# Metallic conduit elbows?



## ICE (Dec 19, 2014)

I have long runs for parking lot lights. It is 3/4" non-metallic conduit. I have asked for metal elbows to keep the rope from cutting through the conduit. The contractors needs a code section. I need the code section.

Thanks


----------



## JCraver (Dec 19, 2014)

300.5 (D) (4)  Enclosure or Raceway Damage

Where the enclosure or raceway is subject to physical damage, the conductors shall be installed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, or equivalent.

?????????????

I don't think that's what that Code section is for, but you never know....

What type of non-metallic conduit is it?


----------



## steveray (Dec 19, 2014)

ICE...have you seen that happen? anyone else? I could see how it could, but have never thought of it...But I have never been a sparky, I just tell them what they are doing wrong....


----------



## ICE (Dec 19, 2014)

JCraver said:
			
		

> 300.5 (D) (4)  Enclosure or Raceway DamageWhere the enclosure or raceway is subject to physical damage, the conductors shall be installed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, or equivalent.
> 
> ?????????????
> 
> ...


It is PVC.  I am pretty sure that there is a code that backs me up.  Our electrical section has Fridays off so I'm stuck until Monday.  Even then, I might be full of crap, but gosh I remeber writing the correction before now.

300.5 is more for if the conduit is exposed and subject to damage.  Draging a few hundred feet of rope through the elbows could be subjecting the conduit to damage but there is a section just for that....I think!

Steveray,

No I have not seen it.  The electrician says that he has done miles and miles of underground conduit and he's never seen the damage either.  Well the conduit is buried so how would anyone see it?

I think I should take that back.  I must have seen such damage or I wouldn't bother with the correction.


----------



## cda (Dec 19, 2014)

So you think metal will cause less damage than PVC?


----------



## ICE (Dec 19, 2014)

cda said:
			
		

> So you think metal will cause less damage than PVC?


Sure do.  The metal won't get the rope near as hot as the melting PVC will.


----------



## north star (Dec 19, 2014)

*= + = + =*



There's nothing in the NEC about "requiring" the Contractor

to use metallic elbows or bends.

While it may be a good idea, ...there's nothing to "require"

them to use them.

Are there any designed plans \ specifications for this project ?

There are some recommendations:

*1.*Use Poly-line.

*2.*Use the high dollar pull tape known as *"Mule Tape"*, manufactured

by Neptco.......This product is a pre-lubricated, flat rope.

*http://www.neptco.com/website/neptco.nsf/sec/6.3*

*3.*  or use plenty of lubrication on the rope & in to the conduit itself.

*4. *If no lubrication is called for \ used, then there is a product called

*"Simpull-Slikrope"*........Another pre-lubricated product*.*

*http://www.simpullsolutions.com/circuit-wire/how-it-works.htm*



*5. *They could use nylon fittings instead of pvc or metallic ones.

*6.*  They could use an oversized rope to in your 3/4"  conduit.

*7.*  They could use a metallic type of rope \ wire.

If metallic bends \ elbows ARE used, they have to be a minimum

of 18" or more below grade, so as to not require bonding [ *RE:*

Article 250.80, the Exception,  `08 NEC  ].

As another critical recommendation, ...once the conductors are all

installed, ...have a Megger test performed by a competent,

experienced individual, on each of the conductors !........If their

line cuts in to the pvc, ...the conductors themselves may also be

damaged [ *MUCHO **$$$$*  ]...........Now, they will have to pull the

damaged ones out; quite probably *ALL* *OF THEM*, and re-pull

the whole run again. 

Hope this helps !      



*= + = + =*


----------



## ICE (Dec 19, 2014)

Maybe it was an old code.....you know, one that I am supposed to forget.  I don't get to inspect much commercial these days but I am positive that it's not a Tiger code.


----------



## ICE (Dec 20, 2014)

It is Saturday now and I can't find anything in the code other than using my discretion to "approve" a use or reject it.  I really don't like doing that so I will let this one go.  north star pointed out that there are products on the market that are made for pulling conductors......so I'm not the only one to see a concern.

I just got off the phone with the superintendent and took back the correction.  He said "That's good news for the electrician and bad news for you".  I told him that being wrong never bothers me that much.  I know inspectors that can't handle being wrong.  They don't write many corrections.  I figure that if I am wrong 1% of the time that's once a week....sometimes twice and rarely three.  So what's the big deal?


----------



## cda (Dec 20, 2014)

I write the comment

Need to research will get back

So in your case they could have gone ahead and installed the metal elbows or waited a day or two

I tell people to prove me wrong, only way to learn

Ask mike???

http://www.mikeholt.com/contact-us-main.php


----------



## ICE (Dec 20, 2014)

cda said:
			
		

> I write the commentNeed to research will get back
> 
> So in your case they could have gone ahead and installed the metal elbows or waited a day or two
> 
> ...


