312.5 c fail!

[Steveiniowa]

Hello All! I recently installed a panel on the surface of a wall and installed the nm "romex" wiring in the wall and placed the wires in the panel through 2" pvc terminal adaptors. The inspector failed the installation siting 312.5 c. I cannot find the wording siting the infraction. Can anyone help me out? Thanks guys! Stay cool!

Steve!

 

[augie47]

To start:
top of a surface-mounted enclosure through one or more nonfexible raceways not less than 450 mm (18 in.) and not more than 3.0 m (10 ft) in length, provided all of the following conditions are met:

 

[infinity]

Each cable needs to be connected to the enclosure with a listed connector. 312.5(C) is very clear:

312.5 (C) Cables. Where cable is used, each cable shall be secured to the cabinet, cutout box, or meter socket enclosure.

 

[mwm1752]

I'd agree with Augie47 exception to infinity's section.

 

[infinity]

I'd agree with Augie47 exception to infinity's section.

Are you saying that Augie's exception is applicable? The cables enter from within the wall.

 

[augie47]

I was not trying to imply that the exception was applicable in this case. I was simply stating that to start the Section states "cables (in a raceway) shall be permitted to enter the top" and, to me, the OP indicated the cables enter thru a male adapter in the back of the panel.
As pointed out, there were other problems such as securing to the cabinet.
My intent was to show the exception was not applicable in this case.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

To summarize, the inspector was correct to red tag the job.

 

[infinity]

To summarize, the inspector was correct to red tag the job.

Yes it seems like more often than not we don't say that but this time the inspector was correct.

 

[tortuga]

There have been proposals to allow it every code cycle for the last 30 years.
With the exception of Dennis's proposal, CMP 9 has turned down every proposal.
There are too many hazards with arc flash and a stud wall, as some of the code change proposals did some testing.
Note also: Most romex connectors are only listed for two cables.
Bridgeport does make one that fits more.

 

[LarryFine]

Note also: Most romex connectors are only listed for two cables.

I once called Halex to ask the cable-quantity rating of their standard 1/2" NM pop-in connector, because an inspector pinged me on having three cables in each one, and said only two. When they told me "one", I said "Thank you" and made it two from then on.

 

[mwm1752]

Are you saying that Augie's exception is applicable? The cables enter from within the wall.

Missed that in the initial reading - musta glazed past surface mount - so no

 

[Dennis Alwon]

There have been proposals to allow it every code cycle for the last 30 years.
With the exception of Dennis's proposal, CMP 9 has turned down every proposal.
There are too many hazards with arc flash and a stud wall, as some of the code change proposals did some testing.
Note also: Most romex connectors are only listed for two cables.
Bridgeport does make one that fits more.

Hey, I never checked-- what did they say....I'll try and find it.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Here was the response to my proposal to do away with the raceway bot penetrating a structural ceiling

Public Input No. 2812-NFPA 70-2017
Section No. 312.5(C)
Response Message: This exception was developed during the 1993 and 1996 code cycles and first appeared in the 1999 NEC. During the development and after it was published, this exception has been the subject of many proposals and comments. The reason for the surface mounted condition is that there is no need for the use of the sleeve in a flush mounted application as the conductors are protected from damage by the wall covering. The limitation of entering the “top of a surface mounted enclosure” was to assure that the outer raceway termination won’t be easily accessible. The substantiation for Condition #2 is to prevent the spread of fire or products of combustion and to ensure that the fitting remains accessible after the installation. CMP 9 continues to support the substantiation for the exception and determines the current requirements are correct.