Two "SHALL" sentences contradict each other

Status
Not open for further replies.
e57

e57

Senior Member
Location
San Francisco, CA
Question? Can you install UG conduit within 5' of a pool that is not related to the pool install?

First sentence says NO, second says Yes.....

680.10 Underground Wiring Location.
Underground wiring shall not be permitted under the pool or within the area extending 1.5 m (5 ft) horizontally from the inside wall of the pool unless this wiring is necessary to supply pool equipment permitted by this article. Where space limitations prevent wiring from being routed a distance 1.5 m (5 ft) or more from the pool, such wiring shall be permitted where installed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, or a nonmetallic raceway system. All metal conduit shall be corrosion resistant and suitable for the location. The minimum burial depth shall be as given in Table 680.10.
Click to expand...

Who makes the call on which sentance to use and why?
 
e57 said:
Question? Can you install UG conduit within 5' of a pool that is not related to the pool install?

First sentence says NO, second says Yes.....



Who makes the call on which sentance to use and why?
Click to expand...

They should have said with the following "exceptions"
 
The second sentence clearly creates an exception to the first. I agree that the first sentence should have included the word "except" in some fashion. But the meaning is not ambiguous. You can do it under the circumstances described in the second sentence, but not otherwise.
 
It cannot be less than 5', unless the space is limited and only when the space is limited is it permitted. The NEC doesn't want to force a pool owner to run his conduit under the neighbor's lawn. :rolleyes:

I'm sure this happens quite often in the NEC.
 
charlie b said:
The second sentence clearly creates an exception to the first. I agree that the first sentence should have included the word "except" in some fashion. But the meaning is not ambiguous. You can do it under the circumstances described in the second sentence, but not otherwise.
Click to expand...
So what if I have space to go outside the 5' but choose not to?
 
charlie b said:
The second sentence clearly creates an exception to the first. I agree that the first sentence should have included the word "except" in some fashion. But the meaning is not ambiguous. You can do it under the circumstances described in the second sentence, but not otherwise.
Click to expand...


I am a little surprised with you Charlie. You usually seem to favor wording over intent. :grin: It seems to be an oversite of the part of the NEC.
 
Adding bends requires space.... And/Or adds a J-box.... Who decides on how "space" is limited?

Does trenching next to an existing foundation - and risk of undermining it limit space?

FYI - not only do I have a current situation concerning this - it too was also ironically on that test I took this afternoon - in the form of...

"What types of underground conduit can not be used within 5' of a pool?"
Listing conduit types as answers.... Answer EMT....
 
480sparky said:
Then you have created a violation. 90.1(B).
Click to expand...

Please explain your reasoning in detail of how this is the case.

Roger
 
roger said:
Please explain your reasoning in detail of how this is the case.

Roger
Click to expand...

If you have the space to maintain 5', then you have to. The NEC doesn't care about how 'convenient' it would be to 'cheat'.
 
480sparky said:
If you have the space to maintain 5', then you have to. The NEC doesn't care about how 'convenient' it would be to 'cheat'.
Click to expand...
I feel the same way - but try telling that to someone trenching next to a multi-million project... Space limited by the general additude of the GC... :rolleyes: In who's mind it is allowed in PVC closer to the pool.
 
360Youth said:
I am a little surprised with you Charlie. You usually seem to favor wording over intent. :grin:
Click to expand...
I still do. I reported my interpretation of the wording, as written. I also mentioned that I thought the wording to be in need of improvement. That does not mean that the wording is wrong, or that we need to second guess its intent.
 
charlie b said:
The second sentence clearly creates an exception to the first. I agree that the first sentence should have included the word "except" in some fashion. But the meaning is not ambiguous. You can do it under the circumstances described in the second sentence, but not otherwise.
Click to expand...
Agreed. To me, there is no ambiguity. You may only invade the 5' limit when impossible to avoid it; it's not an option. If you must do so, you must use one of the wiring methods mentioned.
 
480sparky said:
If you have the space to maintain 5', then you have to. The NEC doesn't care about how 'convenient' it would be to 'cheat'.
Click to expand...

But that wasn't my question, I was asking for an explaination in detail of how 90.1(B) was violated when it is not even worded as an instruction and doesn't contain the word "Shall"

Roger
 
This just one more example of where the NFPAs attempt to limit or remove exceptions does not make the code easier to use. The second sentence of the section should be an exception to the section and not part of the section itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top