310.15(B)(2)(c) (Ripped from another forum)

Status
Not open for further replies.

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I wouldn't want to put EMT on a roof anyway... the salt spray in the air around here would turn it into a rusty blob in no time at all.

But that being said... I say yes, the 310.15(B)(2)(c) adjustment factors would apply to EMT on a rooftop. Just because the CMP screwed up and specified "conduit and cables" instead of a more general term like "raceway," doesn't mean that the rooftop raceway will suddenly become a safe installation if it's installed in something other than "conduit." I don't think it would make it up the food chain very far if you appealed it - people are human, even, unbelievably, the Code Making Panel - and they can mess up. I bet they could find a method in the bureaucracy somewhere to make an "emergency code correction addendum" or some such were it necessary.

The NEC is adopted as law, the words matter. If they chose the wrong words then that is a problem. They can not just say 'sorry we meant this, not that'.

BTW the NFPA could release a "TIA" Temporary Interim Agreement" to fix this if they want to.
 

Rockyd

Senior Member
Location
Nevada
Occupation
Retired after 40 years as an electrician.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iwire
So in your view the NEC is no more then TP for the outhouse?

Except for the index, of course.

So what's so special about the index...?

Heard it's rough, tough, and won't take any $hit from an electrician:D
 

mpd

Senior Member
this is a situation that if a TIA was not released, and it became a problem in areas, the state could clarify it in there administrative code.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
This is just another example of the CMP using "field language" when they should be using "code language". EMT is conduit in "field language" but it is not conduit in code language. The enforceable rule is in the code and code language applies, EMT is not covered by this rule. I am sure that they intended it to be covered, but they did not use the correct wording to cover it.
One of the most glaring examples of field v code language was in the code until the '87 code. Prior to that time the rule on the maximum bends in a raceway said "not more than 360 degrees between "fittings". The only problem with that wording is the fact that a coupling is a fitting in code language. In this area the field language meaning of "fitting" is conduit body and that was the intent of the code rule, but the wording did not match the intent. The current rule says not more than 360 degrees of bend between "pull points".
 

radiopet

Senior Member
Location
Spotsylvania, VA
The NEC is adopted as law, the words matter. If they chose the wrong words then that is a problem. They can not just say 'sorry we meant this, not that'.

BTW the NFPA could release a "TIA" Temporary Interim Agreement" to fix this if they want to.

Hmmm...I am not sure about other states but in Virginia we don't adopt the NEC. We adopt the USBC then the IRC and IBC which make reference to the NEC as an acceptable standard. In the end it rules in that order atleast in Virginia that is.
 

Twoskinsoneman

Senior Member
Location
West Virginia, USA NEC: 2020
Occupation
Facility Senior Electrician
IMO it does not have to be, as I said compare the ".1s" of each raceway article.

Can I ask you what your point is about comparing the scope of each of these articles...

The use of the word "conduit" in 310.15(B)(2)(c) IMO is a
"commonly defined general term or commonly defined
technical term".....since it is not defined by the NEC. In such case the dictionary gives us our definition and I believe that includes tubing such as EMT.



 

cpal

Senior Member
Location
MA
There is a difference between an interpretation and making up a rule that does not exist and if an EC so desired they could take it to court and IMO prevail.

Well Bob you sure can stir things up,

On the other hand a contaractor could install EMT on the roof and not derate or elevate and have a law suit, I can see the lawyers

Lawyer "Are you arawe of the language in 310.15 (B) (2) (c)??"
Contractor "Yes!"
Lawyer " Is it you opinionthatthe conductors in the EMT are majic and will not suffer the same fate as the ones beside them in conduit????"

Contractor " gulp"

I'm guessing CMP will accept the leaflet.
 

tom baker

First Chief Moderator
Staff member
I agree. Mistake or not the words are the words. Says conduit, not tubing, so EMT isn't required to comply. If no one noticed soon after the 2008 became available this it make take two code cycles to correct it.
Agreed. Make Ode of UL pointed this out in an recent article in EC magazine.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
This is one of those issues that I think we all get into for discussion purposes. I cannot imagine anyone trying to pull that over in the field. As someone else said today--" Did you strap your raceway in the trench? " There are no exceptions for not strapping in the trench but "Who Cares" nobody (I hope) would try and fail a job because of that.
 

ericsherman37

Senior Member
Location
Oregon Coast
The NEC is adopted as law, the words matter. If they chose the wrong words then that is a problem. They can not just say 'sorry we meant this, not that'.

BTW the NFPA could release a "TIA" Temporary Interim Agreement" to fix this if they want to.

Did you know that U.S. Congress has an office which goes through the text of proposed bills and fixes things like grammatical errors and sentence structures, etc.? Granted, this happens before the bill becomes law, but it exists :D
 

mivey

Senior Member
Did you know that U.S. Congress has an office which goes through the text of proposed bills and fixes things like grammatical errors and sentence structures, etc.? Granted, this happens before the bill becomes law, but it exists :D
They can also go back and re-write the record on what they actually said.:roll:

As for the OP: I can't imagine why this would not get fixed. It seems like a pure oversight and any perceived loophole should be closed.
 

benaround

Senior Member
Location
Arizona
I would have to say EMT does not apply in 310.15(B)(2)(c), To back that up I would

refer you to 310.15(B)(2)(b) , that is right above it in the NEC, it says "more than one

Conduit,Tube, or Raceway".

Now read (c) and it says "Conduits"

I think that would stand up in a court of law. jmo
 

M. D.

Senior Member
I wonder if this rule has improved the sale of this cable assembly.... given the tremendous in crease in wire sizes if conduit is used , I would think this might be a reasonable alternative
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top