EMT for protection of NM

[gserve]

When using EMT for protection of NM is it code compliant to sleeve it unstripped to a surface dryer outlet? IE: install surface dryer outlet on 1 end of EMT and put a connector with a bushing on it on the other end and just sleeve it down and support NM within 12" of where it sleeves down the EMT?

 

[roger]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Gserve, I would say 334.15(B) says yes

Roger

 

[bphgravity]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

I do not see a problem with this installation, but I do think that it is a violation per the current language of the 2002 NEC.

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

You shouldn't need a bushing. A 'fitting' is all that is required(this would include a coupling).

 

[a.wayne3@verizon.net]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Luke, look at 300.15 c, a bushing is required.....

 

[a.wayne3@verizon.net]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

a coupling is not listed as a bushing it joins pipe together thats all it is for

 

[mvannevel]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

The '99 Code (which we're still using in Michigan) says in 300-15(c) that a fitting is required on the end of the conduit. It doesn't say you need a bushing, just a fitting. A coupling would meet that requirement. Of course, an EMT connector with a bushing on it makes for a nicer, more professional looking job. The object is to protect the cable from abrasion. Has that language changed in the '02 code?

 

[roger deas]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Article 300.15(C)2002 also says fitting, no mention of bushing

Roger

 

[mvannevel]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Thanks Roger. Don't have my '02 code book with me. I know that some inspectors require a connector with a bushing on it, but I've always allowed the use of fittings.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

How are you going to secure the NM within 12" of the surface receptacle? 334.15(B) is use of the EMT as protection, not use as a raceway.

 

[mvannevel]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

In that situation, you secure the NM within 12" of where it enters the EMT. As long as you meet all of the requirements of 373-5(c)Ex, including sealing or plugging the outer end, this is allowed. At least 373-5 is what we use here as a basis for this.

[ April 09, 2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: mvannevel ]

 

[bphgravity]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Are you sure NEC allows NM in EMT? Please specify article references.

[ April 09, 2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: bphgravity ]

 

[iwire]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Bryan, Read 334.15(B) it clearly says you can do this and it does not give a limit as to length.

Call it a raceway or protection what does it matter? :roll:

 

[jxofaltrds]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

A bushing is a fitting. See the definition.

Going back to 1993 300.15(b) exception No. 1. Physical damage.

Mike P.

 

[roger]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Bob, the real question is not, are we hacks, but are we listed hacks?

Roger

[ April 09, 2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Allen, I did read 300.15(C) and I stand by my statement. You could use a bushing on the conector, but it wouldn't be required. And my book only says fitting. To me a coupling is a fitting. It is there to preform a mechanical function , ie. to keep the rough edge of conduit from abrading the wire.
Of all the Code classes that I've gone to, this question almost always seems to arise. Every Code Instructor that have addressed this question has always approved of this installation.
I don't see a problem with it. Todd

 

[bphgravity]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Bob, It is my opinion that there must be a reason why uses permitted for NM cable intentionally left out in raceways. Your example of MC, or others like tray cable do mention within raceways. I clearly stated in my first post that I don't really see a problem with this installation, but how unclear the code is with this issue makes it questionable. If this isn't an issue, then why does it keep showing up over and over on not just this, but just about every forum out there. Excuss me for not excepting just a yes or no answer. If this is a code mistake, fine, but here in Florida there is no ammendment to the NEC. The state is planning on adopting the 2002 later this summer and it will be law for more than three years. Mistake or not, it must be complied with and is going to be enforced.

Bob, I have been nothing but respectful to you and others that have responded in disagreement to my posts.

Roger, you can razz me all you want about the whole "listed" thing from another post. I have looked all over the code for the language of "listed materials are prefered." I couldn't find one. XXX.6 in all of Chapter 3 seems like it says SHALL be listed.

 

[roger]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Bryan, sorry you feel I'm razzing you, and your words

I have looked all over the code for the language of "listed materials are prefered

are in no way what I said, as far as code wording.

If you are going to defend yourself, do it with out taking things out of context. In otherwords be truthfull.

I asked you:

Bryan, please tell me where the NEC requires all listed materials.

to which you still haven't answered.

Now if you are going to be credible in your matter of fact interpretations, I would think you would give black and white reasoning.

If this is going to be "your philosophy" don't bother.

I also brought up (in another thread) that 400.8(6) goes to the point of prohibiting this istallation, but 334 does not and still haven't seen a good reply from you yet.

You said

If this isn't an issue, then why does it keep showing up over and over on not just this, but just about every forum out there.

maybe I'm missing something, but I think you brought this into this thread, so could it be you bring it up all the time?

Are you sure all the chapter 3.xxx.6 articles say "Shall be listed"? Be carefull now.

Roger

[ April 09, 2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[bphgravity]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Roger, your exact words at post #10 in the "wire and pipe" thread under NEC topics, "Just because the NEC prefers to have listed items used..." I didn't make this up, and I am not being "untruthful".

My black and white reasoning has already been stated. Every other cable and wiring system specifically states in uses permitted for use in raceways. NM section does not. 400.8(6) as you stated. 300.12 states raceways shall be continous between boxes and so on. The exception is for short sections when used as protection. If the conduit is being used for protection ,then it isn't being used as a raceway or it would have to be continous. If you use a short peice of conduit for protection, you can't call one end as 300.12 compliant where it is connected to the box and the other for the exception where stubbed with a fitting. I feel the code requires the installer to use a transition box for the two separate wiring methods. Use a listed connector for the NM to a junction box, and use the EMT as a raceway with approriate conductors pulled through to the box.

If someone where to grab and pull NM cable not knowing that it is not secured within 12" of a box, they could stress the terminations or even create a short. When conduit is used as a raceway, the conductors cannot be handled unless obtained by means of opening an enclosure. I feel this is the reason NM is not and probably never be allowed in a raceway.

 

[roger]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Bryan, let's get your ducks in a row here. Look at what I said,

Just because the NEC prefers to have listed items used..."

Now the way you hastilly read it

I have looked all over the code for the language of "listed materials are prefered." I couldn't find one. XXX.6 in all of Chapter 3 seems like it says SHALL be listed.

Now as far as the rest of your last post, is it simply grasping for straws or showing your overall superiority. I guess I will give in to the latter.

When will you be available to teach the CMP, I'm sure they're waiting.

Roger

[ April 09, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: roger ]