Re-poll

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

Re-poll

  • Total voters
    77
Status
Not open for further replies.
jrohe said:
iwire: The 2008 NEC Handbook supports your argument. As a matter of fact, it illustrates the exact type of installation the OP posted. However, the NEC Handbook is not enforceable and does not constitute formal interpretations of the NFPA. As a matter of fact, the handbook contains a Notice Concerning Liability stating, "neither the NFPA nor the contributors to this handbook guarantee the accuracy or completeness of or assume any liability in connection with the information and opinions contained within this handbook."
Click to expand...
You are correct that the handbook is not an FI (formal interpretation). As far as I know there has not been an FI issued on this subject. To me the next best thing to a FI is a panel statement in the ROP or ROC. If you look at the proposal that I posted in post 34, it is very clear what the panel intends this section to mean.

Additionally, I, along with several other people in this forum disagree that the Code permits the conduit to be supported by the truss framing members without also securing it per 358.30(A) because 358.30 requires compliance with both (A) and (B). There is no "clear release of the securing requirements" in the 2008 NEC or any of the other versions you posted. The Code does not say "either (A) or (B)" - it says comply with both (A) and (B), period.
Click to expand...
Yes, the words do not reflect the panels intent in this case. As I pointed out in previous posts there was no intent to change the rules when the section was changed from the exception format to the positive text format. A proposal for the 2014 code to remove the word "and" from this section is in order.

If you can provide a Code reference where it says that if the EMT is supported by framing members every 10 feet then it doesn't need to be secured per 358.30(A), I'll buy in. But until then, I'm standing my ground, along with several other people in this forum, many of which are inspectors and the very people who can make your life difficult.
Click to expand...
The code wording supports your position, but does not reflect the intent of the code making panel. If you cited me for this violation, I would fix it, request a FI and when it tells me I was right, I would request that the AHJ pay me for the work that you made me do that is not required by the code.
Is there any doubt that securing the EMT per 358.30(A) in addition supporting it per 358.30(B) results in a safer installation? If not, then it's not a matter of what people "applying what they want instead of what is required." You make it sound like securing the EMT per 358.30(A) would be a bad thing. If the CMP truly means to disregard 358.30(A) if the installation complies with 358.30(B), then securing it per 358.30(A) is going above what is required for the benefit of everyone involved. The end user gets a safer installation and the electricians make a little more money.
Click to expand...
As with many threads here on the Mike Holt code forum, the answers revolve around what the code requires and not what would be safer or how any of us would make the installation. I
 
jrohe said:
However, the NEC Handbook is not enforceable and does not constitute formal interpretations of the NFPA.
Click to expand...

I am fully aware of that fact and there are members here that are very tired of me pointing that exact fact out. :grin:

"neither the NFPA nor the contributors to this handbook guarantee the accuracy or completeness of or assume any liability in connection with the information and opinions contained within this handbook."
Click to expand...

I have posted it myself in the past.

When I brought the handbook up in repose to mxslick it was just as another opinion.

Additionally, I, along with several other people in this forum disagree that the Code permits the conduit to be supported by the truss framing members without also securing it per 358.30(A) because 358.30 requires compliance with both (A) and (B).
Click to expand...

What do you think the code required in the 1996, 1999 and 2002 cycles now that I posted them?

The Code does not say "either (A) or (B)" - it says comply with both (A) and (B), period.
Click to expand...

Which is a mistake on the 2005 CMPs part.

If you can provide a Code reference where it says that if the EMT is supported by framing members every 10 feet then it doesn't need to be secured per 358.30(A), I'll buy in.
Click to expand...

I believe I have done so for 96, 99 & 02.

But until then, I'm standing my ground, along with several other people in this forum, many of which are inspectors and the very people who can make your life difficult.
Click to expand...

Just as the handbook is just an opinion so is the opinion of inspectors. Inspectors, just like electricians are known to make mistakes.

Is there any doubt that securing the EMT per 358.30(A) in addition supporting it per 358.30(B) results in a safer installation?
Click to expand...

That is an entirely different subject, we are talking what the NEC requires.

You make it sound like securing the EMT per 358.30(A) would be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I mean or think. I think misunderstanding the rules is a bad thing.


If the CMP truly means to disregard 358.30(A) if the installation complies with 358.30(B), then securing it per 358.30(A) is going above what is required for the benefit of everyone involved.
Click to expand...

Now that is simply not true.

A common application of this allowance is EMT run horizontally through holes in studs that are fairly close fit to the EMT and will be covered by wall finish. In a case like that additional 'securing' would not provide any benefit making it only a waste of money for both the EC and the customer.

The end user gets a safer installation and the electricians make a little more money.
Click to expand...

That depends on so many things, if the customer asked for a code minimum bid the EC losses money if they go beyond it.

Now most of the jobs I work on are engineered jobs with detailed specifications that require us to go beyond the minimums and that is great, I am very happy to work beyond code when I can get paid for doing so. After it is all said and done I do this to make money.
 
I gave up on this weeks ago. We simply can not agree and both sides have strong arguments to support there belief. Bottom line is very few would ever do an install like this.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If you cited me for this violation, I would fix it, request a FI and when it tells me I was right, I would request that the AHJ pay me for the work that you made me do that is not required by the code.
Click to expand...
I would love to see the response to such a request.
 
