufacturers to catch up with the code.

 

[electrofelon]

.
. Typically such code rules have a future effective date to make it possible for the product standards and the manufacturers to catch up with the code.

That seems to rarely be the case as the geniuses at the NEC continually put out requirements where there are no products that comply. I hate that organization more and more every day.

 

[goldstar]

The ANSI rules that apply to consensus standards like the NEC is where the no more than one third of the group members can be from the say interest category.

As far as the code driving manufacturers that does happen as once there is an enforceable code rule that manufacturers have to supply a product that meets that code rule. Typically such code rules have a future effective date to make it possible for the product standards and the manufacturers to catch up with the code.

Thanks for the explanation Don.

 

[tortuga]

As far as the code driving manufacturers that does happen as once there is an enforceable code rule that manufacturers have to supply a product that meets that code rule.

Thats why its good to have 'construction specifications' as part of the code.
The code section to change would be 334.104 all one would need to do is add a sentence word it similar to 336.104.

If anyone is really interested there is free online access to UL 719:

UL 719 | UL Standards & Engagement | UL Standard

UL 719 | UL Standards & Engagement | UL Standard | Edition 13 | Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cables | Published Date: September 08, 2015 | ANSI Approved: November 07, 2023

standardscatalog.ul.com

Section 4.4.1 discusses the insulation allowed for NM cable, its basically three options, to summarize they are:
4.4.1(a) THHN
4.4.1(b)(1) TW with insulation that complies with dry location THHN.
4.4.1(b)(2) allows mixtures of plastics other than PVC, provided it behaves like THHN.
They also seem to modify the tensile strength and elongation test for the wire.

So the wires in NM are basically like a light beer or diet soda, not 100% the real thing and should not be treated as such in conduit.
I think the same can go for any MC cable that contains the ribbon that says 'THHN' but its not printed on the conductors.

 

[Hackwork123]

This is ridiculous! That rendered the greenfield to pipe fitting useless. Code changes for no good reason WHAT SO EVER. So what if the wire has no writing on it? The Romex does. If you're running down one stub up into a ceiling there's no way that should be some sort of violation. If they made it such, it was for the reason of selling more wire and boxes.not safety. For the writing.in Romex is never seen by anyone. It's stripped in the boxes, so all you're seeing it the wire. They excuse away the stripping for panels.

This is clearly one of those "lobby to get a change in the code that will lead to greater sales for me" moves. Regardless of WHEN that was made..even if a long time ago.
One thing is obvious. The wire has the ampacity to do what it needs to and clearly is far better protected inside that pipe than it EVER was in some cheap plastic.
I know most here are going to be so pro code that you see it as the Gospel According to NEC,
But not everything was about safety, when a system had been in place for generations without a hitch.

For example, demanding a green be put in all pipes as if it's Greenfield and at the same time demanding that each circuit have its own neutral, referring 3wire ANYTHING virtually useless except from r travelers.
It also greatly increased box full, because the ridiculous code states that a green only counts for 1.
We've added a ton more. Do devices trying to squeeze into the box know that the green counts for one and simply slide right in?

Couple that with a million neutrals everywhere, based on the idea that 220 could happen if a neutral comes loose. but WHY would the neutral come loose? We change the entire electrical system of things because of some issue that ONLY TRAINED ELECTRICIANS are supposed to be troubleshooting in the first place?

Money. Greed. Stupidity.
Now..go right ahead and praise your God of the codebook, and make personal attacks at me for saying that the code changes have a profit based element..

 

[electrofelon]

This is ridiculous! That rendered the greenfield to pipe fitting useless. Code changes for no good reason WHAT SO EVER. So what if the wire has no writing on it? The Romex does. If you're running down one stub up into a ceiling there's no way that should be some sort of violation. If they made it such, it was for the reason of selling more wire and boxes.not safety. For the writing.in Romex is never seen by anyone. It's stripped in the boxes, so all you're seeing it the wire. They excuse away the stripping for panels.

