EMT for protection of NM

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Many code experts, including Charlie Trout who writes the NECA/NEIS code question of the day, agree with Bryan's position on NM in a raceway. I see nothing in Article 334 that meets the requirements of the .22 section in the raceway articles. The .22 section requires a specific permission in the cable article, I don't see that permission in 334. Is it a problem? I don't think so, but I do think that it is a code violation. This will be addressed by the CMP as there is a proposal to clear this exact issue up for the '05 code.
Don

 

[mvannevel]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

I guess I should know better and just stay out of the p***ing match that's started over this, but here goes anyway. 336-6(b) in the '99 Code says that "the cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary by conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC rigid nonmetallic conduit, pipe, guard strips, listed surface metal onr nonmetallic raceway, or other means". That says it pretty plainly to me. 300-15(c) spells out that a fitting is required on the end of the conduit or tubing as protection from abrasion. And, yes, by definition, a bushing is a fitting. But so are couplings and connectors.

Article 339 doesn't list installation in raceways as a permitted use for UF cable. Does this mean we can't sleeve it with a raceway where it exits the ground? No, we've always done it and always will.

I guess this all makes me wonder what the argument is really about here. I've seen posts where everyone is concerned that by making electricians follow the letter of the code we're causing undue expense to homeowners. Just how much are we adding to the cost of a job by setting a junction box to transition from NM cable to EMT? Is this just prejudice against rope jobs?

Now, in 30 years, I've never seen this installation turned down. And for good reason. It's a safe, code compliant installation. Granted, this does point up some of the inconsistencies in the code, and as we all know, there are plenty of those. Never-the-less, I'll continue to approve this installation in my jurisdiction.

[ April 10, 2003, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: mvannevel ]

 

[a.wayne3@verizon.net]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Originally posted by luke warmwater:
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

I`ll go my statement look at fittings under definitions......... a coupling is designed to couple pipe a bushing is designed to prevent abrasions.......Here we are required to use a bushing on the end of a pipe if we sleeve nm....

 

[roger]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Allen, How do you explain this part of the definition of fitting "or other part of a wiring system that is intended to perform a mechanical rather than an electrical function"?

Roger

 

[james wuebker]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

I'm with A.Wayne3. A bushing isn't required only a connector, but a bushing is 10 cents and I bet you if a customer saw one pipe with only a connector and a pipe next to it with a bushing he would say the the one with only the connector on it doesn't look that great. Our customers look for apprearance also and that's how we keep them. 10 cents will go a long way. Bottom line.
Bye now

 

[gserve]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

They sell a combo romex to EMT connector for 1/2" EMT but didn't have one for 3/4" EMT which is what I used so I put on a regular set screw type connector took off the lock nut and installed a bushing.

 

[iwire]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

Would this satisfy 300.15(C)?

Press in EMT Bushings

It shows comm. cable but goes on to say it meets 2002 300.15(C)

[ April 12, 2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[a.wayne3@verizon.net]

Re: EMT for protection of NM

i would say the push on bushing would be ok,since it is designed to prevent abbrasion but if the ul listing is for com cables only then no.....and i still stand by my statement a coupling is just that a coupling designed to couple pipe.There are alot of things that we can do with the material we work with daily but that doesn`t mean it is in compliance with NEC...............