confused?

[don_resqcapt19]

Am I really off base or did the CMP not read the code section?

6-44 Log #3390 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject
(310.15(B)(3)(a))
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:
(3) Adjustment Factors.
(a) More Than Three Current-Carrying Conductors in a Raceway or Cable. Where the number of current-carrying conductors in a raceway or cable
exceeds three, or where single conductors or multiconductor cables are installed without maintaining spacing for a continuous length longer than 600
mm (24 in.) and are not installed in raceways, the allowable ampacity of each conductor shall be reduced as shown in Table 310.15(B)(3)(a). Each current carrying conductor of a paralleled set of conductors shall be counted as a current-carrying conductor.

Substantiation: Delete ?in a Raceway or Cable?. Those words are in conflict with the wording in the section itself. The section wording makes it clear that a
current adjustment factor is required for three or more current carrying conductors that are installed without maintaining spacing and are not in a
raceway or cable.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: Section 310.15(B)(3)(a) is specific to conductors in raceway or cable. This section provides references to other sections, but contains rules for only conductors in raceways or cables.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10

text in red = text to be deleted

If this section only applies to conductors in raceways or cables, then what is the purpose of the words: "...or where single conductors or multiconductor cables are installed without maintaining spacing for a continuous length longer than 600mm (24 in.) and are not installed in raceways ..."??

 

[Smart $]

As in court, I cannot attest to something someone else may or may not have done without witnessing first hand. For the issue of someone else reading something, I can never attest to have witnessed that first hand. :blink:


That said, I surmise the latter to be a correct assessment.

 

[iMuse97]

I see your point... apparently, they didn't!

 

[roger]

As in court, I cannot attest to something someone else may or may not have done without witnessing first hand. For the issue of someone else reading something, I can never attest to have witnessed that first hand. :blink:


That said, I surmise the latter to be a correct assessment.

Uh, eloquently stated.

Roger

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Aren't there single conductor cables? Perhaps that is what they are referring to.

 

[ryan_618]

I don't want to throw the people on panel six under the bus, because I know some of them and they are really good people...but...Article 310 has been getting worse and worse since 2005. What they did to the dwelling table is absurd, renaming 310.16 was a joke, and please don't get me started on the rooftop issue. And now they are making the rooftop rules even more strigent, despite no real world failures (you'd think that buildings everywhere would be in ruin if the rooftop concern were a real world issue). Oh yeah, they screwed up the current carrying conductors rule, er, I mean the "number of conductors" rule. Oh yes, lets not forget that we decreased the ampacity of 14 and 12 AWG in 2011!!! I'm sure that there must be fires and deaths everywhere since we've had the wrong ampacities, for nearly one hundered years, mind you, of the two most commonly used conductors in the country.
Sorry Don, I got off on a little tangent there. To answer your question, yes, they read it, no, they don't understand it. :?

 

[Smart $]

Aren't there single conductor cables? Perhaps that is what they are referring to.

Then perhaps...

More Than Three Current-Carrying Conductors in a Raceway or Cable. Where the number of current-carrying conductors exceeds three in a raceway, or cable exceeds three, or a group of single conductors or multiconductor cables are installed without maintaining spacing for a continuous length longer than 600mm (24 in.) and are not installed in raceways, the allowable ampacity of each conductor shall be reduced as shown in Table 310.15(B)(3)(a). Each current carrying conductor of a paralleled set of conductors shall be counted as a current-carrying conductor.

text to be deleted or relocated
added or relocated text


The rewrite would then read...

More Than Three Current-Carrying Conductors. Where the number of current-carrying conductors exceeds three in a raceway, cable, or a group of conductors or cables are installed without maintaining spacing for a continuous length longer than 600mm (24 in.) and not in raceway, the allowable ampacity of each conductor shall be reduced as shown in Table 310.15(B)(3)(a). Each current carrying conductor of a paralleled set of conductors shall be counted as a current-carrying conductor.

 

[Smart $]

...
The rewrite would then read...

Wanted to redo that once more (errrr, twice more) but ran out of edit time.

More Than Three Current-Carrying Conductors. Where the number of current-carrying conductors exceeds three in a raceway, cable, or a group of conductors or cables not in raceway and not spaced for a continuous length longer than 600mm (24 in.), the allowable ampacity of each conductor shall be reduced as shown in Table 310.15(B)(3)(a). Each current carrying conductor of a paralleled set of conductors shall be counted as a current-carrying conductor.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think my comment will be along these lines:
With all due respect I strongly suggest that the members of the code panel actually read the section in question before voting and making a panel statement on a proposal.

 

[roger]

I think my comment will be along these lines:
With all due respect I strongly suggest that the members of the code panel actually read the section in question before voting and making a panel statement on a proposal.

I don't know Don, I think I would leave the "With all due respect" out if it were me.

Roger

 

[ActionDave]

I don't want to throw the people on panel six under the bus, because I know some of them and they are really good people...but...Article 310 has been getting worse and worse since 2005. What they did to the dwelling table is absurd, renaming 310.16 was a joke, and please don't get me started on the rooftop issue. And now they are making the rooftop rules even more strigent, despite no real world failures (you'd think that buildings everywhere would be in ruin if the rooftop concern were a real world issue). Oh yeah, they screwed up the current carrying conductors rule, er, I mean the "number of conductors" rule. Oh yes, lets not forget that we decreased the ampacity of 14 and 12 AWG in 2011!!! I'm sure that there must be fires and deaths everywhere since we've had the wrong ampacities, for nearly one hundered years, mind you, of the two most commonly used conductors in the country.
Sorry Don, I got off on a little tangent there. To answer your question, yes, they read it, no, they don't understand it. :?

Thank you for confirming my cynicism regarding the CMP's is not misspent. They no longer exist to serve the greater good; they only exist to serve themselves.