EG not run in conduit with Feeders for subpanel

Status
Not open for further replies.
AZsparky

AZsparky

Senior Member
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Residential Application

Is it ever permissible to run the Equipment Ground for a subpanel feeder outside of a conduit (strapped to the conduit) and exposed through the attic?

Also, is NM-B suitable for subpanel feed through attic space and then concealed in wall?

Thanks.
 
AZsparky said:
Residential Application

Is it ever permissible to run the Equipment Ground for a subpanel feeder outside of a conduit (strapped to the conduit) and exposed through the attic?
Click to expand...
I'll go with: NO, citing 215.6

I'm assuming your conduit is RNC as opposed to a metallic version?



AZsparky said:
Also, is NM-B suitable for subpanel feed through attic space and then concealed in wall?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
NM?
What size?

A flavor of SE might be a better option ~ 338.10(B)(4)(a)
 
Thanks for your reply

Thanks for your reply

This is an item on a home inspection report. The 100a MLO subpanel is currently fed by #6 AL individual conductors and a 50 amp breaker at the exterior service. It then is run in an exterior RNC into accessible attic space. The EG is run outside the conduit and strapped to the concuit with zip ties.

Once it enters the attic, the cables are zip tied together and run free air for 90' to the subpanel. The home inspector for the buyer's realtor is calling for conduit all the way, but I am suggesting 6/3 NM-B (SE only available in 1/0 or larger at my supply houses). This would address the EG situation and be a much swifter installation. This attic is non-friendly (are there any friendly ones when the temps are up) and putting the existing feeder in an RNC would be labor intensive and a PITA.

Thanks for your reply.
 
AZsparky said:
The home inspector for the buyer's realtor is calling for conduit all the way...
Click to expand...
He has no authority here.
What he "wants" and what he "gets" will likely be entirely different :smile:

Does Scottsdale have any local amendments to the NEC required contnuous conduit?

AZsparky said:
It then is run in an exterior RNC into accessible attic space. The EG is run outside the conduit and strapped to the concuit with zip ties.

.... but I am suggesting 6/3 NM-B (SE only available in 1/0 or larger at my supply houses).
Click to expand...

That's probably gonna be a problem...inside the pipe is considered wet and NM cannot be in a wet location. 334.10(A) [2005 NEC]
 
I will run #6 THHN in the RNC sleeve to the attic, flex to a j-box, bond the flex at the j-box, transition at the j-box to 6/3 NM-B and go. How about that? No, Phoenix nor Scottsdale don't require conduit for this. Unless of course, this has changed without my knowledge.
 
AZsparky said:
How about that?
Click to expand...

That was exactly my thought :smile:


Don't go starting this job right away, though....someone will be by shortly to tell us why it can't be done that way :grin:
 
Thanks Celtic

Thanks Celtic

LOL. Isn't that the truth! Trying to work within the code and what you are given to start with puts all the challenge in remedial jobs. This will not be inspected by the city, but I want it to be to current code (safe) regardless. The EG (#6 AL) that was run with the existing feeder was not even terminated in the subpanel. And it has been that way for years.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
The only thing I would do differently is ....
Click to expand...


Close enough:
celtic said:
....someone will be by shortly to tell us why it can't be done that way :grin:
Click to expand...


LMAO


AZ, if you check back later, you may find even more suggestions. :cool:
 
Fear

Fear

I actually live in fear of more "suggestions". They usually make some valid point and here comes another monkey wrench. And there goes more profit.

But I guess that is what this forum is all about. Make us better informed, get safer installs, find truth, justice and the American Way. LOL
 
AZsparky said:
I . . . find truth, justice and the American Way. LOL
Click to expand...
superman.jpg
 
celtic said:
Does Scottsdale have any local amendments to the NEC required continuous conduit?
Click to expand...

Continuous conduit isn't the issue, there is no conduit and the conductors are run free air across the attic. That would be a violation just about everywhere.
 
infinity said:
Continuous conduit isn't the issue, there is no conduit and the conductors are run free air across the attic. That would be a violation just about everywhere.
Click to expand...


I agree with the break in conduit/violation statement, but...

AZsparky said:
The home inspector for the buyer's realtor is calling for conduit all the way, ....
Click to expand...

...the HI calling for continuous IS an issue [at least for me it is].
 
infinity said:
Continuous conduit isn't the issue, there is no conduit and the conductors are run free air across the attic. That would be a violation just about everywhere.
Click to expand...

I think what Celtic was asking if there was a local amendment requiring conduit rather than NM. I read it the way you did at first then I realized what he meant. I think...:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top