- Location
- Massachusetts
AHJ personal opinion
- Thread starter mphillipps
- Start date
- Status
electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
This post is a classic example of a poster with a God complex.
I forgive you my son.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
How is the following over thinking?
362.30 - ENT shall be installed as a complete system in accordance to 300.18
300.18 exception - allowed not to be complete if used for physical protection. (Support is NOT mentioned)
334.15 - Specifies the type of raceway allowed for physical protection of NM cable and EMT is NOT on the list.
There are other issues as well, but the above pretty much disallows the OP's installation. Just saying it's OK is no better than the inspector just saying it's not, except in this case the inspector appears to be correct.
growler
Senior Member
- Location
- Atlanta,GA
What you are saying is that we could never leave ENT or PVC for use as a sleeve/chase to pull in cable at a later date. If we did we would be required to run a complete conduit system from box to box. This isn't metal and doesn't require bonding. NM has it's own sheath and isn't required to be in conduit and in this case is not used for physical protection.
All I have ever been required to do is use bell ends on the conduit. Putting a connector on each end will do it or even a coupling.
You could do this same install at a 100 different locations and only this one inspector is going to find fault with it and that's the problem.
If the ENT is not big enough and is overfilled the inspector should state that.
We fish NM through walls and never even get to see what all it's going through and this is allowed. So you don't think we should be allowed to fish through a nice clean conduit.
What exactly is the danger of this installation? The code is all about safety so what isn't safe.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
It's not about me. I am simply stating what the NEC says. To start, the rules for ENT and PVC are different, so let's skip the PVC.
The code says ENT can't be used as an incomplete system and I even chased down the exceptions to come up with that. I don't see any wiggle room.
So, the NEC says ENT must be installed as a complete system. That means boxes, connectors, couplings, etc. must be used at EVERY end of a piece of ENT. Conductor fill must be adhered to. If a box has more than one cable, each cable would probably have to have it's own tube, as the requirements for 2 would likely be a size to big for the boxes. All supporting and securing requirements must be met.
All the inspector is requiring is the installation of some boxes. That sounds like a deal, since a persnickety inspector may make the OP do even more stuff, or just plain not allow it.
The NEC doesn't list the specific dangers, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the rule is the rule.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
Charlie's Rule
Charlie's Rule
This bears repeating.
Charlie?s Rule of Technical Reading
It doesn?t say what you think it says, nor what you remember it to have said, nor what you were told that it says, and certainly not what you want it to say, and if by chance you are its author, it doesn?t say what you intended it to say. Then what does it say? It says what it says. So if you want to know what it says, stop trying to remember what it says, and don?t ask anyone else. Go back and read it, and pay attention as though you were reading it for the first time.
Copyright ? 2005, Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle, WA
Charlie's Rule
This bears repeating.
Charlie?s Rule of Technical Reading
It doesn?t say what you think it says, nor what you remember it to have said, nor what you were told that it says, and certainly not what you want it to say, and if by chance you are its author, it doesn?t say what you intended it to say. Then what does it say? It says what it says. So if you want to know what it says, stop trying to remember what it says, and don?t ask anyone else. Go back and read it, and pay attention as though you were reading it for the first time.
Copyright ? 2005, Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle, WA
The title of these sections:
- 300.10 Electrical Continuity of Metal Raceways and Enclosures.
- 300.12 Mechanical Continuity ? Raceways and Cables.
- 300.18 Raceway Installations., (A) Complete Runs.
So...!!! Cite a section or exception thereto which truly limits length or use for this purpose.
Not explicitly... but OP didn't say it was being used for cable's protection from physical damage... and I don't see how it is, considering it will not be exposed from what I can tell.
It doesn't say unless allowed, it says...
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
Either the OP is using the ENT for physical protection or he isn't. It has to be one or the other. Both options are addressed by the NEC.
Read 300.18's exception precisely. It only applies to physical protection. So if the OP is not using the ENT for physical protection, the exception does not apply.
If the OP is using the ENT for protection, that is not allowed for NM in 334.15 (B).
It doesn't matter about electrical and mechanical continuity. 300.18 and 334.15 (B) make the installation non-compliant.
How many times must I invoke Charlie's Rule??
