MC ap cable

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hcecabigdog

Member
OK, last one for the night. How many jurisdictions are approving this wiring method. Baltimore county is not. Reason being we don't allow aluminum wiring less than #6. The bonding "conductor" in this cabble is #14- #10.
 
Mecklenburg county N.C. is accepting this wiring method, but I don't think any of the inspectors care for it too much.
 
hcecabigdog said:
OK, last one for the night. How many jurisdictions are approving this wiring method. Baltimore county is not. Reason being we don't allow aluminum wiring less than #6. The bonding "conductor" in this cabble is #14- #10.
Click to expand...

This is the first time I have seen anyone post that.
 
hcecabigdog said:
OK, last one for the night. How many jurisdictions are approving this wiring method. Baltimore county is not.
Click to expand...

Southwire should consider suing Baltimore County to allow their product to be used.
 
i love local inspectors who know better than all the researchers and engineers that provide the information to the CMP. :roll:
 
hcecabigdog said:
OK, last one for the night. How many jurisdictions are approving this wiring method. Baltimore county is not. Reason being we don't allow aluminum wiring less than #6. The bonding "conductor" in this cabble is #14- #10.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how or why you feel that you know better than UL?

I feel confident they tested it much more strenuously than you did.
 
hcecabigdog said:
OK, last one for the night. How many jurisdictions are approving this wiring method. Baltimore county is not. Reason being we don't allow aluminum wiring less than #6. The bonding "conductor" in this cabble is #14- #10.
Click to expand...

So you don't approve AC cable either?

Chris
 
hcecabigdog said:
OK, last one for the night. How many jurisdictions are approving this wiring method. Baltimore county is not. Reason being we don't allow aluminum wiring less than #6. The bonding "conductor" in this cabble is #14- #10.
Click to expand...


This thought process is what makes me concerned. In order to have a UL or ETL listing, manufacturer's spend a lot of money and effort designing and testing their products to be able to meet or exceed the standards. Southwire is no exception. They have a UL listing for this cable to be used as instructed. Why should any AHJ 'second guess' that application and ultimately, the listing? Did the AHJ's or local inspectors perform the required tests to validate the listing? I don't think they do that kind of thing.

The same is true for fittings. I have talked to many inspectors/AHJ's that WILL NOT allow any snap-in MC/AC fittings on a job. Their reasoning is that they are not as good as locknut-style fittings. Some installers may also share that opinion. Well, that perception should be tempered by the fact that those snap-in's pass the SAME stringent UL mechanical and electrical tests as the locknut versions. Period. If it is a individual preference, well, that's fine, but it shouldn't mean a red tag for an EC or installer that has used them properly.

Some local codes also walk the fine line on this issue. Take Chicago for example. They do not allow MC/AC or NM cable to be used in residential work - only EMT, IMC, or RMC. Why? The rest of the country is using NM or AC/MC for residential with no safety issues. The NEC alllows it and UL or ETL lists the cable. Again, its the opinion of the local AHJ that conduit is better than cable...but is it overkill for the application? Is it just as safe? Did they do any other testing to prove otherwise? If testing was done, was it industry reviewed?

What is the point of having the NEC if *some* AHJ's are just going to add arbritrary or unsubstantiated restrictions on product use and application?

Just venting....no offense to anyone!;)
 
Baltimore County does not accept AL conductors smaller than #6 or 8. Southwire calls the bond a conductor. Therefore it is not allowed as its "conductor" is smaller than allowed.

Thanks for the clarification during your Code update Lee.
 
Thanks for the help. Again it's not my decision. I only enforce the code. AC cable is listed with a bonding strap. MCap is a conductor
 
hcecabigdog said:
Thanks for the help. Again it's not my decision. I only enforce the code. AC cable is listed with a bonding strap. MCap is a conductor
Click to expand...

So what is the difference?

Both funtion and terminate exactly the same way.

Chris
 
Testing shows that MCap has a lower grounding impedance then MC with a copper ground so basically the areas that prohibit MCap are being very stupid.
 
iwire said:
Testing shows that MCap has a lower grounding impedance then MC with a copper ground so basically the areas that prohibit MCap are being very stupid.
Click to expand...


I would assume this is because of the aluminum bonding conductor that is basically in parallel with and bonding together the armor spirals, no?
 
peter d said:
I would assume this is because of the aluminum bonding conductor that is basically in parallel with and bonding together the armor spirals, no?
Click to expand...

I believe so.

Check the three videos on the bottom of this page

Of coarse keep in mind who made the videos but they are interesting.
 
It all goes back to the bond being called a conductor by Southwire. If they were to call it a bond strip it would be ok to use.

Just another example where the words as written can change things.
 
jimport said:
It all goes back to the bond being called a conductor by Southwire. If they were to call it a bond strip it would be ok to use.

Just another example where the words as written can change things.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't matter what they call it; its an approved method by the NEC. What is the reasoning of the local inspections dept. for not accepting it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top