PVC conduit in garage behind fire resistant barrier required

[JT-NaN]

Local inspector says PVC schedule 80 in garage needs to be behind fire restisant barrier per NEC code 352.10. Do others read that section that same way or is he mistaken with the wrong section? Is this a fire code issue not NEC?

 

[PaulMmn]

Is this a commercial or residential garage?

I didn't see "fire" mentioned anywhere in 352.10 or 352.12.

Is the inspector considering the PVC subject to damage? 352.10.F says it can be exposed, 352.12.C says, "but not when subject to physical damage," but both say it can be exposed to physical damage if it's listed as OK to be exposed to physical damage.

Who writes these things? I know they're trying to remove ambiguity, but they should eschew obfuscation!

 

[kwired]

I could see maybe an issue in commercial garage that has hazardous locations - PVC is not a hazardous location wiring method in most cases. That does not prohibit use of PVC in those commercial garages just not in the classified locations within them.

We have in the past been allowed to encase PVC raceways that pass through the hazardous location in 2 inches of concrete and it was not considered inside the building anymore.

 

[JT-NaN]

It is in a residential garage.

 

[kwired]

It is in a residential garage.

There are no general restrictions on using PVC in a dwelling garage. Most common thing that may become a restriction is questioning whether it is suitable for any physical abuse it may encounter.

 

[tom baker]

Sch 80 is considered equal to RMC per the NEC, although if it was going to get hit by a fork lift I would use RMC with a guard

 

[LarryFine]

Local inspector says PVC schedule 80 in garage needs to be behind fire restisant barrier per NEC code 352.10. Do others read that section that same way or is he mistaken with the wrong section? Is this a fire code issue not NEC?

I read over the code and don't see anything. What is the concern? Protecting the conduit from a garage fire, or protecting the house from a conduit fire?

 

[JT-NaN]

The concern is it would give off toxic fumes in a fire. He gave the option of switching to EMT or covering the exposed conduit with dry wall.

On the punch list he wrote the concern but never cited the code sections of the violation. When pressed he claimed these:

NFPA70

ART.352

ART.518

ART.90.4

My interpretation is 352.10F says PVC conduit is allowed and 518 is only for areas of assembly of 100 or more people.

90.4 pretty much says it is their responsibility to make interpretations of the code. So their interpretation, whether wrong or not, seems to be the rule of the land.

Edited for clarity

 

[tom baker]

The concern is it would give off toxic fumes in a fire. He gave the option of switching to EMT or covering the exposed conduit with dry wall.

On the punch list he wrote the concern but never cited the code sections of the violation. When pressed he claimed these:

NFPA70

ART.352

ART.518

ART.90.4

My interpretation is 352.10F says PVC conduit is allowed and 518 is only for areas of assembly of 100 or more people.

90.4 pretty much says it is their responsibility to make interpretations of the code. So their interpretation, whether wrong or not, seems to be the rule of the land.

Edited for clarity

That argument was settled at the supreme court many years ago when PVC was starting to make inroads on steel. NEC Proposals were made by carlon to allow PVC, the steel tube institute said its a fire and smoke hazard. Carlon said no more than all the other flammable materials and if you vote against this we will sue based on restraint of trade. Carlon won, by the way.
see this post with the link to the lawsuit.

 

[oldsparky52]

That argument was settled at the supreme court many years ago when PVC was starting to make inroads on steel. NEC Proposals were made by carlon to allow PVC, the steel tube institute said its a fire and smoke hazard. Carlon said no more than all the other flammable materials and if you vote against this we will sue based on restraint of trade. Carlon won, by the way.
see this post with the link to the lawsuit.

Did you forget the link or drop it? I wanted to read it.

 

[tom baker]

I wii find the link for you. The inspector is wrong.