Is 3/8 greenfield legal

[DanOmar]

I am doing a kitchen remodel in which I am installing some remodeling cans. During the rough inspection the village electrical inspector told me that it isn't permitted to go from 1/2" conduit to 3/8" greenfield using a pipe-to-greenfield fitting. He also said I would have to replace the 3/8" greenfield between the cans with 1/2" greenfield. When I asked him what code he was referring to he became agitated. I have read the local amendments and they don't make any mention of this. Can anyone shed some light on what he is referring to?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I agree with your inspector. See 348.20(A). If you were going to a single fixture you would be permitted to use the 3/8", but you are running from fixture to fixture and the minimum size permitted for that application is 1/2".

 

[Smart $]

Probably an interpretation of this...

348.20 Size.

(A) Minimum. FMC less than metric designator 16 (trade
size 1⁄2) shall not be used unless permitted in 348.20(A)(1)
through (A)(5) for metric designator 12 (trade size 3⁄8).
(1) For enclosing the leads of motors as permitted in
430.245(B)
(2) In lengths not in excess of 1.8 m (6 ft) for any of the
following uses:
a. For utilization equipment
b. As part of a listed assembly
c. For tap connections to luminaires as permitted in
410.117(C)
(3) For manufactured wiring systems as permitted in
604.6(A)
(4) In hoistways as permitted in 620.21(A)(1)
(5) As part of a listed assembly to connect wired luminaire
sections as permitted in 410.137(C)

 

[roger]

Read 348.20(A) and see if your in compliance with the conditions listed, if so the inspector is wrong.

Roger

 

[Smart $]

I agree with your inspector. See 348.20(A). If you were going to a single fixture you would be permitted to use the 3/8", but you are running from fixture to fixture and the minimum size permitted for that application is 1/2".

Running fixture to fixture is out as tap conductors, but not if he runs full-size circuit conductors. See 348.20 (A)(2)(a).

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Running fixture to fixture is out as tap conductors, but not if he runs full-size circuit conductors. See 348.20 (A)(2)(a).

I read the cited section as a permission to run to a single utilization equipment.

 

[Smart $]

I read the cited section as a permission to run to a single utilization equipment.

That's an interpretation lacking explicit text. The term "equipment" is both singular and plural.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equipment

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That's an interpretation lacking explicit text. The term "equipment" is both singular and plural.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equipment

You are correct, but the inspection authorities around here read it as singular.

 

[peter d]

Is there some hazard from using 3/8 FMC this way? :roll::happyno:

 

[Smart $]

You are correct, but the inspection authorities around here read it as singular.

Should state "single..." or "individual utilization equipment" if that is the intent. Not being specifically defined as singular, and lacking explicit text or formal interpretation to the contrary, that's an abuse of authority.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Should state "single..." or "individual utilization equipment" if that is the intent. Not being specifically defined as singular, and lacking explicit text or formal interpretation to the contrary, that's an abuse of authority.

The words used in the section are not clear as to singular or plural so an AHJ interpretation of singular is in no way an abuse of authority.

 

[Smart $]

The words used in the section are not clear as to singular or plural so an AHJ interpretation of singular is in no way an abuse of authority.

But it is. The fact the words are not clear make the plural form a viable interpretation.

Did you not use to take the stance "Code is a permissive document"? So you changed camp to "Code is a restrictive document" now? Or are you just falling into the category of whatever is the norm for the local AHJ's?

 

[DanOmar]

Thanks for the input. It seems to me like he is being unduly picky but because of the ambiguity I will probably have to change it.

 

[kwired]

Is there some hazard from using 3/8 FMC this way? :roll::happyno:

Yes, the manufacturers sell less aluminum or steel then they do for larger sizes and therefore have reduced profits


But a typical AC or MC cable is similar in construction, usually physically smaller and has no code issues for this particular application:blink:

 

[iwire]

But it is. The fact the words are not clear make the plural form a viable interpretation.

Yes and the fact the words are not clear make the singular form a viable interpretation as well.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

But it is. The fact the words are not clear make the plural form a viable interpretation.

Did you not use to take the stance "Code is a permissive document"? So you changed camp to "Code is a restrictive document" now? Or are you just falling into the category of whatever is the norm for the local AHJ's?

Yes, you can read it either way, and therefore the section requires an interpretation. It is the AHJs job to provide the interpretation. If you don't like the AHJ's interpretation, you can file with the NFPA for a Formal Interpretation, but that takes months.

 

[Smart $]

Yes and the fact the words are not clear make the singular form a viable interpretation as well.

Yes, you can read it either way, and therefore the section requires an interpretation. It is the AHJs job to provide the interpretation. If you don't like the AHJ's interpretation, you can file with the NFPA for a Formal Interpretation, but that takes months.

The issue you both are understating is you can read it as both, i.e one and more than one rather than one or more than one, and no interpretation is required. :happyyes:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The issue you both are understating is you can read it as both, i.e one and more than one rather than one or more than one, and no interpretation is required. :happyyes:

It can't mean both, so interpretation is required and that is one of the functions of the AHJ.

 

[jumper]

Where the heck is my Strunk and Whites?

 

[Smart $]

It can't mean both, so interpretation is required and that is one of the functions of the AHJ.

Not true. Let me put it like this. The word equipment is not unit specific, i.e. it is inclusive of any number of units. It is neither singular or plural as a word. Please refer to any dictionary to verify. I have never seen a dictionary specify singular and plural forms of the word.