• We will be performing upgrades on the forums and server over the weekend. The forums may be unavailable multiple times for up to an hour each. Thank you for your patience and understanding as we work to make the forums even better.

Nipple rule

don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
letgomywago said:
This might be something then that needs either more attention or AHJs need an amendment for clarification or best option is everyone who matters and has read this thread should keep their mouths shut when training the next inspectors about this being a rule and then the status quo that you mentioned will be maintained longer.
Click to expand...
The primary proposal to get rid of the rule was the from the IAEI.
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
kwired said:
PVC also requires first support to be within 36", so I feel it is fine with no additional supports as well for 36" and less runs.
Click to expand...
Too flimsy for me, but then I think the only use for PVC is underground. Looks terrible in any above ground application unless you support it every 12" or so :D
 
L

letgomywago

Senior Member
Location
Washington state and Oregon coast
Occupation
residential electrician
don_resqcapt19 said:
Too flimsy for me, but then I think the only use for PVC is underground. Looks terrible in any above ground application unless you support it every 12" or so :D
Click to expand...
Vertical installs tend to look alright. I've used 2 inch ta with a box adapter thats pvc often and that's not much room for a strap and is a good use of pvc for service equipment.
 
L

letgomywago

Senior Member
Location
Washington state and Oregon coast
Occupation
residential electrician
electrofelon said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Most of the inspectors in WA are in IAEI so if that's what's pushed by them then they'll most likely turn a blind eye longer to these specific short nipple sections. If the organization was pushing for strapping it then they'd be inclined to flag this issue in their inspections since they'd be technically correct even if it's an impossibly short section of conduit even 1 or 2 inches.
 
electrofelon

electrofelon

Senior Member
Location
Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
letgomywago said:
Most of the inspectors in WA are in IAEI so if that's what's pushed by them then they'll most likely turn a blind eye longer to these specific short nipple sections. If the organization was pushing for strapping it then they'd be inclined to flag this issue in their inspections since they'd be technically correct even if it's an impossibly short section of conduit even 1 or 2 inches.
Click to expand...
Why not support the rule that removes the ambiguity and provides for no required to strap below a certain length? IMO The IAEI is another interest group that we could do without on the CMP's.
 
L

letgomywago

Senior Member
Location
Washington state and Oregon coast
Occupation
residential electrician
Separate issue but even without other organizations there will always be special interest involved with building codes. There's just too many factors involved. Otherwise we'd end up either with sysmic bracing in the midwest like in California or we'd have no standard wire colors. I'm all for it being actual electricians supporting their side of the code vs manufacturers and vendors.
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
infinity said:
Honestly I'm dumbfounded as to why they objected to having up to 18" of unsupported raceway. I can only believe that it has to do with the first part of the word dumbfounded. :unsure:
Click to expand...
They don't think that the current rule requires that support and saw the 2008 rule as requiring supports that were not required in the previous codes. The IAEI and the CMP members do not actually understand what the code rule says.
 
electrofelon

electrofelon

Senior Member
Location
Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
don_resqcapt19 said:
They don't think that the current rule requires that support and saw the 2008 rule as requiring supports that were not required in the previous codes. The IAEI and the CMP members do not actually understand what the code rule says.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was reading over their proposal again and trying to figure it out. On one hand it seemed like they had good intentions and didn't want a new unnecessary rule - but they seem to want to go with the "that support isn't really enforced anyway" philosophy. I don't agree with that. I have added support to 12" nipples because you never know what kind of inspector you will get. And I work in many different unfamiliar jurisdictions.
 
Bill Snyder

Bill Snyder

NEC expert
Location
Denver, Co
Occupation
Electrical Foreman
don_resqcapt19 said:
The easiest fix would be the proposal of mine that they rejected. It said where there is an unbroken length of raceway between two enclosures, the conduit terminations shall be permitted to secure and support the raceway. When I proposed it, it was in the form of an exception.
Click to expand...
I am attempting to add 358.30(C) back with 24" instead of 18"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top