AHJ personal opinion

[mphillipps]

On a residential rough electrical inspection, the AHJ asked that ENT be connected to a metal box with proper connectors. The ENT is being used as a chase under flooring to access (4) outlets and (1) switch. My plan was to pull (2) 14-2 NM through to connect the boxes and secure with staples. I asked AHJ what NEC code would that fall under. He was unable to state a code and said, "It's personal opinion and if was my job I would want to do it in a professional way."
All-in-all not a big deal to correct his way and the general contractor does not want me to ruffle the AHJ feathers.
The advise that I seeking is: How best to approach the AHJ, stand my ground and not aggravate to the point of reprisal for either G.C. or myself.

 

[texie]

On a residential rough electrical inspection, the AHJ asked that ENT be connected to a metal box with proper connectors. The ENT is being used as a chase under flooring to access (4) outlets and (1) switch. My plan was to pull (2) 14-2 NM through to connect the boxes and secure with staples. I asked AHJ what NEC code would that fall under. He was unable to state a code and said, "It's personal opinion and if was my job I would want to do it in a professional way."
All-in-all not a big deal to correct his way and the general contractor does not want me to ruffle the AHJ feathers.
The advise that I seeking is: How best to approach the AHJ, stand my ground and not aggravate to the point of reprisal for either G.C. or myself.

It seems to me that this is a sleeve-not a conduit system and no box is required. Side note: If this is under a slab on grade though the NM will not fly as this would be a wet location.

 

[mphillipps]

ENT is over concrete slab. 2x4 laid on side. 3/4' Plywood sub floor on top and then 3/4" hard finish floor. Not wet area.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "sleeve-not a conduit system".

 

[infinity]

A conduit system would be complete from box to box. A sleeve is just something that you can use to hold the cables or to pass through from one area to another. Unless we're missing a detail your installation is code compliant so your inspector has no authority to say he likes it done his way because it's "nicer".

 

[growler]

The advise that I seeking is: How best to approach the AHJ, stand my ground and not aggravate to the point of reprisal for either G.C. or myself.

Unless we're missing a detail your installation is code compliant so your inspector has no authority to say he likes it done his way because it's "nicer".

Did he fail the job on the rough inspection over this or did he just make a comment about what he likes to see?

You can explain what you are doing and why you are doing it and this normally works with a reasonable person. Some people are just not reasonable.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

On a residential rough electrical inspection, the AHJ asked that ENT be connected to a metal box with proper connectors. The ENT is being used as a chase under flooring to access (4) outlets and (1) switch. My plan was to pull (2) 14-2 NM through to connect the boxes and secure with staples. I asked AHJ what NEC code would that fall under. He was unable to state a code and said, "It's personal opinion and if was my job I would want to do it in a professional way."
All-in-all not a big deal to correct his way and the general contractor does not want me to ruffle the AHJ feathers.
The advise that I seeking is: How best to approach the AHJ, stand my ground and not aggravate to the point of reprisal for either G.C. or myself.

You may have done this already.
Terminate the conduit ends with a bell caps or male adapters with bushings to avoid any chafing of the sheathing. This may satisfy
the AHJ.
I guess either way you are pulling out the wires.

 

[kwired]

ENT is over concrete slab. 2x4 laid on side. 3/4' Plywood sub floor on top and then 3/4" hard finish floor. Not wet area.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "sleeve-not a conduit system".

You could have drilled a hole in each end and fished your cables through there and it would be code compliant and would still be "professional" IMO. You could have also run EMT, RMC, FMC, RNMC or for that matter any kind of tube or pipe imaginable as a sleeve and still would be compliant.

 

[J.P.]

Cut the ENT off flush with where it enters and exits and call it a chase or a sleeve.

 

[flyboy]

Also, why does he want the ENT terminated in a "metal box"?

His self proclaimed "personal opinion" and something that could be legitimately subject to the AHJ's interpretation are two different things.

