Eliminate 680.42(A)(1)

[GG]

680.42(A)(1) "Flexible Conduit. LFMC or LFNMC shall be permitted in lengths of not more than 1.8 m(6 ft.)".
I would propose to eliminate this from the NEC. I dont see what purpose it serves. If I set the required disco. 5' from the edge of a residential spa then I cant run LFNMC the entire length from disco. to the spa without using 2 different conduit types. I feel if this was eliminated from the NEC then I could run 15' of LFNMC from my disco. to the spa much quicker then having to run say PVC form the disco. up to the spa, and then make a transition over to LFNMC to the spa control panel.

[ July 24, 2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: GG ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Eliminate 680.42(A)(1)

I feel if this was eliminated from the NEC then I could run 15' of LFNMC from my disco...

In general, you can't run LFNC over 6'. See 356.12(3) (2002 NEC).

 

[iwire]

Re: Eliminate 680.42(A)(1)

Originally posted by georgestolz:
[In general, you can't run LFNC over 6'. See 356.12(3) (2002 NEC).

Sure you can, (356.10(5)) you can wrap your house in it just keep under 360 degrees of bend.

 

[GG]

Re: Eliminate 680.42(A)(1)

Then lets get 680.42(A)(1) out of the NEC!! Alot of people want to ADD to the code, I want to REMOVE stuff from the code. Im hoping within a few code cycles to get it small enough to fit in my glove box.

[ July 24, 2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: GG ]

 

[petersonra]

Re: Eliminate 680.42(A)(1)

I have often wondered why there are length restrictions on this type of conduit. It seems like if it is safe to run 6 feet of it, why not 7? Or 100?

 

[91GTABird]

Re: Eliminate 680.42(A)(1)

Ditto

 

[peter d]

Re: Eliminate 680.42(A)(1)

I too have wondered why this rule exists. Can anyone explain the rationale behind it, and why the CMP feels that 6' is the only safe length of LFNMC associated with pool wiring?

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Eliminate 680.42(A)(1)

My guess would be exposure to physical damage and ease of conductor pulling through the conduit. Technically, the code requires the raceway to be complete the two terminations points before the conductors are installed. How many electricians are really doing that?

Its much easier to pull through the LFC and then terminate it and secure and support it. So perhaps, the CMP limited the runs to 6' to avoid damage to conductors being installed and to help prevent damage to the conduit itself due to excessive lengths.

I don't see any evidence of this being a significant problem and would support this section going away.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Eliminate 680.42(A)(1)

Originally posted by GG:
Then lets get 680.42(A)(1) out of the NEC!! Alot of people want to ADD to the code, I want to REMOVE stuff from the code. Im hoping within a few code cycles to get it small enough to fit in my glove box.

 

[peter d]

Re: Eliminate 680.42(A)(1)

Originally posted by ryan_618:
The problem I have with this proposal is that you have no technical substantiation...of course, as we've seen, that doesn't mean much to panel 17

But was there any technical substantiation to make the rule in the first place? Bryan makes a great point, but that is anecdotal substantiation at best.

[ August 28, 2005, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Eliminate 680.42(A)(1)

I would vote to keep the LFC limitations if it means keeping out the bonding of the pool water requirement.