cable entries in 2-g boxes

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leigh E

Member
i was rejected today for having two romex wires entering a cable knock out in a 2-g box. 315.17(C) states messenger supported wiring, open wiring on insulators, and concealed knob and tube wiring, the conductors shall enter the box through individual holes. then the exception talks about clamps on single gang boxes and in a seperate sentance states multiple cable entries shall be permitted in a single cable knockout opening. why would it be allowed in a single gang box and not a 2-g or bigger? i see no difference in these boxes. the three methods specifically forbidden are single conductor systems, and that makes sense to me to use seperate holes for them. do i have a valid argument of should i just let it slid. thats a lot of work to fix this.
 
e57 said:
Depends on the box clamp.... One gang boxes (most) have no clamp just a knock-out.....

http://www.carlon.com/FAQs/FAQ-ZipBoxes.pdf

On the other hand - many clamps that would go into a 1/2" KO allow certain ranges of cable....
http://www.arlcatalog.com/NM Cable/Langford_C.pdf
Click to expand...

And from that PDF:

How many cables can you put in one integral cable clamp?

One. The National Electrical Code section 314.17(c) Exception allows you to put
multiple cables through a knockout, but only one is allowed through each clamp.
Click to expand...

and there's your answer if they are carlon box's:D
 
Leigh E said:
i was rejected today for having two romex wires entering a cable knock out in a 2-g box. 315.17(C) states messenger supported wiring, open wiring on insulators, and concealed knob and tube wiring, the conductors shall enter the box through individual holes..........
Click to expand...

None of the methods I highlighted in red are 'romex'.
 
they are allied boxes and my distributor is looking into their opinion on this. from the vaired responses i'm guessing this is an interpertation issue i'm dealing with and odds are not with me trying to fight that. i'm just going to change it. even though i don't agree with the ahj.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top