ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

>> Home   >> Electrical-Photos   >> Classifieds   >> Subscribe to Newsletter   >> Store  
 

Photo of the Week:

Electric Cow Catcher?
Electric Cow Catcher?

Advertisement:-Left
Recent Gallery Topics:
What in Tarnation?
What in Tarnation?
by timmp, September 10
Plumber meets Electrician
Plumber meets Electrician
by timmp, September 10
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 46 guests, and 19 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 24
C
Coastal Offline OP
Member
I've wired numerous residential elevators (3 floors) within this particular jurisdiction always pulling NM cable; 10-3 w/ground for the motor and 12-2 for the light. These circuits are pulled through ceilings and walls and "stubbed out" in the elevator mechanical room where the elevator contractor terminates them into his equipment. Have done it this way for years, not only in this jurisdiction but in all surrounding ones, too.
A new inspector is hired and the first one of my homes that is inspected, he wants to see all elevator electrical in conduit from the panel to the elevator equipment. Nowhere along the way or in the elevator room is the wiring exposed to any "physical harm". Is he within his rights by code to demand this after the job has been "roughed-in"??

Horizontal Ad
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 886
H
Member
Where's it say you gotta do that? He has to cite a code article.

-Hal

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 24
C
Coastal Offline OP
Member
I left my code book at the office but I remember somewhere in article 620 where it does state that wiring does need to be in approved conduit, be it pipe or flex but it does not specifically say from the source. No where along the way is any NM wiring exposed. It is stubbed out of the wall directly into the disconnects for the elevator equipment. I also remember reading in 620 that the wire insulation needs to be fire retardant such as THN, THWN etc. Is Romex fire retardant?

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 308
S
Member
I don't think the inspector is interpreting the code properly. 620.21 refers to wiring in hoistways, on cars, within machine rooms and on the counterweight.

620.11(C) says all conductors in raceways shall have flame-retardant insulation.....Shielded conductors shall be permitted....applied to any conductor within the cable or raceway system.

NM is a cable.

I think this section is not really refering to the equipment supply conductors but then again it doesn't say it's not either.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
E
e57 Offline
Member
I think the only way he's got you on this is if you installed NM in the hoistway, on the exterior of the wall. Or exposed in any way in the equipment room. Technicaly, 620.21 could get ya, but just for the entrance to the equipment. As it does not mention NM being allowed in equipment spaces. A judgement call there, but not all the way to the panel. IMO And no, NM is not fire retadant, although I heard they are starting to think about it.


Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 751
E
Member
So, put the disconnect on the outside of the mechanical space, change to conduit, and the problem is solved.
Using the prior logic that the feeder to the elevator is not allowed to be NM, then the service cable to the house cannot be SE cable or USE, as they are not on the list either.


Earl

Link Copied to Clipboard
Advertisement:-Right


Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians
 

* * * * * * *
2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
2023 NEC + Exam Prep Study Guides Now Available!
 

Member Spotlight
Alan Belson
Alan Belson
Mayenne N. France
Posts: 1,803
Joined: March 2005
Top Posters(30 Days)
Popular Topics(Views)
333,432 Are you busy
258,768 Re: Forum
240,184 Need opinion
New Page 2
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5