BTW the real reference is 352.12(B) but that gets you back to 352.10(H)

As I said, (2005 NEC )314.23(e) & (f) permits it. That code section permits enclosures to be supported by 2 conduits, as long as the conduit termination is with a hub or threaded entry.

Exception: One conduit for support is permitted if it is RMC or IMC and the enclosure is no more than 20lbs.

Thanks guys. I've sent off an email to Mark Ode to get his opinion on the matter, but you both have confirmed my interpretation of the issue.

Mike how do you get past 352.12(B) "Uses NOT Permitted"?
"Not permitted" sounds pretty binding to me.
We were talking about RNC, not RMC or IMC

Because that code section is for light fixtures or conduit bodies that support fixtures. RNC is not permitted to support those items. There is nothing in 352 that prohibits RNC to support a box or enclosure.

So the section in 352 does not apply to boxes or enclosures. If it did you could not permit the approved swimming pool J-box to be supported by RNC either, but that is approved all over Florida and the US every day.

The support of enclosures falls in article 314 as I said. There are specific requirements to follow and exceptions.

352.12 Uses Not Permitted.
RNC shall not be used in the following locations.
...
(B) Support of Luminaires (Fixtures). For the support of luminaires (fixtures) or other equipment not described in 352.10(H).

I read this to say you can NOT use RNC to support anything except "... nonmetallic conduit bodies not larger than the largest trade size of an entering raceway. The conduit bodies shall not contain devices or support luminaires (fixtures) or other equipment."

The article does say <TNC shall not support> "other equipment not described in 352.10(H)."

I understand they allow the J box on RNC but usually there is also a rickety board it is tied to. It is still technically illegal. I would draw the line on a 10-15 pound transformer. In a month in the sun it would be laying on the ground and the pool water would be flowing out of the can.

But I guess we are not supposed to care what happens the day after the CO.
I do and I would be prepared to defend my call. After all we are just ignoring the j box violation. I certainly am not out of line on the transformer.
At my house the j boxes are supported by the wall where they are mounted.

I stand corrected! I looked into the subject some more and you are 100% correct! I found some info in the IAEI One and Two Family Dwellings Electrical System book that supports your statement.

Since that is the case I assume that from now on the swimming pool junction box will have to be supported (not the conduit but actually the box will have to be attached to something). Man that will cause some problems!

Things like plastic bushings, fittings (TA male connectors) and such, also fall under the definition of the term equipment in article 100. Therefore if we were to sleeve a uf cable through RNC for protection as it comes out of the ground than the TA connector and plastic bushing used at the end of the RNC for protection will have to be supported in addition of the conduit, (since they are equipment), and RNC is not permitted to support equipment. Havn't figured out how we can do that yet?

We sure are in trouble!

I think we ignore the plastic J box hanging up there on the RNC because it doesn't really weigh any more than a conduit body and it seems pretty safe although I still like to see some support. Usually it ends up being a 1x3 PT "window buck" scrap they found in the dumpster.
I would certainly want some independant support for a transformer tho.
Usually this is a moot point since a regular steel cased transformer would not qualify for direct connection anyway, even if it did have a hub. I suppose there are plastic cased transformers that would meet the letter of the code and a stainless transformer can would probably get "approved". per 680.24(A)(1)(2)

How and when do we ignore the code, and permit or not permit something? If it all doesn't meet code do we not reject it all?

Think about it..if they meet the minimum requirements in the code they did the worse job they can do .....not the better.....but if they don't even meet the worse?

Opinions?