NEC 300.18(A)

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mgranaldi

Member
Location
Ewing, NJ
While working for an electrical contractor, I noticed the foreman directing his journeyman to install FMC; install the conductors; then install and terminate luminaires that will finally be installed in an inaccessible ceiling.
The FMC was left long, and when the ceiling grid was installed, the electricians basically curled up the FMC and completed the fixture installation.
I had a problem with this, citing 300.18(A) as this was not "installed complete" as per the said article. I've run into this in the past, so I rattled off the article off the top of my head. However, when I read 300.18 again to refresh my memory, I realized the article also included: "Where required to facilitate the installation of utilization equipment, the raceway shall be permitted to be initially installed without a terminating connection at the equipment".
I then read the Article 100 definition of Utilization Equipment, and to my surprise is the word ''lighting''.
Although I believe my initial citation is correct, what argument would I have with regards to the NEC? I also fall back on Article 348.22 (as well as other raceway systems) regarding the 360 degree bend rule.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
 
In my opinion this is not a real world issue. That is it is not likely to cause any type of problem or be a safety issue. Yes, there may be technical violations of code rules, but not something I would be concerned about.
 
OK. But my concern is the fact that a raceway was installed to be serviced in the event of some type of failure or for the need for future modifications. A conduit system was a spec by the customer. But once the fixtures and the sheet rock ceilings are installed, there would be no way to remove or add conductors without removing the ceiling around the fixtures. Again, after reading 300.18(A), I can accept that for utilization equipment an out-of-sequence, typical to most installations, would be justified. But I'm sure that if the customer realized they were paying for an un-serviceable system, they'd just as well spec MC or AC cable.
 
mgranaldi said:
OK. But my concern is the fact that a raceway was installed to be serviced in the event of some type of failure or for the need for future modifications. A conduit system was a spec by the customer. But once the fixtures and the sheet rock ceilings are installed, there would be no way to remove or add conductors without removing the ceiling around the fixtures. Again, after reading 300.18(A), I can accept that for utilization equipment an out-of-sequence, typical to most installations, would be justified. But I'm sure that if the customer realized they were paying for an un-serviceable system, they'd just as well spec MC or AC cable.
Click to expand...
Where does the FMC originate? That location must be accessible. I was assuming they were using the FMC as fixture whips.
 
As don wrote, the box where the whip originates has to be accessible. and as you wrote, there cannot be more than 360* of bends between pull points

It's impossible to tell if 300.18 was violated after everything is put together, and it's also one of those code sections violated openly (like this product here). Dont have a NEC in front of me, but I dont think that partially disassembling a complete conduit to get wire thru is against the letter of the code (though certainly the section).

That all written, I do understand the importance of having a system that is serviceable after the building is finished. It's one of the main points of using conduit, and for using conduit as chases to accessible areas for v/d/v. The j-man couldnt (or shouldnt) have installed the FMC in a way, like looping extra, to prevent conductors from being installed or removed in the future (by exceeding 360* pull). Such an install shouldn't pass an inspection anyway.

Perhaps he was trying to leave a service loop, tho I've never heard it done with FMC.
 
The lighting branch circuit conductors are installed in accessible areas in EMT. The luminaires are installed in sheet rock ceilings with no accessibility. The raceway system changes from EMT to FMC in the sheet rock ceiling. These are not 2 x 4 lay-ins. This is not a ''drop ceiling''. This is an inaccessible ceiling.
So the installers pulled the conductors through both the EMT and the FMC leaving the fixtures hanging before the ceiling grid was installed. The FMC was left long so not to interfere with the ceiling grid installation and to speed up the final fixture installation. After the grid was installed, the FMC was curled up and placed in the ceiling space. There is no way to remove and install conductors without removing the ceiling. What if, during the curling-up of the FMC or the sheet rock installation a conductor was damaged? If the raceway was serviceable, a new set of conductors could be pulled in.
My opinion is that this violates 300.18(A) as well as 348.26 (number of bends). If the ceiling was accessible, then I believe this install would be compliant because luminaires are considered by definition "Utilization Equipment".
Thank you.
 
JFletcher said:
As don wrote, the box where the whip originates has to be accessible. and as you wrote, there cannot be more than 360* of bends between pull points

It's impossible to tell if 300.18 was violated after everything is put together, and it's also one of those code sections violated openly (like this product here). Dont have a NEC in front of me, but I dont think that partially disassembling a complete conduit to get wire thru is against the letter of the code (though certainly the section).

That all written, I do understand the importance of having a system that is serviceable after the building is finished. It's one of the main points of using conduit, and for using conduit as chases to accessible areas for v/d/v. The j-man couldnt (or shouldnt) have installed the FMC in a way, like looping extra, to prevent conductors from being installed or removed in the future (by exceeding 360* pull). Such an install shouldn't pass an inspection anyway.

Perhaps he was trying to leave a service loop, tho I've never heard it done with FMC.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the pix. That, to me is the perfect example of "pre-wiring" to facilitate utilization equipment. Thanks again.
 
mgranaldi said:
While working for an electrical contractor, I noticed the foreman directing his journeyman to install FMC; install the conductors; then install and terminate luminaires that will finally be installed in an inaccessible ceiling.
The FMC was left long, and when the ceiling grid was installed, the electricians basically curled up the FMC and completed the fixture installation.
I had a problem with this, citing 300.18(A) as this was not "installed complete" as per the said article. I've run into this in the past, so I rattled off the article off the top of my head. However, when I read 300.18 again to refresh my memory, I realized the article also included: "Where required to facilitate the installation of utilization equipment, the raceway shall be permitted to be initially installed without a terminating connection at the equipment".
I then read the Article 100 definition of Utilization Equipment, and to my surprise is the word ''lighting''.
Although I believe my initial citation is correct, what argument would I have with regards to the NEC? I also fall back on Article 348.22 (as well as other raceway systems) regarding the 360 degree bend rule.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Insert 348.26 in lieu of 348.22
 
I break this rule every time I am using a 90 liquidtite fitting. Or UNL's. To easy to skin a wire. But its always installed complete then I take it apart to pull wire.

I feel those situations should be exempt though.
 
This is a problem that I have encountered as a maintenance electrician at a large facility in central NJ. I'm sure the customer has no idea how the electrical systems are installed until it has to be serviced or modified. I know we have electrical inspectors in NJ but how much do they see after the fixture is installed in an inaccessible ceiling.
 
coffeebean said:
This is a problem that I have encountered as a maintenance electrician at a large facility in central NJ. I'm sure the customer has no idea how the electrical systems are installed until it has to be serviced or modified. I know we have electrical inspectors in NJ but how much do they see after the fixture is installed in an inaccessible ceiling.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. It concerns me that the inspectors are passing the Above-Ceiling portion of the inspection. And although we can't expect every violation to be cited, let alone noticed, the Above-Ceiling is a portion of the inspection that should be a focal point. Especially due to the fact that in some cases-as previously mentioned-the ceiling will not be accessible.
It would be great to receive any comments from inspectors.
 
mgranaldi said:
That's exactly my point. It concerns me that the inspectors are passing the Above-Ceiling portion of the inspection. And although we can't expect every violation to be cited, let alone noticed, the Above-Ceiling is a portion of the inspection that should be a focal point. Especially due to the fact that in some cases-as previously mentioned-the ceiling will not be accessible.
It would be great to receive any comments from inspectors.
Click to expand...

Is the area above the ceiling accessible? Meaning is there a scuttle hole, pull down stairs, other opening, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top