This is clearly one of those "lobby to get a change in the code that will lead to greater sales for me" moves. Regardless of WHEN that was made..even if a long time ago.
One thing is obvious. The wire has the ampacity to do what it needs to and clearly is far better protected inside that pipe than it EVER was in some cheap plastic.
I know most here are going to be so pro code that you see it as the Gospel According to NEC,
But not everything was about safety, when a system had been in place for generations without a hitch.

For example, demanding a green be put in all pipes as if it's Greenfield and at the same time demanding that each circuit have its own neutral, referring 3wire ANYTHING virtually useless except from r travelers.
It also greatly increased box full, because the ridiculous code states that a green only counts for 1.
We've added a ton more. Do devices trying to squeeze into the box know that the green counts for one and simply slide right in?

Couple that with a million neutrals everywhere, based on the idea that 220 could happen if a neutral comes loose. but WHY would the neutral come loose? We change the entire electrical system of things because of some issue that ONLY TRAINED ELECTRICIANS are supposed to be troubleshooting in the first place?

Money. Greed. Stupidity.
Now..go right ahead and praise your God of the codebook, and make personal attacks at me for saying that the code changes have a profit based element..

You wont have much of an argument with me. I have so little respect for the NFPA and this document and process and lose more of the little I have left every year. IMO the NEC is an abomination and the incompetence in the NFPA and by the code writers is astonishing.

Note there is no NEC requirement for a wire EGC (except certain raceway types), and MWBC's are still allowed.

 

[petersonra]

You wont have much of an argument with me. I have so little respect for the NFPA and this document and process and lose more of the little I have left every year. IMO the NEC is an abomination and the incompetence in the NFPA and by the code writers is astonishing.

Note there is no NEC requirement for a wire EGC (except certain raceway types), and MWBC's are still allowed.

I think you have to understand that neither the NFPA nor the code writers are incompetent. They are doing exactly what their corporate sponsors want done.

 

[jap]

In the old days I felt uneasy if I didn't pull a wire type EGC into my EMT runs.

Now with all the additional wires we have to pull because of the new rules, all I hope is that I get an inspector who understands that I dont need to pull one.


JAP>

 

[kec]

So what is the safety issue if you strip NM for a few feet in conduit? Done it a hundred times.

 

[AC\DC]

You wont have much of an argument with me. I have so little respect for the NFPA and this document and process and lose more of the little I have left every year. IMO the NEC is an abomination and the incompetence in the NFPA and by the code writers is astonishing.

Note there is no NEC requirement for a wire EGC (except certain raceway types), and MWBC's are still allowed.

Dude MWBC are the best thing ever. It’s the snake oil AFCI breakers that are annoying on these circuits. MWBC saves on wire and drastically helps on VD.
from your previous post on other threads , I thought you liked them just hated the double handle tie rule

 

[electrofelon]

Dude MWBC are the best thing ever. It’s the snake oil AFCI breakers that are annoying on these circuits. MWBC saves on wire and drastically helps on VD.
from your previous post on other threads , I thought you liked them just hated the double handle tie rule

Yeah I love MWBC's and use them all the time in commercial. I never said anything bad about them in post #32. I do hate the handle tie rule. I use handle ties instead of 2 or three pole breakers and I dont use the center pin of the handle tie so me or someone else can easily rip it off later if they need to.

 

[AC\DC]

must of misinterpreted what you meant.

 

[norcal]

So what is the safety issue if you strip NM for a few feet in conduit? Done it a hundred times.

Like taping a black, 6, or 8, AWG conductor white, or green, it's done all the time but is a code violation.

 

[Another C10]

but you have to draw the line somewhere.

That's my argument .. were the line is drawn and who decides that specific location. I'm not going to argue with inspectors but sometimes simple common sense has no rule amongst code callers , yes J walking is a crime too.