TMCX vs. TMC Connectors in CLX Cable

[Jsim4109]

I have an installation of a CLX cable installed between a MCC Building and a pump motor. the pump motor is installed in a Class 1 Div.2 location. The MCC bldg is installed in a Non-Classified area. The motor termination box in rated Nema 7/9. We plan to install TMCX connectors on this cable on both ends. The owner states these are not needed and to use TMC commectors because "We treat this cable as the armor and jacket provides a non permeable covering, so no compound is needed."

I would like to see if anyone has any opinions on this subject

 

[rbalex]

The owner is correct. See Section 501.15(E)(3). The motor terminal housing is NOT required to be explosionproof so Section 501.15(E)(1) does not apply.

 

[Jsim4109]

The situation has changed a touch. The motor termination box is not explosion proof. is the owner still correct?

 

[rbalex]

Why would it change? Section 501.15(E) still applies.

 

[BPoindexter]

What about for the area classification change? Would you not use a TMCX at one of the ends? How else would you accomplish the sealing requirement? And yes I know that an explosionproof seal is not required.

 

[rbalex]

What about for the area classification change? Would you not use a TMCX at one of the ends? How else would you accomplish the sealing requirement? And yes I know that an explosionproof seal is not required.

Yes-what about the area classification change? What sealing requirement? There is none; that's what Section 501.15(E)(3) is discussing for the type of cable mentioned in the OP.

BTW where did you get the idea that, if you needed a cable seal, it doesn't need to be explosionproof? That only applies to 501.15(B)(2) or 504.70.

 

[BPoindexter]

Doh!! Right as usual Bob. I somehow transposed conduit requirements onto cable. My previous place of employment required TMCS's at one end and I assumed it was Code without a thorough reading of the NEC section.