Unsupported Raceway Rules Deleted in Massachusetts

[joe tedesco]

Massachusetts deleted the new 2008 sections in Chapter 3 covering:

Unsupported Raceways

 

[ryan_618]

Massachusetts deleted the new 2008 sections in Chapter 3 covering:

Unsupported Raceways

No surprise. I'm sure Fred Hartwell had something to do with it.

 

[joebell]

Not Fred. I took the EC&M seminar with Fred and Mike in Boston and Fred did a portion on the Mass Amendments and he went on for a half hour on this change.

 

[ryan_618]

That surprises me. Fred fought this change tooth and nail, even through the NITMAM process.

 

[joebell]

Ryan he is still fighting it, he hates it. He goes on how the CMP misinterpeted the proposal and then he went on how it makes no practical sense. I didn't mean to come across that he was fine with it.

 

[George Stolz]

I assume we're talking about the 3xx.30(C) changes, allowing 18" of raceway to go unsupported between two boxes?

I can completely understand a crusade to delete that new provision, but then again eight of my good friends were killed on different occasions, from 16" pieces of EMT falling out of the sky and striking them in the head - so I may be biased.

The expense of a beam clamp and a mini is of little consequence when we are dealing in human life. I've heard rumors that they've had to dig mass graves in California just to deal with all the bodies accumulating from this menace.

That settles it, I am moving to Massachusetts.

 

[infinity]

I assume we're talking about the 3xx.30(C) changes, allowing 18" of raceway to go unsupported between two boxes?

Why 18" and not 3'?

 

[iwire]

Why 18" and not 3'?

Why 3' and not 24" like a nipple?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This makes no sense....obviously the conduit connections are providing support for the short section of conduit...if they aren't then we must be using some type of anti-gravity device and I am not aware of any that are listed to support conduit. There is precedent in the MC and AC articles for the connectors to provide support. Ryan just want to make it clear that the 3 foot section was supported by the connector at the other end of the section to reflect common field practice. The code panel didn't see it that way and put the 18" rule in place....now in cases where the inspector would have permitted the conduit connection to be the support under the previous codes, it is likely that he will make you follow the new rule.
Thanks Ryan

 

[ryan_618]

Yeah, I'm frustrated by it too. Panel 8 has been on the record as stating that raceway connectors are not a means of support, which can be evidenced by my rejected proposals to allow unsupported flexible raceways up to 6 feet. Panel 8 then took the original proposal for a three foot nonflexible raceway to be unsupported and completely screwed it up.

 

[infinity]

Why 18" and not 3'?

Why 3' and not 24" like a nipple?

I would think that if you are now permitted to have the last 3' unsupported (or supported by the connector) in a conduit run then a 3' rule would be make more sense.

 

[smithacetech]

not to mention the exception allowing to be fastened 5' from box. Seems like 18" is a small number.

IMO I dont see an 18" piece of conduit that is properly installed between boxes falling out.

 

[joebell]

I'm glad I work in Ma. because this change is ridiculous. CMP 8 should have changed the distance from the outlet box to the first support from 3' to 18" as well then. If the first support in a conduit run from an outlet box is required to be not more than 3' then why can't that same 3' lenght of conduit go unsupported? Ryan I was not able to locate your proposal on this. I know you have posted before but if you wouldn't mind could I get the log # so I can look it up?

Joe

 

[peter d]

I assume we're talking about the 3xx.30(C) changes, allowing 18" of raceway to go unsupported between two boxes?

I can completely understand a crusade to delete that new provision, but then again eight of my good friends were killed on different occasions, from 16" pieces of EMT falling out of the sky and striking them in the head - so I may be biased.

The expense of a beam clamp and a mini is of little consequence when we are dealing in human life. I've heard rumors that they've had to dig mass graves in California just to deal with all the bodies accumulating from this menace.

That settles it, I am moving to Massachusetts.

I just noticed this post. That was pretty funny, George.

 

[ryan_618]

Ryan I was not able to locate your proposal on this. I know you have posted before but if you wouldn't mind could I get the log # so I can look it up?

Joe

8-65 Log #1348 NEC-P08 You'll notice the proposal is under Mike Holt's name. I work for Mike as his technical code consultant, so we combined all of our proposals under his name to make it easier for us.

 

[George Stolz]

Thanks, Peter.

 

[joebell]

Thanks Ryan I did read that one then. They had 5 listed in the Analysis of changes and 4 had Mikes name to them

 

[ryan_618]

Thanks Ryan I did read that one then. They had 5 listed in the Analysis of changes and 4 had Mikes name to them

When we were doing our code change book, initially we were going to include the submitter's name in the book. Things like this, however, convinced us that it wasn't a good idea.
This is an example where we tried to make the code better, and the panel ended up making it worse. We didn't think a person's name should be tied to a proposal if that person's proposal wasn't passed without the panel tweaking it.
Another example is for AFCIs. The official proposal (or comment) that was accepted was actually in the negative (against the expansion of AFCIs). It would be unfair to have that person's name in a book, telling the world that they expanded AFCIs, when in fact they tried to delete or minimize them.

 

[joebell]

Ryan
Nice job on the code changes book. I got a copy when I took the EC&M seminar.

 

[ryan_618]

Thanks Joe, I really appreciate that.