NM wiring methods

[millieamp]

A city inspector complained that I put two NM cables through one opening in the back of a Carlon NM outlet box (box fill was otherwise ok). I know there is mention of one entry per knockout for conduit (duh) and K and T but for NM...? Show me the NEC Article number.

Was this inspector wrong?

 

[infinity]

What does Carlon say about it?

 

[shepelec]

Single gang box is ok if secured within 8" of box, not for multi gang.

Hate those Carlon boxes.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I think it is a bogus call but if Carlon only allows one cable per entry tab then so be it. I have never seen anyone get tagged for that around here.

 

[jxofaltrds]

A city inspector complained that I put two NM cables through one opening in the back of a Carlon NM outlet box (box fill was otherwise ok). I know there is mention of one entry per knockout for conduit (duh) and K and T but for NM...? Show me the NEC Article number.

Was this inspector wrong?

Show him Exhibit 314.5 in the handbook.

 

[cpal]

Show him Exhibit 314.5 in the handbook.

nice info but inforceable

 

[Dennis Alwon]

nice info but inforceable

Unenforceable is what I think you mean.

 

[Cavie]

nice info but inforceable

I've never seen or heard of an inspector veto the hand book.

 

[kbsparky]

Show him Exhibit 314.5 in the handbook.

Have him read who provided that exhibit: International Association of Electrical Inspectors.

Then ask him if he wants to argue about it with that bunch

 

[infinity]

Show him Exhibit 314.5 in the handbook.

That works for me. Who would violate this in the first place? If they're stapled within 8" as required what difference does it make if the cables go through one hole or two?

 

[luckyshadow]

Perfectly fine provided they are stapled correctly and the box did not have internal clamps like the multigang ones do.

 

[cpal]

Unenforceable is what I think you mean.

your right,thanks

 

[cpal]

I've never seen or heard of an inspector veto the hand book.

that was not my point.
an inspector can interpert the code as that inspector wishes. (might get appealed) ( might not)

The information in the HB is the opinion of the editors. not necessarly an interpertation of the cmp.

in this area one can not enforce the explanatory print only the same language that is in the soft cover.

 

[brichter]

Please see 2008 314.17(C) Exception last sentence.

 

[480sparky]

that was not my point.
an inspector can interpert the code as that inspector wishes. (might get appealed) ( might not) ...........

No. Only the AHJ can interpret the Code. The inspector is only the enforcement branch of the process.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Please see 2008 314.17(C) Exception last sentence.

That's The Passage from the Holy Writ.

A city inspector complained that I put two NM cables through one opening in the back of a Carlon NM outlet box (box fill was otherwise ok). . . Show me the NEC Article number.

Was this inspector wrong?

Yes. As long as it's a single gang.

 

[cpal]

No. Only the AHJ can interpret the Code. The inspector is only the enforcement branch of the process.

It helps if you reference the entire thought (might get appealed ) ( might not)

 

[mivey]

No. Only the AHJ can interpret the Code. The inspector is only the enforcement branch of the process.

And in many places, the AHJ looks to the inspector for the interpretation so the inspector essentially becomes the AHJ by default.

 

[cpal]

personally I'd rather not start this issue again, The AHJ does not mean the same in all areas, (that was my point)

 

[stevenje]

Show him Exhibit 314.5 in the handbook.

Better yet show him Article 314.17(C) Exception (Last line of) "Multiple cable entries shall be permitted in a single cable knockout opening"