I'd respectfully, in a professional manor stand my ground on this one. If he insists, then advise your GC that you'll require a change order before proceeding with the work.

 

[iwire]

His self proclaimed "personal opinion" and something that could be legitimately subject to the AHJ's interpretation are two different things.

I would like to think so but they could pull out this one.

110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work. Electrical equipment
shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner.

I have no idea what that means but I bet this inspector feels he does.

 

[Canton]

On a residential rough electrical inspection, the AHJ asked that ENT be connected to a metal box with proper connectors. The ENT is being used as a chase under flooring to access (4) outlets and (1) switch. My plan was to pull (2) 14-2 NM through to connect the boxes and secure with staples. I asked AHJ what NEC code would that fall under. He was unable to state a code and said, "It's personal opinion and if was my job I would want to do it in a professional way."
All-in-all not a big deal to correct his way and the general contractor does not want me to ruffle the AHJ feathers.
The advise that I seeking is: How best to approach the AHJ, stand my ground and not aggravate to the point of reprisal for either G.C. or myself.

Use "split-lume" or "Panduit" and call it a day. If you have never used it, its basically ENT with a slit running through. You don't have to disconnect anything. It will give about the same amount of protection.

 

[jmellc]

You are totally within protocol to ask for a reading of the law if something does not seem right. I have done that and gotten 1 inspector to be OK with something. OTOH, nothing wrong with him saying "I really like to see this or that because of something I have seen go wrong".

"Neat and workmanlike manner" is always open to wide interpretation. Can be used justly or wrongly.

 

[p real]

choose your battles...

choose your battles...

Remember, he is the ahj, and ultimately it is his call. Some abuse this authority, but unless you plan to take it to a higher up member of the inspection agency, or the repair will cost a lot of time and money, i would just do what he asks. i did a large housing dev. In wyoming once where tbe insp. "required" an outlet on the landing of every split-level staircase. Said "his wife" thought that was a good place for an outlet for vacuuming purposes!! Would actually fail a rough insp. If we didnt have the "wife" outlet. Ridiculous and obviously outside of code requirements, but was much easier to just conform for something so simple. Given a major complication, always worth arguing... small changes, i usually just do... keeps everybody happy and its always in your best interest to stay in good graces with the local authorities.

 

[kwired]

Remember, he is the ahj, and ultimately it is his call. Some abuse this authority, but unless you plan to take it to a higher up member of the inspection agency, or the repair will cost a lot of time and money, i would just do what he asks. i did a large housing dev. In wyoming once where tbe insp. "required" an outlet on the landing of every split-level staircase. Said "his wife" thought that was a good place for an outlet for vacuuming purposes!! Would actually fail a rough insp. If we didnt have the "wife" outlet. Ridiculous and obviously outside of code requirements, but was much easier to just conform for something so simple. Given a major complication, always worth arguing... small changes, i usually just do... keeps everybody happy and its always in your best interest to stay in good graces with the local authorities.

An electrical inspector is only "the AHJ" in a few rare cases where he has no superior. Even then he is usually hired by city, town, etc and he may be the only one with the technical knowledge necessary to do his job, (sometimes taken with a grain of salt) but he is not personally the AHJ, he is a representative of the AJH. In those really small jurisdictions the one man inspection team has more decision power, in a larger jurisdiction he is going to have a chief inspector - or some equivalent and/or board members that you can generally appeal some of these kind of decisions to.

 

[Smart $]

Not Code required to terminate the ENT...

But if the ENT is terminated, no staple or other securing means is required within 12" of each box, cabinet, etc.

Sections of cable protected from physical damage by raceway shall not be required to be secured within the raceway.

Additionally, the cable can be pulled out in future without removing building finish.

 

[K8MHZ]

Not Code required to terminate the ENT...

But if the ENT is terminated, no staple or other securing means is required within 12" of each box, cabinet, etc.

Additionally, the cable can be pulled out in future without removing building finish.

