2003 EMT raintight memorandum

[trampas]

I received a memorandum from the City of San Diego, regarding acceptability of raintight conn's on EMT. Here is a quote from the memorandum;

Pursuant to the 2003 Electrical Council Report from Underwriters Laboratories, the ability of manufacturers to list their fittings as "raintight" was rescinded on March 15, 2002. At UL's direction the manufacturers were required to remove the word "raintight" from their packaging.

Effective July 1, 2003 no installations of EMT in wet locations will be acceptable unless the installer can provide proof that the fittings used are listed as "raintight".

Has anyone come across electrical inspections where this has been an issue? I plan on running EMT from the main sub-panel to the above ground PVC, and then back to EMT where the sub-sub delivers to the PVC again for the second shop wiring.

Thanks for any experience and input on this...

[64Trvlr]

I don't know about that but I just ran a ton of wire outside my house. I used grey pvc, it's absolutely water proof, goes together easier and was cheaper than emt. My advice is to check it out before you buy anymore emt.

[J-Dogg]

Compression fittings with emt should be fine. PVC will also work. Or you can use "sealtite", its a flexible conduit with a weatherproof outer shell. Ridgid conduit will also work. These are all acceptable in wet locations.

[trampas]

I was thinking of running all PVC 1-1/4" for the entire run, but an electrician came by and suggested running EMT in the attic from the main sub, to PVC for the underground 130' run, then back into the second attic w/ aluminum flex, and back to PVC over to the other shop.

I'm not sure why he recommended EMT... i was thinking PVC all the way. What could his reasoning be?

[J-Dogg]

Its easier to pull wire through 90's with emt, and it looks cleaner. Having exposed pvc is unproffesional looking.