MC Cable Installation

Status
Not open for further replies.

NixEng

Member
In the installation below, I have identified at least 3 of what I perceived to be code violations. However, the contractor and City Inspector have maintained that the installation complies with NEC. The sections I felt that were violated were the following:

-300.10
-300.12
-392.3

From an email to NFPA:

1. Mechanical and electrical continuity: The MC cables have been stripped of their outer metallic sheath where they entered the 3-1/2? conduit attached to the panel. This converted one wiring method (MC cable) to a different wiring method (single conductor building wiring) without the proper transition. It is my interpretation of the code that these cables have to be properly terminated before changing wiring methods. For reference : NEC 300.10 ? (Electrical Continuity) ?Metal raceways, cable armor, and other metal enclosures for conductors shall be metallically joined together into a continuous electrical conductor and shall be connected to all boxes, fittings , and cabinets so as to provide effective electrical continuity. Unless specifically permitted elsewhere in the NEC, raceways and cable assemblies shall be mechanically secured to boxes, fittings, cabinets and other enclosures.? Also NEC 300.12 ? (Mechanical Continuity) ?Metal or nonmetallic raceways, cable armors, and cable sheaths shall be continuous between cabinets, boxes, fittings, or other enclosures or outlets.? It is my interpretation of the code that these cables have to be properly terminated on both ends in order to comply with these Code requirements.

2. Building wiring (the wiring method converted to by stripping the metallic sheath from the MC cable) can only be installed in cable tray in industrial installations and only in sizes 1/0 AWG and larger. To allow the stripped MC cables to be installed in cable tray would be a code violation.

MCCable


What is your interpretation of this?
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
Welcome to the Forum:

Without more description or pictures I'm doing a bit of guessing, but it appears MC was terminated, without a fitting, by stripping the jacket and extending the jacket into a conduit.
If so, I agree with 300.10 & 300.12.
I don't understand the reference to 392 unless cable tray is involved.
I would also wonder about 312.5(C)
 

NixEng

Member
How can I post the picture if it does not have a URL? I tried posting it to a Google Picasa album and posted the link, but it is broken, evidently.
 

e57

Senior Member
How can I post a picture if I do not have a URL for it?
While you are posting and creating a message - down at the bottom of the screen there is a "Mannage attachments" button i hit it, and a new window will pop-up. Then hit browse and pic a file. A new window will pop-up called "choose a file" select one (of the proper size <600x800), then "open", it will then be put into the "manage attachements" window - then hit "upload" and you'll see it as a current attachment - it will show up as a thumbnail in your post. OR - you could click on it to get it's URL....
 

NixEng

Member
Not only has it passed inspection, but the City Inspector has been fighting tooth and nail to overrule any decision by the engineer (me) with regards to correcting the issue. I have a meeting tomorrow with City management to try and resolve the issue, but it has been an ongoing debate for upwards of a month.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Not only has it passed inspection, but the City Inspector has been fighting tooth and nail to overrule any decision by the engineer (me) with regards to correcting the issue. I have a meeting tomorrow with City management to try and resolve the issue, but it has been an ongoing debate for upwards of a month.

That is astonishing and disturbing.
 

e57

Senior Member
It is kinda reminiscent of those messed up installs now ALLOWED by the NEC for romex - but with a cable tray added... :confused:

In the least - the single conductors are a violation, physical protection is another IMO. Workmen-like - NO....

I just fail to see the point of getting that elaborate to do something that complicated to create a host of problems... When the easiest cheapest method would have been just fine... I assume to correct it - if they do - would to put a large j-box there...
 

e57

Senior Member
Not only has it passed inspection, but the City Inspector has been fighting tooth and nail to overrule any decision by the engineer (me) with regards to correcting the issue. I have a meeting tomorrow with City management to try and resolve the issue, but it has been an ongoing debate for upwards of a month.

The AHJ - is defending this?!?!?!? Does he smoke a glass pipe?

I don't think I would have my name on something like that - even if I were being really - REALLY NICE....
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
Maybe the location of this would shed some light on the situation. Mexico, perhaps? The Carribbean? Some other remote island that only follows the NEC in principle? This can't possibly be mainland USA. Or could it???? :-?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top