MC Cable in Raceway with Data/Phone

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smart $ said:
I didn't say anything about 725.136. What I will say is that 725.136(I) permits MC-PCS. However, if you ran a separate MC cable and a Class 2 or 3 cable in wiremold without a divider, I'd say it was non-compliant under 725.136.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I don't see how that would be non-compliant, it would still fit 725.136(I), as all of the ELP conductors are within a metal-clad cable.

There is an odd difference between 725.136 and 800.133(A), in that both end with a section called "Other Applications" with very similar language, but 800.133(A) has an earlier section covering raceways, while 725.136 does not. So if section headings limit the scope of a section, then 800.133(A) "Other Applications" only applies outside a raceway (or enclosure, etc), while 725.136 "Other Applications" can apply within a raceway.

I'm unsure where I fall on this issue. One further observation: 725.136(A) starts off "Cables and conductors . . . shall not be placed" while 800.133(A)(1)(d) states "Communications conductors shall not be placed . . . with conductors of electric light, power, . . ." So if we are to believe that every difference between 725.136 and 800.133(A) is intentional, this would suggest that 800.133(A)(1)(d) is making a distinction between cables and conductors.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Hmm, I don't see how that would be non-compliant, it would still fit 725.136(I), as all of the ELP conductors are within a metal-clad cable.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I meant to say running an MC cable and a Class 2/3 cable in Wiremold without a divider is compliant with 725.136(I)(2).

However, running an MC cable with a communications cable in wiremold without a divider between them is not compliant with 800.133

There is an odd difference between 725.136 and 800.133(A), in that both end with a section called "Other Applications" with very similar language, but 800.133(A) has an earlier section covering raceways, while 725.136 does not. So if section headings limit the scope of a section, then 800.133(A) "Other Applications" only applies outside a raceway (or enclosure, etc), while 725.136 "Other Applications" can apply within a raceway.
Click to expand...
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner... :D

I'm unsure where I fall on this issue. One further observation: 725.136(A) starts off "Cables and conductors . . . shall not be placed" while 800.133(A)(1)(d) states "Communications conductors shall not be placed . . . with conductors of electric light, power, . . ." So if we are to believe that every difference between 725.136 and 800.133(A) is intentional, this would suggest that 800.133(A)(1)(d) is [NOT] making a distinction between cables and conductors.
Click to expand...
FIFY. :happyyes:
 
Smart $ said:
FIFY.
Click to expand...
I pointed out two differences between 725.136 and 800.133(A). One suggests that power carrying mc cable and communications cable together in a raceway is non-compliant, one suggests it is compliant. Why do you consider the first difference to control, rather than the second difference?

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
I pointed out two differences between 725.136 and 800.133(A). One suggests that power carrying mc cable and communications cable together in a raceway is non-compliant, one suggests it is compliant. Why do you consider the first difference to control, rather than the second difference?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I see your paragraph as pointing out only one difference. Data cable is a communications cable, so only 800.133 applies to the installation in this thread... and with the communications cable in a raceway, only 800.133(A)(1) applies, specifically 800.133(A)(1)(d).

800.133(A)(2) does not apply.
 
Smart $ said:
I see your paragraph as pointing out only one difference.
Click to expand...
Ah, you're right, I was misreading 725.136, I thought the "cables and conductors" was referring to the electric light and power side, but it is referring to the class 2 and class 3 side.

So your argument works if all of the following hold:

a) Section headings serve to limit the scope of their sections (that has never been clear to me one way or another), so 800.133(A)(2) can't be applied.
b) The second instance of 'conductors' in 800.133(A)(1)(d) includes conductors within a metal clad cable, and not just individual conductors.
c) The armor of MC cable does not constitute a permanent barrier in the sense of 800.133(A)(1)(d) Exception No 1.

While each of those is plausible, I think there's a good chance at least one of them is not correct. So as I say, I'm unclear on this topic.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Ah, you're right, I was misreading 725.136, I thought the "cables and conductors" was referring to the electric light and power side, but it is referring to the class 2 and class 3 side.

So your argument works if all of the following hold:

a) Section headings serve to limit the scope of their sections (that has never been clear to me one way or another), so 800.133(A)(2) can't be applied.
b) The second instance of 'conductors' in 800.133(A)(1)(d) includes conductors within a metal clad cable, and not just individual conductors.
c) The armor of MC cable does not constitute a permanent barrier in the sense of 800.133(A)(1)(d) Exception No 1.

While each of those is plausible, I think there's a good chance at least one of them is not correct. So as I say, I'm unclear on this topic.
Click to expand...
I say all three are correct. But I cannot pull anything more out of the Code book to reinforce my belief enough to sway yours. Beyond your assessment, only the AHJ for the installation at hand can provide any clarification to the contrary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top