310.15(B)(2)(c) (Ripped from another forum)

[iwire]

A question was asked by a member of Electrician Talk, for those that have seen the other thread can I ask you not to jump in right away?


If I run EMT across a roof do I have to comply with 310.15(B)(2)(c) ?

 

[mpd]

are we installing conductors in that EMT? sounds to easy somethings up

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Perhaps missed by the cmp but just because emt is not technically conduit I still believe it is subject to the temp. that is part of the equation.

 

[chris kennedy]

Perhaps missed by the cmp but just because emt is not technically conduit I still believe it is subject to the temp. that is part of the equation.

Are you saying you did not read the other thread?

 

[iwire]

are we installing conductors in that EMT?

Yes I should have mentioned that but that is good that your taking nothing for granted.

sounds to easy somethings up

Yes, and things are slow this morning so I am trying to get something going.

 

[Flex]

emt is listed under conduits in the 2008 index therefore i say yes.

 

[iwire]

emt is listed under conduits in the 2008 index therefore i say yes.

Interesting and an A for effort but the index is not part of the code. See 90.3

 

[George Stolz]

I haven't read the other thread, but I'd say I would adhere to the requirements for "conduit" for EMT on rooftops.

In the practical application of the NEC, we have to consider that at some point you'll have to stand there and defend the installation to an inspector, who is going to be less than impressed with an argument that "tubing" is not "conduit". I would expect the inspector to point out that the heat-transfer characteristics of metallic tubing are greater than PVC, and if it's necessary for PVC, then it would be a no-brainer for EMT.

I wonder why the CMP goofed and used the word "conduit" instead of "raceway"?

 

[Karl H]

I vote YES. Being that EMT is not conduit, is that the "Loop-Hole"
people are arguing?

 

[iwire]

I haven't read the other thread, but I'd say I would adhere to the requirements for "conduit" for EMT on rooftops.

That was not the question was it?

I wonder why the CMP goofed and used the word "conduit" instead of "raceway"?

I do not know but as it stands today that section does not apply to EMT.

 

[Buck Parrish]

I like George, would consider any inspector to consider emt conduit. So I vote yes.

 

[George Stolz]

Of course, there is always 90.4 kicking our extremely literal interpretations out the door.

I have come to learn that 90.4 can turn water into wine, depending on how the AHJ reads the words.

 

[Flex]

Is an Index an Annex?

 

[480sparky]

Is an Index an Annex?

I don't see it as one, but I doubt the index would be considered an adopted portion of the document.

 

[iwire]

I like George, would consider any inspector to consider emt conduit. So I vote yes.

An inspector can not just 'decide' that a section about conduit applies to tubing.

Compare 358.1, 360.1 and 362.1 with any or all of the following:

342.1

344.1

348.1

350.1

352.1

353.1

354.1

355.1

356.1

 

[George Stolz]

An inspector can not just 'decide' that a section about conduit applies to tubing.

Bob, you've been doing this longer than I have, and I know that an inspector (backed by his or her AHJ) can do just that.

For example, 250.32(B)(2) has been neutered, in the NEC. I know that if I have a service disconnect inside a meter pedestal, then I need to always run an EGC with my feeder conductors into the detached structure from the pedestal.*

*Except in the state of Colorado, where the state electrical board has decided to allow the neutral to be bonded at the detached structure, so long as there is only room for one two-pole breaker at the pedestal. To my knowledge, there has been no amendment to the NEC to make this interpretation.

 

[iwire]

Bob, you've been doing this longer than I have, and I know that an inspector (backed by his or her AHJ) can do just that.

Legally? Without an amendment?

I strongly disagree, if that was a fact we might as well use the NEC for TP.

 

[dcspector]

I hate being a Johnny come lately but back to The OP emt on the roof, no conductors or cables installed at time of inspection. I don't care what they do after The inspection, so it is a mute point. Heck, they can use it for a condensate drain for all I care. Mechanical inspector may have a problem with it.....:smile:

 

[Rockyd]

Of course, there is always 90.4 kicking our extremely literal interpretations out the door.

I have come to learn that 90.4 can turn water into wine, depending on how the AHJ reads the words.
__________________

This would normally be true. Depending on how big of a job, and relation to the industry, the particular set of circumstances are in the regard to the inspectors credentials, and the challenger's stance in relation to putting their best foot forward in regard to 90.1. I know a case that went all the way to Congress in DC. The inspectors won, but they only won because they had all the neccesary qualifications to make the calls that they made, and the courage not to back off.

So when battling at a moderate level, it doesn't take much to get a formal interepatation of the code from Quincy, Mass. If you know the inspector is right, your going to have to yield ground and fix the problem. If your right, don't let a dumb inspector beat you up and drag you down to his level. Ther are lots of levels to move up if an inspector is wrong, and you need to move appropriately. It may cost a lot, but the door is there.

 

[infinity]

I do not know but as it stands today that section does not apply to EMT.

I agree. Mistake or not the words are the words. Says conduit, not tubing, so EMT isn't required to comply. If no one noticed soon after the 2008 became available this it make take two code cycles to correct it.