362.30 states that ENT shall be installed as a complete system in accordance to 300.18 and shall be securely fastened in place and supported in accordance to 362.30 (A) and (B).

It is the cable that does not require the support, not the tubing.

Also, Article 300 allows, by exception, that only SHORT section of raceways are not required to be installed as a complete system. I would not call a long enough run of tubing to be able to support 4 receptacle outlets and a switch to be a 'short' section of a raceway.

To me, it sounds like the inspector made a good call on not allowing the OP's installation as a 'short section of raceway installed to provide protection from physical damage'.

The way I read the article, sections of raceway installed to facilitate the installation and/or removal of conductors or cables is not the same as a section of a raceway installed to provide protection from physical damage.

The inspector's error was not doing his homework (same as the OP) and providing the article numbers and showing how the installation was not to code instead of 'I got a feeling.'

For the OP, take a look at the sections I stated and take a look at your installation. It may very well be that there are other violations and just having to put boxes at the ends would constitute leniency on the part of the inspector.

 

[Smart $]

362.30 states that ENT shall be installed as a complete system in accordance to 300.18 and shall be securely fastened in place and supported in accordance to 362.30 (A) and (B).

It is the cable that does not require the support, not the tubing.

That is correct. I quoted 334.30, so I meant securing of the cable. The ENT must comply with securing and supporting requirements under Article 362.

Also, Article 300 allows, by exception, that only SHORT section of raceways are not required to be installed as a complete system. I would not call a long enough run of tubing to be able to support 4 receptacle outlets and a switch to be a 'short' section of a raceway.

To me, it sounds like the inspector made a good call on not allowing the OP's installation as a 'short section of raceway installed to provide protection from physical damage'.

The way I read the article, sections of raceway installed to facilitate the installation and/or removal of conductors or cables is not the same as a section of a raceway installed to provide protection from physical damage.

That is not correct.

The exceptions for short sections of raceway used to provide protection for cable are to ease requirements for:

• electrically continuous
• mechanically continuous
• installed as complete system

The exceptions have nothing to do with what length can be used to provide protection or facilitate installation of cable.

 

[K8MHZ]

That is correct. I quoted 334.30, so I meant securing of the cable. The ENT must comply with securing and supporting requirements under Article 362.


That is not correct.

The exceptions for short sections of raceway used to provide protection for cable are to ease requirements for:

• electrically continuous
• mechanically continuous
• installed as complete system

The exceptions have nothing to do with what length can be used to provide protection or facilitate installation of cable.

All the exceptions state short sections. If the exceptions have nothing to do with length, why is the term 'short' even there?

All the exceptions only apply to short sections used to provide support or protection from physical damage.

The OP's use of the ENT is as follows: "The ENT is being used as a chase under flooring to access (4) outlets and (1) switch. My plan was to pull (2) 14-2 NM through to connect the boxes and secure with staples."

The OP's ENT is not short section of raceway by any stretch of the imagination. It is being used as a chase for access, not protection nor support.

An example of a 'short section used for support' would be using a piece of EMT to attach a cable to the outside of to transverse an area where no other means of support are available.

An example of a 'short section used for protection' would be a piece of PVC on a basement wall from the joists to a box below.

334 states that NM can be protected from physical damage ONLY with RMC, EMT, IMC, schedule 80 PVC or other approved means. ENT is not on that list. 362 says ENT shall not be installed where exposed to physical damage. 362.22 also says cable shall not be installed in ENT unless allowed by that cable's article. Back to 334 and ENT is not allowed.

 

[K8MHZ]

There may also be an issue with conductor fill.

We don't know what size ENT is being used, only that (2) #14 NM's will be in it.

Assuming a 1/2" cable width, it looks like the minimum size of ENT allowed would be 1 1/4".

 

[electricmanscott]

Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Those that can't teach, inspect. This thread is a classic example of an inspector with a god complex and the replies are just a bunch of over-thinking run amok. There is nothing wrong with the installation as explained by the op.