Romex in conduit to panel

[fisherelectric]

I really hate this language used in (g).

I would like to hear opinions of the language in the begining "Where installed as conduit or tubing..." It seems to qualify the raceway but what exactly does it mean?

I would take that to mean where the raceway is conduit or tubing you must apply the fill rules of Table1 Chap 9 and the " notes thereto". From Note 2: for "sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring from physical damage" the Table need not be applied. If it were a complete system (terminated on both ends) then Table 1 would apply. Note 4 covers nipples less than 24" and which "are installed between boxes, cabinets, and similar enclosures" and permits 60% fill.

 

[Mvillines]

In my code book (g) says"....for complete conduit and tubing systems by Table 1 Chapter 9 of this Code and all applicable notes thereto." How does that render Note 2 "nullified"? It specifically says to apply the notes.

You posted only part of the sentence and that changed the meaning of part (g).

"Where installed as conduit or tubing,? specifies type of raceway being used "the allowable cable fill" meaning the size and number of conductors in the conduit or tubing ?does not exceed that permitted for complete conduit or tubing systems by Table 1 of Chapter 9 of this code and all applicable notes thereto.? Stating that (g) is to be considered a complete conduit or tubing system even though the main part of the exception requires the conduit to be between 18? and 10?.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

You posted only part of the sentence and that changed the meaning of part (g).

"Where installed as conduit or tubing,? specifies type of raceway being used "the allowable cable fill" meaning the size and number of conductors in the conduit or tubing ?does not exceed that permitted for complete conduit or tubing systems by Table 1 of Chapter 9 of this code and all applicable notes thereto.? Stating that (g) is to be considered a complete conduit or tubing system even though the main part of the exception requires the conduit to be between 18? and 10?.

Sorry but I believe it is a stretch to translate (g) to mean the "stovepipe" "is to be considered a complete conduit or tubing system"

I would like other opinions.

 

[Mvillines]

Poor choice of words?..Not considered but treated as a completed system

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

As mentioned already, there is no definition of "surface mounted".

Like I said in an earlier post, the panels are not mounted/installed behind a surface, so I consider them to be surface mounted.
Where it says they have to be accessible from the sides...is not found in the NEC.


Larry
sometimes I am too considerate as an inspector.


I have learned not to let as much bother me when inspecting. Mistakes are made, people take advantage of other people, all kinds of good stuff happens too.
So, if I did come back to the site and the wall was sheetrocked, I would not loose my cool, or even get the least bit mad...maybe a little upset. I would then take my pen out and redtag the installation and be on to my next inspection.
You know, spring is here and so is the fishing season up north. :grin:

 

[LarryFine]

So, if I did come back to the site and the wall was sheetrocked, I would not loose my cool, or even get the least bit mad...maybe a little upset. I would then take my pen out and redtag the installation and be on to my next inspection.

No, my question was how you would handle an angry electrician who complained that you didn't say anything at rough, when it would have been easier for him to make the changes.

 

[fisherelectric]

You posted only part of the sentence and that changed the meaning of part (g).

"Where installed as conduit or tubing,? specifies type of raceway being used "the allowable cable fill" meaning the size and number of conductors in the conduit or tubing ?does not exceed that permitted for complete conduit or tubing systems by Table 1 of Chapter 9 of this code and all applicable notes thereto.? Stating that (g) is to be considered a complete conduit or tubing system even though the main part of the exception requires the conduit to be between 18? and 10?.

I understand what you're saying (now). Not sure if it's right that they are saying to ignore Note 2 when they specifically say "and all notes thereto", but I do understand that they seem to indicate that it should be treated as "a complete system". So, in any event it makes more sense to only fill the stove pipe to 60%, and it also makes sense that when you're not sure to err on the side of a safer install (and where you don't have to change it if you're wrong).

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

No, my question was how you would handle an angry electrician who complained that you didn't say anything at rough, when it would have been easier for him to make the changes.

Exactly right. You can't drop a bomb on him like that. Tell him what is going to happen so he can fix it easily enough.

 

[Mvillines]

Not sure if it's right that they are saying to ignore Note 2 when they specifically say "and all notes thereto

IMO...The purpose of stating all applicable notes is so Note 2 can be ignored and apply only the applicable notes without contradiction.

Conduit installed in this application has 60% fill form 18" to 24" and 40% fill from 24" to 10'. Any conduit over 24" derating also applies.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

No, my question was how you would handle an angry electrician who complained that you didn't say anything at rough, when it would have been easier for him to make the changes.

I would tell him that at rough the installation was surface mounted, and in the final it is no longer surface mounted.
If he said to me, "did you not see the framing?", I would reply, "did you yourself not know the codes required when you make an installation?"
It is not my job as an inspector to guess at what stage of the construction what is actually going to be the finished product. I inspect what I see when I see it.

If the installer asks a question during the rough, I will answer it to the best of my ability, but it is definitely not an inspector's job to engineer the job.

Exactly right. You can't drop a bomb on him like that. Tell him what is going to happen so he can fix it easily enough.

