ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion Canadian Electrical Code Topics One screw, one wire

Hi there CS...

Yes, I can see why having it spelled out in a perscriptive code, such as the CEC, would be expected.

Personally I like the BC amendment, but I would remove the phrase "current-carrying" from the BC amendment so it would cover all conductors and not just current-carrying ones. If you are going to add a jurisdictional amendment, it had better address all possible scenarios.

My boss, the Chief Inspector for this jurisdiction is the chair of the CEC Part I Section 2 technical committe and he has explained this issue to me this way...

The thought of the CEC code body is that if an installation issue is made unacceptable via a Part II certification standard, then there is no reason to add additional rules to a Part I section as the complete CAN/CSA C22.1-06 code really consists of all three parts and they need to be applied together to an installation in harmony.

The point is valid and I support it. Having said that, given the lack of emphasis the Part II section sees on a regular basis, perhaps the BC approach is wise.

Thanks for the insight Rick. In response I would like to share the following 2 points:

1) I'm not quite sure of what you mean by "lack of emphasis the Part 11 section sees etc.". If I'm reading it correctly, you may find it interesting to know that the inspector who ran the Master's course, that I attended in the fall of 2006, had to get clarification from his superior before he was able to explain to the class what exactly Section 11 was. I understand that he has been an inspector for quite some time and I thought he was pretty competent. Every day we learn something new.

2)I personaly see nothing wrong with the mechanics of having 2 conductors under one terminal clamp (like a breaker has) if it is done with care. I don't do it simply because I've always been told that the code doesn't allow it. I also would not agree with having common conductors doubled up. Having made my statement about the mechanics of it, I would like to know why you think that the ruling should also pertain to non current carying conductors (ground wires I assume?). I think it's wrong enough that it pertains to the hot conductors as it is. There surely must be some good reason I suppose.
I look forward to your reply.