hbiss
EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
- Location
- Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
- Occupation
- EC
Re: NEC 820 & CATV cable above drop ceilings
Where do you see that the NEC caved in?
Look at the differences between 300.11 and 800.5 and 800.6.
800.5 is nebulous at best:
"Access to electrical equipment shall not be denied by an accumulation of wires and cables that prevents removal of panels, including suspended ceiling panels."
What does this mean?? Sounds like if there is no electrical equipment in the path of the cable run then it is OK to run your bundle on the grid. As long as there is access to any electrical equipment by removing the ceiling panels below it it's not a violation. Further, if the cables are not in such quantity as to cause removal of panels to be a problem then that's OK also. 800.5 and 800.6 don't say that you can't run cables on the grid or that you can't support them with the existing ceiling hanger wires, all it says is that the cable can't cause problems. If the intent is to prevent cables from being run on the grid or can't be supported by the hanger wires they sure have a funny way of saying it. :roll:
That's in stark contrast with 300.11 that not only comes right out and says that cables and raceways shall not be supported by the ceiling grid, but also they can't be supported by the grid hanger wires either. 300.11(1) further details the requirements of support wires in fire-rated ceilings.
No question about intent here- support them up off the ceiling independently or it's a violation!
By the way, I remember that the proposal to allow a "minimal" amount of wiring on the ceiling grid was proposed by the TELCOS's because independent support is "not something they do" so you get the idea where the resistance is here. I don't really know why they even bothered with 800.5 written the way it is.
-Hal
Where do you see that the NEC caved in?
Look at the differences between 300.11 and 800.5 and 800.6.
800.5 is nebulous at best:
"Access to electrical equipment shall not be denied by an accumulation of wires and cables that prevents removal of panels, including suspended ceiling panels."
What does this mean?? Sounds like if there is no electrical equipment in the path of the cable run then it is OK to run your bundle on the grid. As long as there is access to any electrical equipment by removing the ceiling panels below it it's not a violation. Further, if the cables are not in such quantity as to cause removal of panels to be a problem then that's OK also. 800.5 and 800.6 don't say that you can't run cables on the grid or that you can't support them with the existing ceiling hanger wires, all it says is that the cable can't cause problems. If the intent is to prevent cables from being run on the grid or can't be supported by the hanger wires they sure have a funny way of saying it. :roll:
That's in stark contrast with 300.11 that not only comes right out and says that cables and raceways shall not be supported by the ceiling grid, but also they can't be supported by the grid hanger wires either. 300.11(1) further details the requirements of support wires in fire-rated ceilings.
No question about intent here- support them up off the ceiling independently or it's a violation!
By the way, I remember that the proposal to allow a "minimal" amount of wiring on the ceiling grid was proposed by the TELCOS's because independent support is "not something they do" so you get the idea where the resistance is here. I don't really know why they even bothered with 800.5 written the way it is.
-Hal