6-5 Log #2258 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject
(310.4)
____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Comment on Proposal No: 6-8
Recommendation: This proposal should be accepted.
Substantiation: The panel rejected this proposal with the comment that the
current wording complies with section 3.1.3 of the NEC Style Manual. Based
on the online version of this document, I think the panel meant to say section
3.1.2. This section says that the use of the words ?shall be permitted? are to be
used to ?indicate allowed optional or alternate methods.?
That would indicate that there must be some rule that says that conductors
cannot be installed in parallel. I am not aware of any such rule. Using the
current wording of ?shall be permitted? in no way limits the use of smaller
conductors installed in parallel. The rule should be changed to the wording in
the proposal to provide a valid restriction on the use of conductors smaller than
1/0 in parallel.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The submitter is correct that the NEC Style Manual
reference in the panel statement on Proposal 6-8 should have been 3.1.2,
Permissive Rules. The parenthetical sentence immediately following the
referenced text states, ?(Note that these are still mandatory language and
constitute rules.)? Also, Item 4 under 3.3.1, Writing Style General Guidelines,
in the NEC Style Manual states, ?Use positive language, rather than negative,
wherever possible.? Section 250.118 defines the types of equipment grounding
conductors and uses the singular of ?conductor? except in 250.118(10). Section
310.4 deals with conductors that are run in parallel. The language specifically
allows conductors 1/0 or larger to be run in parallel, which means conductors
smaller than 1/0 in general are not permitted to be run in parallel.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