I do not drop bombs, I inspect. The installer who does not know the codes for the installation he is performing is at fault. Something to think about. Inspectors do not perform the installation. also, in our area it is not a requirement the installer or contractor be present for the inspection...that is their choice. There are times I will ask an installer a question if they are present, sometimes even via a phone call. That is why it is important for them to be present during an inspection, alot of small items can be discussed during the inspection.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

IMO...The purpose of stating all applicable notes is so Note 2 can be ignored and apply only the applicable notes without contradiction.

Conduit installed in this application has 60% fill form 18" to 24" and 40% fill from 24" to 10'. Any conduit over 24" derating also applies.

This is a test because I can't seem to post

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Actually your right. The guy should know the code so lets screw em' hard...

I'm just glad the inspectors that serve my area are willing to work to help us.

I mean code is not a 10 item laundry list. It's a pretty complex bible of rules.. Leaving a little note like "hey just a reminder if this wall is going to be finished then the cables going into the cabinet through the raceway without terminating are going to fail" can really help out.

 

[suemarkp]

IMO...The purpose of stating all applicable notes is so Note 2 can be ignored and apply only the applicable notes without contradiction.

Conduit installed in this application has 60% fill form 18" to 24" and 40% fill from 24" to 10'. Any conduit over 24" derating also applies.

Since I tossed the table 9 exception out there, I am now agreeing with your interpretation. The code is kind of circular, but I now take it to mean that fill rules are still applicable when you have a cabinet or cutout box on either end.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Actually your right. The guy should know the code so lets screw em' hard...

I'm just glad the inspectors that serve my area are willing to work to help us.

I mean code is not a 10 item laundry list. It's a pretty complex bible of rules.. Leaving a little note like "hey just a reminder if this wall is going to be finished then the cables going into the cabinet through the raceway without terminating are going to fail" can really help out.

There are one way streets and deadends...
The world is much better off with two-way streets.


I wonder why so many think it is the inspectors responsibility to tell the contractor how to do his work.

Remember, as much as you may believe it is good for an inspector to leave a note for the contractor, maybe the contractor in good faith could also contact the inspector with some info about the job?


Contractors and their installers are on the jobsite for a day, maybe weeks-months. Inspectors are there for a fraction of the time. Give your inspector the nod to what may be happening, it will go a long way to help in passing an inspection.

 

[RUWired]

. The code is kind of circular, but I now take it to mean that fill rules are still applicable when you have a cabinet or cutout box on either end.

Yes that would be true. If he didn't have the box on the other end he would still have to keep the fill to 100% based on the diameters of all the cables. IMO if you look at all the different size cables in each conduit, the 100% fill has be exceeded math wise.

Rick

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

There are one way streets and deadends...
The world is much better off with two-way streets.


I wonder why so many think it is the inspectors responsibility to tell the contractor how to do his work.

Remember, as much as you may believe it is good for an inspector to leave a note for the contractor, maybe the contractor in good faith could also contact the inspector with some info about the job?


Contractors and their installers are on the jobsite for a day, maybe weeks-months. Inspectors are there for a fraction of the time. Give your inspector the nod to what may be happening, it will go a long way to help in passing an inspection.

I agree. The guys I am working for have the "regulars" (inspectors) on speed dial it seems. We work together like a team. It would be a shock to find a situation where it was clear to the inspector that even though at rough there was no violation (a stretch) there would be by the time the walls went up that there wasn't some warning. If fact they WANT help. They certainly don't seem OUT to bust balls.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

In regards to the pictures, there are many times in garages and basements that the walls are framed and they are not covered for the final.

So they say, what if the cover it after you leave. I inspect for the moment I am there and that is it. I snap a few pictures and away I go.

If we inspected or installed to "what if ?", there would be no reason to go to work.

 

[ActionDave]

There are one way streets and deadends...
The world is much better off with two-way streets.


I wonder why so many think it is the inspectors responsibility to tell the contractor how to do his work.

Remember, as much as you may believe it is good for an inspector to leave a note for the contractor, maybe the contractor in good faith could also contact the inspector with some info

But don't most inspectors have more resources directed toward learning the code? And most contractors are trying to just get done not crossing every T?

 

[iwire]

As mentioned already, there is no definition of "surface mounted".

Like I said in an earlier post, the panels are not mounted/installed behind a surface, so I consider them to be surface mounted.

Of course there is a surface, the face of the studs. Where does it say the surface must be wall board? :smile:

Where it says they have to be accessible from the sides...is not found in the NEC.

I agree and mentioned it is not found in the NEC, but the definition of recessed is found in a dictionary. And in my opinion those panels more closely match the definition of recessed then surface. :smile:


I am willing to admit (and already did) that it could be ruled either way, are you?

 

[76nemo]

But don't most inspectors have more resources directed toward learning the code? And most contractors are trying to just get done not crossing every T?

That kind of statement is enough to get any inspector to look at your every "T". A responsible EC should know just as much as his AHJ, and in many cases, hopefully a little more. Are you going to go through all the time and effort to install something and have the inspector come and tell you that you are non-compliant when you could of just opened your book ahead of time?