There should be a picture of Dennis Alwon too.


----------



## ICE (Dec 20, 2014)

cda said:
			
		

> So in your case they could have gone ahead and installed the metal elbows or waited a day or two


This went down late on Friday and went away Saturday morning.


----------



## Dennis (Dec 21, 2014)

Let it go.  You really cannot enforce it.  If an inspector tried to turn that down on me I would go to the state and get their ruling and the insp. would lose.  The only purpose the red tag would have is to hold up the job.  I have never been aware of a code cycle that required this.

There is a section that allows metallic elbows without having to ground it- perhaps this is what you were thinking about



> 250.86 Exception No. 3: A metal elbow shall not be required to beconnected to the equipment grounding conductor where it
> 
> is installed in a run of nonmetallic raceway and is isolated
> 
> ...


----------



## ICE (Dec 21, 2014)

Dennis said:
			
		

> Let it go.  You really cannot enforce it.  If an inspector tried to turn that down on me I would go to the state and get their ruling and the insp. would lose.  The only purpose the red tag would have is to hold up the job.  I have never been aware of a code cycle that required this.There is a section that allows metallic elbows without having to ground it- perhaps this is what you were thinking about


We don't have red tags and if California contractors had to go to the State to overrule a correction, the job would be held up for years.


----------



## Dennis (Dec 21, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> We don't have red tags and if California contractors had to go to the State to overrule a correction, the job would be held up for years.


Okay, but I would not be the one who would do that based on my feelings and not code info.


----------



## cda (Dec 21, 2014)

well the inspector and contractor should know the code, or where to look up the section,

so a day of research is a good option, to find out if an item is required or not.


----------



## Dennis (Dec 21, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> There should be a picture of Dennis Alwon too.


  There would be if I worked for Mike.  I cant even get my pic on the mod page because I was never a chief mod--


----------



## Dennis (Dec 21, 2014)

cda said:
			
		

> well the inspector and contractor should know the code, or where to look up the section,so a day of research is a good option, to find out if an item is required or not.


I don't expect the inspector or the ec to know the entire code and even trying to look it up is difficult.  My point is that the use of 90.4 or 110.2 should rarely be used and definitely bot in this case.  IMO., those articles are about equipment and conductors that may be questionable.  It is not about a taking a compliant install and turning it down because one does not like it.


----------



## ICE (Dec 21, 2014)

Dennis said:
			
		

> Okay, but I would not be the one who would do that based on my feelings and not code info.


Well for some reason, I got the feeling that there was a code for that.  That's how it works for me.  I see something and I think, "You know, there might be a code for that".  Bear in mind that I am tasked with knowing all of the electrical, building, residential, plumbing, mechanical, energy and much of the zoning codes.  Thankfully, a lot of the code doesn't apply to the environment I prowl but there is still a requirement to get that feeling...

Consider that It is not unusual for me to have 15 jobs to inspect in a day and they almost always involve all of the trades.  It's also not out of the ordinary to write near a hundred corrections on that day.  That's a tall order and now and then I get it wrong.

Moving at warp speed I don't have the time to look up code sections.  With this one I went to my truck and asked the question at the forum....then it was off to the next job.  Twelve hours later, I had an answer.  I called the contractor Saturday morning and gave him the good news.

I joked around earlier and said that if I blew it 1% of the time I was still doing fine.  The usual way it plays out is that I am the only one that knows that I made a mistake.  I always set the record straight and all too often, the contractor had no clue that I was wrong.  Contractors have told me that they have never experienced an inspector taking back a correction on their own.  I can tell you this much, any inspector that doesn't do that now and then isn't doing the job.


----------



## cda (Dec 21, 2014)

"""" Contractors have told me that they have never experienced an inspector taking back a correction on their own. I can tell you this much, any inspector that doesn't do that now and then isn't doing the job."""

Been there done that numerous times

It is easier to take away a write up, than it is to come back and "ADD"


----------



## ICE (Dec 21, 2014)

cda said:
			
		

> It is easier to take away a write up, than it is to *come back and "ADD"*


That happens way more often than taking one away.  Especially with my penchant for taking pictures.  Every day I download a bunch of pictures.  So naturally I sometimes see something that I missed.  Or I will remember a correction that I forgot to write.  The violations come to my mind faster than I can write them down so a few can slip between the cracks.  Then there's the occasional a$hole worker that's doing his best to throw me off my game.

So you betcha I add....and regrets?....oh Hell no


----------