'A and B'. If the intent was to not include B, than why do the exceptions 1 and 2 exist? Poorly worded, but supports the minorities in the poll, IMHO!
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
I gave up on this weeks ago. We simply can not agree and both sides have strong arguments to support there belief. Bottom line is very few would ever do an install like this.
Click to expand...

jusme123 said:
'A and B'. If the intent was to not include B, than why do the exceptions 1 and 2 exist? Poorly worded, but supports the minorities in the poll, IMHO!
Click to expand...


I posted the sections for 96, 99 and 02, tell me what you think those sections require?
 
LarryFine said:
I would love to see the response to such a request.
Click to expand...
Not sure if it would work based on a FI, but it has been successfully done many times in response to an inspector requiring more than what is required by the adopted code. Of course there is always the issue of what happens when you see that same inspector on the next job:D
 
I just want to say that normally I agree with the positions iwire and several others post throughout this code forum. I think this is a great place for people in the industry to turn to for assistance and general knowledge. I am not trying to cause any heartburn and I apologize to anyone if I have done so.

My responses are all based on the requirements of the exact text of the 2008 NEC. My occupation requires this. My responses are not based on editions of the NEC that are no longer enforced nor are they based on the intent of what the Code states. IMHO, deciphering and enforcing intent is the job role of the plan reviewers and inspectors. It is my job to design projects to meet the letter of the Code.

While it is unfortunate that the inclusion of the word "and" in section 358.30 of the 2002 NEC and subsequently carried through to the current edition may have changed the intent, the simple fact remains that 358.30 requires compliance with 358.30(A) "and" 358.30(B) and there is nothing in 358.30, 358.30(A), or 358.30(B) that states that if 358.30(B) is met that 358.30(A) can be disregarded. Therefore, the letter of the Code, as I am required to design based from, would require the EMT to be secured every 10 feet, regardless of whether the truss framing members were used as a means of support or not and I would require that securing within the specifications.

Now, with all of that being said, if I designed a project and the Contractor submitted an RFI requesting to eliminate the EMT securing means in instances where the truss framing members are used as the means of support, I would likely respond that I take no exception as long as the AHJ approves and a reasonable credit is offered to the Owner.
 
jrohe said:
I just want to say that normally I agree with the positions iwire and several others post throughout this code forum. I think t.
Now, with all of that being said, if I designed a project and the Contractor submitted an RFI requesting to eliminate the EMT securing means in instances where the truss framing members are used as the means of support, I would likely respond that I take no exception as long as the AHJ approves and a reasonable credit is offered to the Owner.
Click to expand...

I agree with your interpretation, with exception to the last sentence.
 
Last edited:
roger said:
And I agree with you here, the owner is not owed a credit for something that wasn't required.

Roger
Click to expand...

This is getting off topic, but if the project specifications require something but that requirement is withdrawn per the request of the Contractor, then the Owner would be entitled to a credit. The Contractor is expected to include everything within the construction documents in their bid, regardless of whether Code requires it or not.
 
jrohe said:
My responses are all based on the requirements of the exact text of the 2008 NEC. My occupation requires this. My responses are not based on editions of the NEC that are no longer enforced nor are they based on the intent of what the Code states. IMHO, deciphering and enforcing intent is the job role of the plan reviewers and inspectors. It is my job to design projects to meet the letter of the Code.
Click to expand...

If you go and look at the ROPs and ROCs like I have taken the time to do for the code change that added the word 'and' along with other changes you will see the intent was not to require compliance with both.


I promise you that even on your jobs horizontal conduits run in stud walls will not have additional securing, only supporting.
 
jrohe said:
This is getting off topic, but if the project specifications require something but that requirement is withdrawn per the request of the Contractor, then the Owner would be entitled to a credit. The Contractor is expected to include everything within the construction documents in their bid, regardless of whether Code requires it or not.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree and unless you specifically stated that conduit run in trusses will be "strapped or tied" there would be no credit offered. Just stating in your speciffications that the installation will comply with all applicable codes will not be enough to warrant a credit if the installation is approved by the AHJ.

Roger
 
iwire said:
If you go and look at the ROPs and ROCs like I have taken the time to do for the code change that added the word 'and' along with other changes you will see the intent was not to require compliance with both.


I promise you that even on your jobs horizontal conduits run in stud walls will not have additional securing, only supporting.
Click to expand...

While I respect your stance on the intent, the NEC may be flawed in the manner it conveys the intent. The way it is currently worded, and has been since the 2002 edition, both 358.30(A) and 358.30(B) are required to be complied with. As a licensed engineer, I am not permitted to design based on what I believe the intent of the Code is. I am required to design based on what the code says, period.

And while I respect your stance on horizontal EMT run through stud walls, the OP and related poll are specifically related to EMT supported by the webs of joists.
 
I want to thank you all for the exchange, but I am going to bow out of this debate. It is obvious we are never going to agree on this until the NFPA changes the wording and, to be honest, it was never my intent to try to change anyone's vote; I was merely justifying my stance. Thanks again to everyone and if I offended anyone, I sincerely apologize. :)
 
iwire said:
No, previous codes show us how we got here and in this case clearly demonstrate the code making panels willingness to allow unsecured conduits.
Click to expand...

regardless, they still remain moot! One can only go by what is written in the '08 code.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top