334.30 requirements

[Dennis Alwon]

Again I ask - is this really a big problem that has a documented, verifiable hazard? :?:? Or is it just good fodder for forum debates?

It can be an issue if the inspector sees it one way, however, Imo, this is mostly forum fodder.

 

[jerrynoel]

Thanks for finding and posting the ROP. Looks like their service loop is allowable, although I will still "red-tag" it if it isn't kept tidy.
I hope the commercial wiremen don't start this practice because EMT is worded similarly ambiguous.
I rue the day when I have to pass an installation where someone leaves a box, travels 2', turns a double 90 and goes out past the original box with the first support only 3' away, but in actuality has 8' of EMT in the run.
:jawdrop:
:happysad:

I agree, I see it as asinine too.

BUT, the CMP clearly stated it's allowed.

Please go back and look at the ROP I posted, the panel statement is aimed at all of 334.30, not just one of the subsections.

 

[JFletcher]

Thanks for finding and posting the ROP. Looks like their service loop is allowable, although I will still "red-tag" it if it isn't kept tidy.
I hope the commercial wiremen don't start this practice because EMT is worded similarly ambiguous.
I rue the day when I have to pass an installation where someone leaves a box, travels 2', turns a double 90 and goes out past the original box with the first support only 3' away, but in actuality has 8' of EMT in the run.
:jawdrop:
:happysad:

Conduit doesnt need a service loop; any impossibly short conductors can be repulled from A to B.

I'm most curious under what section you'd red-tag a messy or untidy service loop. If you're going to cite "neat and workmanlike", this thread is nothing compared to that can of worms.

Seriously, or more seriously, that there can even be a debate on this is proof enough to me that this section (334.30) needs to be re-written.

 

[jerrynoel]

If the loop of NM puts the cable at risk of physical damage, then I would have justification.
Nothing in the code allows a service loop for fixed in place fixtures, only drop in ones. Same ambiguous language allows conduits to be run longer than 3' before the first support.

Conduit doesnt need a service loop; any impossibly short conductors can be repulled from A to B.

I'm most curious under what section you'd red-tag a messy or untidy service loop. If you're going to cite "neat and workmanlike", this thread is nothing compared to that can of worms.

Seriously, or more seriously, that there can even be a debate on this is proof enough to me that this section (334.30) needs to be re-written.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Come on Paul-- where are you hiding on this one. Shirley, you have a response....