:huh:
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
You can make a chase out of about anything imaginable that will not introduce problems with the wiring method used. If you use a material that is otherwise a listed raceway, you don't have to follow listing requirements or NEC requirements for that raceway as it is not a raceway in the particular application. If you used a piece of DWV pipe as a chase you wouldn't need to follow plumbing codes when you install that piece of pipe. Plus it gets a little hard to pull cables through a "P" trap
- Location
- Massachusetts
growler
Senior Member
- Location
- Atlanta,GA
People keep on about the use of ENT but the wiring method here is "NM ".
There is no requiremnt for physical protection. It's inside a floor. Should be an inch and a quarter from the edge of the 2 X 4s if secured . He could fish the cable under the floor with no support at all.
He chose to use ENT to create a chase/channel to fish the cable through.
Find some rule that doesn't allow NM to be fished through ENT. We fish through areas all the time that there are no specific rules to allow it but there are no prohibiting rules.
The only possible problem could be the size of the ENT. There may be a problem with heat but this was not even addressed by the inspector because adding a box won't change that fact.
There is no requiremnt for physical protection. It's inside a floor. Should be an inch and a quarter from the edge of the 2 X 4s if secured . He could fish the cable under the floor with no support at all.
He chose to use ENT to create a chase/channel to fish the cable through.
Find some rule that doesn't allow NM to be fished through ENT. We fish through areas all the time that there are no specific rules to allow it but there are no prohibiting rules.
The only possible problem could be the size of the ENT. There may be a problem with heat but this was not even addressed by the inspector because adding a box won't change that fact.
growler
Senior Member
- Location
- Atlanta,GA
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
But when you attach a chase to one or both sides of a device box using raceway fittings, you have given an inspector a strong push toward calling it a raceway.
Invoking Charlie's Rule only works if you yourself apply what it states...
300.18 has no bearing on this installation. The ENT is not being used as a raceway.
334.15(B) also does not apply. The OP'er is not using the ENT as a means to prevent physical damage. Even if he were, it could be covered under the "other approved means". Only the AHJ involved can determine "other approved means" for this particular installation.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
Invoking Charlie's Rule only works if you yourself apply what it states...
300.18 has no bearing on this installation. The ENT is not being used as a raceway.
334.15(B) also does not apply. The OP'er is not using the ENT as a means to prevent physical damage. Even if he were, it could be covered under the "other approved means". Only the AHJ involved can determine "other approved means" for this particular installation.
As far as Charlie's Rule goes, that is exactly what I am doing, reading and stating what the NEC says, not what I think it says or what I think it should say.
Personally, from what the OP has described, I don't see a safety issue. I am merely stating what the book says. In Article 100 under the definition of raceway, ENT is defined as a raceway. There is no requirement to use it in a certain way, it is what it is, a raceway. Article 300 tells us, in 300.18 how that raceway shall be installed. It says what it says.
Do I see any rational reason outside the NEC that the installation is not safe? Based upon the info, I can't really be sure. Can I predict if the NM can be pulled into the ENT without damaging the NM? No, I can't. But, just because I (we) don't see a problem does not negate what the NEC says. I am following Charlie's Rule. To deny that ENT is a raceway is not following Charlie's Rule.
I know we all would like to get the OP out of a jam, but if the installation is not to code, that's what it is. Even if it's 100% safe, secure and foolproof, if it violates a rule in the NEC, it's not up to code.
I believe that's what you are attempting to do... but IMPO, I don't believe you're quite there. You may perceive the same about me.
I could care less if we get the OP'er out of a jam. I agree with the sentiment an installation should comply with Code. Yet many times I find Code to be less than explicit. This leaves it wide open to two or more different interpretations... which is exactly what we have here, not failure to communicate.
Last edited:
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
I'd be willing to bet that you are not married, or not married long, are you? Because if you were, you would already know that capitulation in the face of irrational arguments is a quicker path to peace... :happyyes:
- Location
- Massachusetts
Wenty4
Member
- Location
- Raymond, NH, USA
AHJ personal opinion
you may want to consider how deep these hardwood nails go through the subfloor because they generally do not only get nailed into the joists. It sounds like you are using 3/4" ENT which leaves less than 1/2" between the bottom of the subfloor and the top of the ENT (in a perfect world)
you may want to consider how deep these hardwood nails go through the subfloor because they generally do not only get nailed into the joists. It sounds like you are using 3/4" ENT which leaves less than 1/2" between the bottom of the subfloor and the top of the ENT (in a perfect world)
growler
Senior Member
- Location
- Atlanta,GA
That's a good catch there Wenty4.
I would accept that as a valid reason for not useing the ENT. Physical protection may be needed.
- Status