- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Permit me to muddy the waters even further. But first, I agree with Don; it would have been far preferable to have used ?code? (raceway)rather than ?field? (conduit) language.
There may be general agreement that all (electrical) conduits are raceways, but not all (electrical) raceways are conduits; but is that necessarily true?
The current (2008) definition of raceway lists one form of ?conduit? (RNC) that no longer exists, and one (liquidtight flexible conduit) that technically never did, since both LFMC and LFNC were already separately recognized when the original ?list? of raceways was incorporated into the definition in 1996. In fact, of the nine (9) current conduit types specifically recognized in Chapter 3, only three (3) are actually listed in the current definition of raceway: IMC, FMC and RMC. Lest anyone point out that PVC and RTRC are called RNC, I am aware of it; I?ll also point out HDPE is not.
Nevertheless, the definition does recognize the list is not necessarily all inclusive, so it is reasonable to include the other five types because they still fit the root definition.
The crux of the problem then is, ?what is ?code? language?? in this case since raceway is a defined term, but conduit is not.
Those who have been around here long enough have heard me say that the second sentence of 90.4 is a statement of responsibility rather than a free grant of prerogative to the AHJ; i.e., the responsibility is to interpret, not make code.
But interpret still cuts a broad swath. The NFPA Manual of Style declares Webster?s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition to be the authority of a word?s meaning in an NFPA Standard in absence of a definition within the Standard.
According to Webster?s interpret?s basic definition is, ?to explain or tell the meaning of.? Only the most obstinate would deny part of that would be to determine intent if it may otherwise be unclear. In addition, the relevant definition of conduit is, ?a pipe, tube, or tile for protecting electric wires or cables.? According to this definition all raceways (and maybe a few more things) are conduits. Note: Neither tube nor cylinder necessarily imply a circular cross section.
In my opinion, an AHJ using common and standard rules of interpretation could readily arrive at the fact that EMT is indeed a conduit and 310.15(B)(2)(c) applies.
This doesn?t mean I like 310.15(B)(2)(c); I don?t. It was based on well meaning but scientifically unverifiable experiments with no apparent peer review or replication. While no more ?scientific,? CMP member McClung was right on, when he said industry?s combined experience refuted the Proposals Substantiation. Unfortunately, the panel members that voted for it stood to make a nickel.
There may be general agreement that all (electrical) conduits are raceways, but not all (electrical) raceways are conduits; but is that necessarily true?
The current (2008) definition of raceway lists one form of ?conduit? (RNC) that no longer exists, and one (liquidtight flexible conduit) that technically never did, since both LFMC and LFNC were already separately recognized when the original ?list? of raceways was incorporated into the definition in 1996. In fact, of the nine (9) current conduit types specifically recognized in Chapter 3, only three (3) are actually listed in the current definition of raceway: IMC, FMC and RMC. Lest anyone point out that PVC and RTRC are called RNC, I am aware of it; I?ll also point out HDPE is not.
Nevertheless, the definition does recognize the list is not necessarily all inclusive, so it is reasonable to include the other five types because they still fit the root definition.
The crux of the problem then is, ?what is ?code? language?? in this case since raceway is a defined term, but conduit is not.
Those who have been around here long enough have heard me say that the second sentence of 90.4 is a statement of responsibility rather than a free grant of prerogative to the AHJ; i.e., the responsibility is to interpret, not make code.
But interpret still cuts a broad swath. The NFPA Manual of Style declares Webster?s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition to be the authority of a word?s meaning in an NFPA Standard in absence of a definition within the Standard.
According to Webster?s interpret?s basic definition is, ?to explain or tell the meaning of.? Only the most obstinate would deny part of that would be to determine intent if it may otherwise be unclear. In addition, the relevant definition of conduit is, ?a pipe, tube, or tile for protecting electric wires or cables.? According to this definition all raceways (and maybe a few more things) are conduits. Note: Neither tube nor cylinder necessarily imply a circular cross section.
In my opinion, an AHJ using common and standard rules of interpretation could readily arrive at the fact that EMT is indeed a conduit and 310.15(B)(2)(c) applies.
This doesn?t mean I like 310.15(B)(2)(c); I don?t. It was based on well meaning but scientifically unverifiable experiments with no apparent peer review or replication. While no more ?scientific,? CMP member McClung was right on, when he said industry?s combined experience refuted the Proposals Substantiation. Unfortunately, the panel members that voted for it stood to make a nickel.
