TC-ER vs CLX vs TC in Class II Div 2 area

[LRB]

I would like to run TC-ER to several motors in Class II Div2 area, however, Art 502 does not recognize TC-ER as a means for Flexible connection or as a recognized wiring method for Class II Div 2. Am I correct in my interpretation? The only wiring method I see approved for direct run from cable tray to utilization equipment is interlocked armor Type MC with polymeric jacket and fittings approved for Class II Div 1. I could use TC-ER but would have to protect it with Liquidtight and listed fittings when leaving cable tray (max 6 ft unsupported). Also 502.30(B) would require me to run a bonding jumper around the Liquidtight (2011). My supplier has suggested CLX Cable which I believe meets the interlocked armor Type MC requirement. Any other suggestions welcome.

 

[rbalex]

CLX is not interlocked armor. It is Okonite's trade name for continuously corrugated armor.

TC-ER is still Type TC and may be used per Section 502.10(B)(6). The "-ER" simply permits it to be used per Section 336.10(7). Note there is no general prohibition against its use in hazardous locations in Section 336.12 and no specific prohibition for Class II, Division 2 in Section 502.10(B). The only real concern is that it be adequately supported.

 

[LRB]

Thanks Bob for your fast reply.
This makes life mush easier. Do I need to specify Hazardous Location or HL when ordering?

Also I believe I need to specify the fittings to be listed Class II Div 1.

What threw me off is 502.10(B)(2) Flexible Connections. Where provision must be made
for flexibility, 502.10(A)(2) shall apply. 502.10(A)(2) does not mention TC.

Lyall

 

[rbalex]

Basically, TC-ER is fine. "-HL" applies to continuously corrugated Type MC, not TC.

The TC-ER should be installed consistently with Art 336. It should have an integral EGC and terminated with stress releaving terminators. They only need to be listed for TC, no specific Class II identification is necessary for either the TC-ER or the terminators.