rewrite of 310.15(B)(2) needed

[wbalsam1]

Rarely do I find more confusion in the NEC than I do when I discuss the terms "bundling" and "stacking". To find a definition of bundled, one has to leave 310.15(B)(2) - there should be a definition at 310.2, but there is not a ".2 definitions" section at all - and go to 520.2 Definitions and find "bundled".
So if the problem arises out of concern for bundling or stacking in a one -family dwelling, who would think to look at Theaters, Art 520?

Another problem...there is not a definition for "stacked". So if cables are laying on top of each other for the full length of the basement in one 2 1/2 inch hole, are they "stacked"?

Another problem...There is no definition of what the proper "spacing" is that should be maintained.

Home inspectors are driving me crazy with their interpretations and so are electrical inspectors.

Will someone please re-work this whole thing and clarify it for once and for all?:-?

 

[raider1]

You can't use the definition of bundled from 520.2 to apply to any other code Article. For a definition to apply throughout the code, that definition must be located in Article 100.

If a definition is located in just one Article that definition only applys to that Article.

Chris

 

[wbalsam1]

You can't use the definition of bundled from 520.2 to apply to any other code Article. For a definition to apply throughout the code, that definition must be located in Article 100.

If a definition is located in just one Article that definition only applys to that Article.

Chris

Thanks. I actually knew that. You can see the frustration..yes?

 

[raider1]

Thanks. I actually knew that. You can see the frustration..yes?

Yes I can see the frustration.

Since there is no definition of bundled or stacked in the NEC and there is no defined distance that cables must be apart to be "spaced" this section is very wide open for interpretations.

Chris

 

[charlie b]

Another problem...There is no definition of what the proper "spacing" is that should be maintained.

I don't think it matters. Start off one inch apart and keep it one inch apart, or start off two feet apart and keep it two feet apart, and the impact is the same. It is when a 100 foot long run has one spacing for most of the run and the spacing is much closer for a part of the run that you have a risk of uneven heating in that portion.

Will someone please re-work this whole thing and clarify it for once and for all?

You still have about 30 months available to prepare your submittals for the 2014 NEC! Also, when the Reports of Proposals are published, you may have an opportunity to influence the Code Making Panels by submitting comments with your suggested rewording of the affected sections.

 

[480sparky]

You can't use the definition of bundled from 520.2 to apply to any other code Article. For a definition to apply throughout the code, that definition must be located in Article 100.

If a definition is located in just one Article that definition only applys to that Article.

Chris

So the definition of, say, a ground fault only applies to Art 250?

 

[raider1]

So the definition of, say, a ground fault only applies to Art 250?

Correct, that definition as written in 250.2 only applys to Article 250.

Chris

 

[480sparky]

Correct, that definition as written in 250.2 only applys to Article 250.

Chris

So what do you do with the hundreds of other references (332, to be precise) to ground faults scattered from Art. 90 through 700?

 

[raider1]

Here is a quote from the scope of Article 100:

" In general, only those terms that are used in two or more articles are defined in Article 100. Other definitions are included in the article in which they are used but may be referenced in Article 100."

Chris

 

[raider1]

So what do you do with the hundreds of other references (332, to be precise) to ground faults scattered from Art. 90 through 700?

I did a search and most of those (I didn't check out each one) are part of terms that include "ground fault" such as ground fault circuit interrupter.

Chris

 

[480sparky]

What I mean is, ground faults are referred to all through the Code. How do you apply, say 430.4 when you don't have a definition of a ground fault to work with in Articles 100 or 430?

 

[charlie b]

Here is a quote from the scope of Article 100:

Here is another:

It is not intended to include commonly defined general terms.

I would include the phrase "ground fault" in this category.

 

[raider1]

Here is another: I would include the phrase "ground fault" in this category.

I agree.

Chris

 

[charlie]

. . . Also, when the Reports of Proposals are published, you may have an opportunity to influence the Code Making Panels by submitting comments with your suggested rewording of the affected sections.

Sorry, you will not have that opportunity. All suggested rewording must have public review before being accepting by the code making panels. Since the comment period is only for commenting on the panel actions during the proposal stage, new language may not be accepted.

If new language is submitted, it will be either rejected or held over for the next code cycle by the TCC (technical correlating committee).

 

[ryan_618]

I didn't look to see if anyone submitted it this cycle, but last year Bryan Holland made a proposal to relocate "bundled" from 520.2 to Article 100. As I remember it, CMP-6 (Article 310) seemed to be on board with it, put the panel over 520 was definitely NOT on board with it. In their opinion, the description of "bundling" in 520 is specific only to that article.

Interestingly, you will find a FPN in 518.5 that tells you to see a definition in Article 520! I made a proposal to delete this, and I will be quite interested in seeing if this same CMP steps on their own foot and says it does apply. If that occurs, I will make a comment about last cycle's proposal regarding bundling, and point out the inconsistency.

 

[raider1]

Very interesting Ryan, thanks. It will be interesting to see what the CMP says.

Chris

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I didn't look to see if anyone submitted it this cycle, but last year Bryan Holland made a proposal to relocate "bundled" from 520.2 to Article 100. As I remember it, CMP-6 (Article 310) seemed to be on board with it, put the panel over 520 was definitely NOT on board with it. In their opinion, the description of "bundling" in 520 is specific only to that article.

Interestingly, you will find a FPN in 518.5 that tells you to see a definition in Article 520! I made a proposal to delete this, and I will be quite interested in seeing if this same CMP steps on their own foot and says it does apply. If that occurs, I will make a comment about last cycle's proposal regarding bundling, and point out the inconsistency.

Ryan
I find it difficult to believe that sometimes the CMP members can be so shortsighted.
How is it possible that they have not read 310.15(B)(2)???

There should be a Task Group set up to develop some of the much needed definitions for the NEC.

I understand that sometimes a little "wiggle room" is needed for the wording to be applied for different conditions across the breath and depth of the NEC, but more effort at this point is necessary.
Especially after the "hit" the NFPA has taken in regards to how and who is dominating the installation of code requirements these past couple of code cycles.

 

[charlie]

. . . There should be a Task Group set up to develop some of the much needed definitions for the NEC. . .

Perhaps you could include in your comment that the TCC should indeed do just that. :smile:

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Here is another: I would include the phrase "ground fault" in this category.

If you are including ground fault as common language, take a look in Websters Dictionary. It is not even in the dictionary?? How the NEC CMPs or TCC can say this is not a common code language term is beyond me. As far as I can tell, the last few novels I read, the last few magazines I have perused and the TV shows I see, have not once mentioned "ground fault".

But, then again, I do not get out much...

 

[charlie b]

If you are including ground fault as common language, take a look in Websters Dictionary. It is not even in the dictionary??

Well, I don't keep an NEC at home. But I'm fairly sure it doesn't cite Webster's as the place to look for words that are not defined in article 100. I think it speaks of "common" in the context of "commonly used in the industry."