MC Cable in Raceway with Data/Phone

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

davelectric

Member
I have an installation that the Data guy insists it is legal to run MC cable in a surface raceway such as Wiremold 3000 or 4000 along with his data cables without a divider. His argument is that the MC is a metal raceway in it self and is separated from his data cable because of that. My argument is that MC is a cable and not a raceway and this would be a violation. Any article references or other comments that would help me support this would be appreciated.
 
The rule in 725.136(A) only requires that the Class 2 or 3 cables or conductors be separated from power system conductors, it does not require separation from power system cables.
 
Assuming the data cables we are talking about fall under Chapter 8 Communications Systems, I believe you are correct. See 800.133(A)(1(d).
(d) Electric Light, Power, Class 1, Non–Power-Limited
Fire Alarm, and Medium-Power Network-Powered Broadband
Communications Circuits in Raceways, Compartments,
and Boxes. Communications conductors shall not be placed in
any raceway, compartment, outlet box, junction box, or similar
fitting with conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, non–
power-limited fire alarm, or medium-power network-powered
broadband communications circuits.

Exception No. 1: Where all of the conductors of electric
light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm, and
medium-power network-powered broadband communications
circuits are separated from all of the conductors of
communications circuits by a permanent barrier or listeddivider.

Exception No. 2: Power conductors in outlet boxes, junction
boxes, or similar fittings or compartments where such
conductors are introduced solely for power supply to communications
equipment. The power circuit conductors shall
be routed within the enclosure to maintain a minimum of
6 mm (0.25 in.) separation from the communications circuit
conductors.

Exception No. 3: As permitted by 620.36.
Click to expand...

The armor of MC is not a permanent barrier or listed divider. The data guy may be confusing the previous restriction with 800.133(A)(2) Exception No. 1.
 
Smart $ said:
Assuming the data cables we are talking about fall under Chapter 8 Communications Systems, I believe you are correct. See 800.133(A)(1(d).


The armor of MC is not a permanent barrier or listed divider. The data guy may be confusing the previous restriction with 800.133(A)(2) Exception No. 1.
Click to expand...

As Don pointed out conductors and cables are not the same thing.
 
If the MC is just passing thru, then the dataguy is right; MC and CatX are cables, not conductors. However, a divided Wiremold series (like 5400) may still be needed as there are no boxes per se, and having bare conductors from the MC (like next to a receptacle) next to the v/d/v cable is a violation of the aformentioned 725.136(A). Do they make Wiremold inserts for MC cable that would provide an effective barrier where power outlets and switches are? The data, if it's run right, has the jacket entering the keystone strain relief.... receptacles and switches arent the same.

I dont know how you're going to turn wall 90s with MC in Wiremold without breaking the metal jacket or popping the covers off. or both.

eta: MC is not a raceway, but a listed cable type. So dataguy is (maybe) right but for the wrong reason.
 
Smart $ said:
Assuming the data cables we are talking about fall under Chapter 8 Communications Systems, I believe you are correct. See 800.133(A)(1(d).


The armor of MC is not a permanent barrier or listed divider. The data guy may be confusing the previous restriction with 800.133(A)(2) Exception No. 1.
Click to expand...
The rules in 725 and 800 say the same thing. They only require separation from power conductors, not from power cables. The MC is a power cable.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The rules in 725 and 800 say the same thing. They only require separation from power conductors, not from power cables. The MC is a power cable.
Click to expand...
Since when are power cables void of power conductors?

BTW, 800 requirements state communication conductors must be separated from power circuits.
 
Last edited:
Smart $ said:
Since when are power cables void of power conductors?

BTW, 800 requirements state communication conductors must be separated from power circuits.
Click to expand...

I agree with others cable is not conductors, and they are treated differently throughout the code. If power conductors are part of a cable assembly they are separated from communication conductors by the nature of the wiring method.
 
ActionDave said:
I agree with others cable is not conductors, and they are treated differently throughout the code. If power conductors are part of a cable assembly they are separated from communication conductors by the nature of the wiring method.
Click to expand...
For the sake of [this] discussion, in free air, I'll concede. The only difference is 2 in. separation is not required [per Exception].

But I'll not concede to running both in a raceway. As I mentioned above in reply to Don, the 800.133 requirement uses the term circuits regarding EL&P, not conductors. 800.133 does use the term communications conductors, but have you ever run communications wiring that was not in a cable?
 
Interesting arguments. My two cents:

I see both sides in this one. From a purely technical perspective, I think Smart$ seems to have a correct interpretation. However, since it is also clear that from a code perspective the two systems can be run in proximity to each other in free air all day long, any AHJ should be willing to find any technical way out. For example, if the Wiremold is assembled without end caps (and it is likely or else the MC would be terminated somehow, then it isn't technically a raceway, it is merely a metal chase. Without the end caps, it would not be a listed raceway assembly any more than a 4" x 1 foot conduit chase through a wall would not be allowed to contain both MC's and Class II cables.


