Unsupported Raceway Rules Deleted in Massachusetts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is Support Required Here?

Is Support Required Here?

12179795.jpg
 
Joe
If your state adopts the 2008 code without amendment to this rule it will require support. We in Mass. are lucky they are amending this.
 
If your area deletes the new rule it requires support, if you take a very literal reading of the Code. If you leave the code alone, it will not require support. This change was intended to eliminate the existing support requirements for installations like this.
 
Ryan,
If you leave the code alone, it will not require support.
Click to expand...
How so? Under the 2005 code it requires support and also under the new rule in the 2008 code because it has a coupling. The new rule requires that the conduit be "unbroken" if you want to delete the supports.
Don
 
I'm confussed, why would this need to be supported in the 2005 code if the distance between to two disconnects is less the 3 feet or is the key word I am missing "within"?
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Ryan,

How so? Under the 2005 code it requires support and also under the new rule in the 2008 code because it has a coupling. The new rule requires that the conduit be "unbroken" if you want to delete the supports.
Don
Click to expand...

Don, you are right, I forgot about the coupling part of the rule that Panel 8 added.
 
joebell said:
I'm confussed, why would this need to be supported in the 2005 code if the distance between to two disconnects is less the 3 feet or is the key word I am missing "within"?
Click to expand...

Because there is no support...CMP 8 has routinely stated that raceway connectors are not a point of support. With that said, every installation of conduit that didn't have a support was a violation.

Although I don't like what CMP 8 did to this proposal, it is still less stringent than the code was before.
 
Ryan,
Although I don't like what CMP 8 did to this proposal, it is still less stringent than the code was before.
Click to expand...
Yes the new rule is less stringent, but I wonder about enforcement now that we have a rule. In many areas the inspectors were permitting what you proposed, even though it was a violation.
Don
 
ryan_618 said:
Because there is no support...CMP 8 has routinely stated that raceway connectors are not a point of support. With that said, every installation of conduit that didn't have a support was a violation.

Although I don't like what CMP 8 did to this proposal, it is still less stringent than the code was before.
Click to expand...


The people that make up CMP 8 need to spend more time in the field. This concept borders on comical.
 
Guys, I agree. If I thought there was any chance that what panel 8 did would happen, I simply would not have submitted. I am a big supporter of uniform enforcement and interpretation, so to me the more black and white the code is the better it is. With that said, I think if the proposal passed as originally submitted, it would have added to the code by making all 3xx.30 sections similiar, and would make no room for interpetation.

...too bad it didn't work... :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top