Unsupported Raceways change in 2011 NEC

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bryonb

Member
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
Please forgive me if this has been discussed before. I did a search of the forums, but couldn't locate this topic.

What is the general consensus as to the deletion of 3XX.30(C) Unsupported Raceways section in the IMC, RMC, PVC, RTRC, and EMT articles? The original proposal 8-24a clearly states that the intent of the proposal was to clarify that additional support is not needed for sections of conduit shorter than 36". By the way, the proposal was submitted by James W. Carpenter, IAEI, who is also the Chairman of the Technical Correlating Committee. The proposal was accepted with a panel statement of "CMP-8 does not necessarily agree with the submitter's Substantiation. Securement requirements are found in 342.30(A)". However, part of the panels statement in ROC 8-10 states "..."additionally, the raceway terminations are to terminate the raceway, not to provide support..." and "...Any decision to omit the support required by general rule with 3' of raceway terminations is a decision best made in the field by the AHJ based on the circumstances of the given installation...".

In the book ?Significant Changes to the NEC 2001 published by the NJATC and NECA, it summarizes the change stating ?An 18-inch or smaller nipple will now require a means of securement?. However, the book ?NEC 2011 Analysis of Changes" published by the IAEI and NFPA states ?Short racesays (18? to 36?) no longer require additional support?.

I?m of the opinion that additional support isn?t needed for short sections of raceways, but there seems to be conflicting opinions on this issue (yet again) and the statements of the CMP seem to be contributing to the confusion.
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
The code says that all raceways must be supported with in 3' from the conduit termination. The conduit termination is not a support. In the last code cycle a proposal was made that would have said if the conduit is less than 3' long it would not need a support. The CMP changed it to say 18" or less does not need a support. Now we are back to the rule as it was in the 2005 code...all conduits no matter how short require a support.
The panel comment is just plain wrong. There is no basis for an inspector to permit a conduit of any length to be installed without a support. Yes, inspectors commonly accept up to 36" without a support, but there is really nothing in the code that permits them to do that. The panel needs to accept the proposal as it was submitted for the 2008 code.
 
raider1

raider1

Senior Member
Staff member
Location
Logan, Utah
don_resqcapt19 said:
The code says that all raceways must be supported with in 3' from the conduit termination. The conduit termination is not a support. In the last code cycle a proposal was made that would have said if the conduit is less than 3' long it would not need a support. The CMP changed it to say 18" or less does not need a support. Now we are back to the rule as it was in the 2005 code...all conduits no matter how short require a support.
The panel comment is just plain wrong. There is no basis for an inspector to permit a conduit of any length to be installed without a support. Yes, inspectors commonly accept up to 36" without a support, but there is really nothing in the code that permits them to do that. The panel needs to accept the proposal as it was submitted for the 2008 code.
Click to expand...

Well said and I agree Don.

I know the person who submitted the 2008 code proposal quite well and you are right on. The 2008 proposal was intended to permit 3' or less sections of raceways to be unsupported, but the CMP changed the original proposal to 18" and added the unbroken requirement that really destroyed the original proposal.

The fact that they eliminated the section IMHO does not equate to allowing 3' of unsupported raceway.

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top