BTW, I'm not standing on this argument, but more pointing out a different perspective to see play devil's advocate.
 
Strathead said:
... For example, if the Wiremold is assembled without end caps (and it is likely or else the MC would be terminated somehow, then it isn't technically a raceway, it is merely a metal chase. Without the end caps, it would not be a listed raceway assembly...
Click to expand...
I agree. Data and EL&P (MC) can be run together through a chase/sleeve made of what would otherwise be a raceway.

However, it should be noted that MC and other EL&P cables are not prohibited from being run inside a qualifying wireway (Wiremold), nor is the armor required to be terminated upon entry and/or exit.

So the question is, is the Wiremold a raceway or a chase/sleeve?
 
Smart $ said:
So the question is, is the Wiremold a raceway or a chase/sleeve?
Click to expand...


This likely comes down to one's relationship with the inspector. One of the reasons many of our discussions here should be intellectual and not tried in the field. I often do as directed by the AHJ instead of arguing. :)

One other thing here, why not just put a barrier in the Wiremold and be done with it? Most specs require some form of separation between the power and the communications and I would imagine raising this question to the Engineer level would result in instruction to install barriers.
 
Smart $ said:
The 800.133 requirement uses the term circuits regarding EL&P, not conductors.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this comment. The section you posted uses the phrase "with conductors of electric light, power, . . . circuits." So it is referring to conductors.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Smart $ said:
Since when are power cables void of power conductors?

BTW, 800 requirements state communication conductors must be separated from power circuits.
Click to expand...
800.133(1)(A)(d) Electric Light, Power, Class 1, Non–Power-Limited Fire Alarm, and Medium-Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications Circuits in Raceways, Compartments, and Boxes. Communications conductors shall not be placed in any raceway, compartment, outlet box, junction box, or similar
fitting with conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, non– power-limited fire alarm, or medium-power network-powered broadband communications circuits.
Click to expand...
My code book clearly says conductors and not circuits.
 
Strathead said:
Interesting arguments. My two cents:

I see both sides in this one. From a purely technical perspective, I think Smart$ seems to have a correct interpretation. However, since it is also clear that from a code perspective the two systems can be run in proximity to each other in free air all day long, any AHJ should be willing to find any technical way out. For example, if the Wiremold is assembled without end caps (and it is likely or else the MC would be terminated somehow, then it isn't technically a raceway, it is merely a metal chase. Without the end caps, it would not be a listed raceway assembly any more than a 4" x 1 foot conduit chase through a wall would not be allowed to contain both MC's and Class II cables.


BTW, I'm not standing on this argument, but more pointing out a different perspective to see play devil's advocate.
Click to expand...
Remember, that in general, the code only cares about safety and not if the data circuits will work correctly when placed next to power cables.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
My code book clearly says conductors and not circuits.
Click to expand...
I see that. I was going by circuits at the end of the sentence. Nevertheless, I still read it as saying we cannot place both types in the same raceway, regardless of either being in a cable. Would you prefer it say cable or conductors? I look at a cable assembly of conductors within a raceway to be no different than single conductors within a raceway.
 
Smart $ said:
I see that. I was going by circuits at the end of the sentence. Nevertheless, I still read it as saying we cannot place both types in the same raceway, regardless of either being in a cable. Would you prefer it say cable or conductors? I look at a cable assembly of conductors within a raceway to be no different than single conductors within a raceway.
Click to expand...
And I don't look at it that way. A conductor is a single conductor and not part of an assembly. A cable is an assembly of conductors.
This is an issue in many code sections as these two terms are not defined in the NEC. There is an article in the September/October issue of the IAEI magazine about changes in the 2018 Canadian Electrical Code to address this issue. (the article is not available online yet, but should be soon) I think the NEC needs to address this in the 2020 code.

The following is part of the IAEI article.
In this article we will discuss upcoming changes regarding definitions of conductors and cables for the 2018 Canadian Electrical Code Part I (CE Code). In June of this year the Technical Committee for the CE Code voted on and agreed to the following definition changes in Section 0 of the CE Code:
Conductor — a conductive material that is con*structed for the purpose of carrying electric current. A wire or cable, or other form of metal, installed for the purpose of conveying electric current from one piece of electrical equipment to another or to ground.
Bare conductor — a conductor having no cover*ing or electrical insulation.
Covered conductor — a conductor covered with a dielectric material having no rated dielectric strength.
Insulated conductor — a conductor covered with a dielectric material having a rated dielectric strength.
Cable — a complete manufactured assembly of one or more insulated conductors which may also include optical fibres, fillers, strength mem*bers, insulating and protective material, having a continuous overall covering providing electrical, mechanical and environmental protection to the assembly.
Jacket — a non-metallic covering on a cable which provides mechanical and environmental pro*tection for the cable.
Wire — see Conductor.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top