[RE-wrenches] 690.32(E) + MC?

[R Ray Walters]

I think the issue here is 690.32 deals just with 'fittings and connectors', not the actual wire or cable. 
I believe you meant to reference 690.31 which says 'all raceway and cable wiring methods included in this code....shall be permitted'.
But you still have to comply with 690.31E which says it needs to be in 'metal raceways or metal enclosures' once it enters the building up to the first readily accessible disconnect. 
Looking at article 100, the definition of raceway does include flexible metal conduit, so it seems you could use metal flex conduit and pull wire, but I know many inspectors still won't allow it.
Reading up in articles 320 and 330 for AC and MC cables, MC doesn't say it's conduit, so it would be out, but AC says its enclosed in a 'flexible metallic enclosure'.
So now the question is: Is metallic the same as metal? 
(Oh Boy are we splitting semantic hairs now.......).
Bill or William are the ones to clarify better than I on all of this, though. They've been involved in the actual writing of the code.
IMHO, it seems yet another point to be clarified in future additions of the code.
Meanwhile to be safe, most of us are just running EMT once we penetrate the building. (which opens yet another question: when have you penetrated the building? above or below the roof flashing?)

I think I've caused enough trouble for now,

R. Walters
ray at solarray.com
Solar Engineer




On Dec 4, 2009, at 7:47 PM, Darryl Thayer wrote:

> I have always read metal conduit, The reason being the solar is unfused source circuits, and there is no way for overcurrent protective devices to open.  Therefore, the conductors must be protected from starting a fire under conditions of continuous overcurrent. 
> darryl
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 12/4/09, dan at foxfire-energy.com <dan at foxfire-energy.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: dan at foxfire-energy.com <dan at foxfire-energy.com>
>> Subject: [RE-wrenches] 690.32(E) + MC?
>> To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>> Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 5:18 PM
>> I
>> did a project a while ago for a supplier / Installing out
>> fit (who has their in house engineering types), who told me
>> that either MC or maybe AC cable did comply with 690.32E.
>> today I'm being told that's not the case, and I
>> can't seem to put my finger on it ... any pointers?
>> thanks db
>> 
>> 
>> Dan Brown
>> President
>> Foxfire Energy Corp.
>> Renewable Energy Systems
>> (802)-483-2564
>> www.Foxfire-Energy.com
>> NABCEP #092907-44
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>> 
>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>> 
>> Options & settings:
>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>> 
>> List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>> 
>> List rules & etiquette:
>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>> 
>> Check out participant bios:
>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
> 
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
> 
> Options & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
> 
> Check out participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
> 
>