Question: I have type XHHW-2 cable is it oil, grease and fuel resitant?
Incorrect actually.Take a look at Table 310.104(A). Unless the XHHW-2 is dual listed as MTW, it is not suitable for exposure to oil, per the NEC.
I don't see GR-I or GR-II as being a type of insulation permitted by the NEC.Incorrect actually.
The listing under UL 44 gives an option to be listed for GRI and II and it has nothing to do with being MTW.
http://www.encorewire.com/wp-content/uploads/EncoreWire-XHHW-SSE1.pdf
Here is the UL option for UL 44 conductors (XHHW-2)
5.17 Gasoline and oil resistance (optional)
5.17.1 To be marked GR I or GR II, insulation, or jackets where used, shall comply with the requirements of Clause 5.16.1 or 5.16.2, respectively, and shall retain not less than 65 percent of their original tensile
strength and elongation after 30 d immersion in water saturated with equal volumes of iso-octane and toluene (ASTM Reference Fuel C) maintained at 23 ?1?C, in accordance with the test, Physical properties (ultimate elongation and tensile strength) ? Gasoline resistance, in UL 2556, CSA C22.2 No. 2556, or NMX-J-556-ANCE.
I accordance with UL 2556 is says :
4.2.8.4 Gasoline resistance
The immersion vessel shall have a minimum volume of 100 ml (6 in3 ). The bottom 25 mm (1 in) of the
vessel shall be filled with tap water, and the remainder of the vessel filled with equal volumes of iso-octane
and toluene maintained at 23 ? 1 ?C.
Note: See ASTM D471 (Fuel C) for the iso-octane and toluene blend.
Specimens shall be suspended in the vessel and maintained at the specified temperature and time.
Specimens shall be suspended in the vessel with care taken to minimize contact with the walls of the vessel or other specimens. Fluid shall not be allowed to get inside a tubular specimen of insulation. In the
case of a jacket, both surfaces (inside and out) shall be exposed to the fluid.
Following immersion, the specimens shall be blotted to remove excess fluid, and allowed to rest for 16 to
96 h at ROOM TEMPERATURE .
Ultimate elongation and tensile strength shall be determined using the apparatus and procedure outlined
in Clauses 4.2.3 ? 4.2.6. Gauge marks shall be applied after the conditioning.
We test ours to UL 2556 so yes it's GR I and II...its on our legend also
310.104 Conductor Constructions and Applications
Insulated conductors shall comply with the applicable provisions of Table 310.104(A) through Table 310.104(E).
Are you saying that you believe the ONLY wire that can be used in a GR I and II environment is MTW cause the NEC says that in 310.104(A)?I don't see GR-I or GR-II as being a type of insulation permitted by the NEC.
How does a UL standard change a code rule? Table 310.104(A) applies to the conductors used under the rules of the NEC, and if the conductor is not shown as suitable for use with gas and oil, in that table, it cannot be used with gas and oil and be in compliance with the NEC.
That is exactly what I am saying. There is nothing in the NEC about the markings of GR I and GR II. The table is a conductor application table and the only marking suitable for use in applications that have the conductor in contact with gasoline or oil is the marking "MTW".Are you saying that you believe the ONLY wire that can be used in a GR I and II environment is MTW cause the NEC says that in 310.104(A)? ...
But those markings have no meaning under the rules of the NEC.....as I was kinda more so targeting the XHHW-2...which does pass all the tests for MTW and others under UL 2556 and this we mark on our products ok for GR I and II
You better inform the Wire and Cable Industry....ours along with all the others have XHHW-2 as being GR I and II and are evaluated for it and marked on the conductors insulation as being suitable for GR I and II. All this was vetted through UL.That is exactly what I am saying. There is nothing in the NEC about the markings of GR I and GR II. The table is a conductor application table and the only marking suitable for use in applications that have the conductor in contact with gasoline or oil is the marking "MTW".
If you want to use XHHW for that application, then it also needs the MTW marking on the conductor.
But those markings have no meaning under the rules of the NEC.
UL doesn't write the code and can't change code rules without submitting public inputs.You better inform the Wire and Cable Industry....ours along with all the others have XHHW-2 as being GR I and II and are evaluated for it and marked on the conductors insulation as being suitable for GR I and II. All this was vetted through UL.
..............................
Sure a reasonable inspector .....................
UL doesn't write the code and can't change code rules without submitting public inputs.
This looks like UL and the NEC are out of step on this one. UL or the cable industry needs to submit a public input on this issue.
There is no provision of the NEC that permits a conductor without the MTW marking to be used in an application that involves exposure to gasoline and oil. It really doesn't matter what UL or the manufacturers tell us...the code rule is clear.
Sure a reasonable inspector would accept the XHHW based on the information that you have provided but there is no reason for this disconnect between the product standards and the NEC.
That is where we differ. I see the table as an absolute as far as the application of the conductors are concerned and the only type that is shown as gas and oli resistant is MTW. There is no provison to use any conductor without that marking in an application that involves gas and oil contact per the NEC.Don,
...
So while MTW is clearly shown for oil-resistant...it is not (we do not see the chart the same way you see it) the only option. So I do not believe their is a disconnect between UL and the NEC. However, I do respect your opinion and it is duly noted my friend.