2002 NEC 400.7 vs. 400.8 flexible cord

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mcl

Member
I have a retail installation where fluorescent strip lights are being suspended roughly 5' below and open structure by aircraft cable. The power for each of these comes from a j-box mounted to the structure directly above via an SJ cord down to the ballast compartment. The fixture's weight is completely suspended by the cable and the SJ cord is not concealed in any way since there is no ceiling.

The local code official is stating that this installation violates section 400.8 of the 2002 NEC. The only possible explanation I can find for his judgement is paragraph (1) since this is "fixed wiring" for this permanent fixture. However, paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 400.7 specifically state that flexible cords shall be used for "Pendants" and "Wiring of Luminaires" and section 400.8 says, " Unless specifically permitted in 400.7 flexible cords shall not be used for the following..."

Am I misunderstanding something here? This is not related to paragraphs 2,3,5 or 6 since everything is exposed and it doesn't violate paragraph 4 since the wire is not attached to any building surfaces... and besides, section 400.7 specifically allows this type of installation.
 
Re: 2002 NEC 400.7 vs. 400.8 flexible cord

You have missed an important Code Article pertaining to your installation, See Section 410.30(C)(1) (2002 NEC). Cord must terminate in a grounding-type attachment plug.
 
Re: 2002 NEC 400.7 vs. 400.8 flexible cord

Thanks John. I've spoken with the code official in more depth since my first post and his reasoning was based on the section you're referring to, specifically 410.30(C)(1)(2)c.

Based on the his interpretation of the code, we have the following options:
1. Replace the hard wired connection at the j-box with a receptacle.
2. Use MC cable instead of flexible SJ cord.
3. Specify a fixture that has the cord as part of the UL listed assembly and shipped with the fixture.

Personally, I feel this is a bit odd since using a receptacle instead of a hard wired connection yields more of a fault possibility. After all you still end up with a hard connection to the receptacle so adding this device only adds one more connection to the installation which basically adds one more location for potential problems.

What's interesting is that this installation detail is for a retail client and it has been used by them for years in locations throughout the country, but this is the first time it has ever been questioned. I don't imply that this is an excuse, but I'm sure other clients like this have similar methods so it's only a matter of time before this code interpretation causes some major changes in the way these installations are handled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top