Got the NEW 2011 NEC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even though there are some 'changes' I don't like, I did go ahead and get my new 2011 NEC. I have noticed that they are forbidding multiwire branch circuits in patient bed locations, 517.18, 19. This is a 'good' change IMO.

Tamper resistant receptacles, and Afci's expanded, Im not happy with that one. :(

But Im sure youv'e heard them all. :)
 

electricmanscott

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
Even though there are some 'changes' I don't like, I did go ahead and get my new 2011 NEC. I have noticed that they are forbidding multiwire branch circuits in patient bed locations, 517.18, 19. This is a 'good' change IMO.

Tamper resistant receptacles, and Afci's expanded, Im not happy with that one. :(

But Im sure youv'e heard them all. :)

I can understand the AFCI's being an issue, but TR receptacles? What's the problem there?
 

teco

Senior Member
Location
Mass north shore
Even though there are some 'changes' I don't like, I did go ahead and get my new 2011 NEC. I have noticed that they are forbidding multiwire branch circuits in patient bed locations, 517.18, 19. This is a 'good' change IMO.

Tamper resistant receptacles, and Afci's expanded, Im not happy with that one. :(

But Im sure youv'e heard them all. :)

Did you get the handbook by any chance?
 
I can understand the AFCI's being an issue, but TR receptacles? What's the problem there?

Basically any replacements you make on receptacles in a house has to be 'tamper resistant' NEC 2011 406.4(D)(5). The only exception is for the '2 wire non grounding types' that are replaced with another '2 wire non grounding type' NEC 2011 406.4(D)(2)(a), any receptacles part of a luminare, and any above 5 1/2 ft above the floor and any single or duplex receptacle for a 'dedicated space for each appliance that , in normal use, is not easily moved from one place to another and that is cord connected in accordance with 400.79A)(6), (A)(7), or (A)(8).
However if you replace it with a 'gfci' then you will have to have a t.r. Also they should have kept the 'dedicated' space exception out, because I have seen so called 'dedicated' spaces become not so 'dedicated'. Thats too subjective.

I just feel that the t.r. shouldn't have gotten pushed through in the first place, just my opinion. Also, as far as residential receptacles is concern, for easy enforcement and just to keep from any 'silly mistakes' I would only carry t.r. any ways when doing any residential, and just install them everywhere in a NEW house including about 5 1/2 ft. Why stock both??
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Brother, TR receptacles where in the 2008 code so why is this a big deal. The 2011 gives us a chance to not use gfci when replacing a 2 wire receptacle since it will allow non TR 2 wire as a replacement. The reason is that no one is making 2 wire TR receptacles.
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
I heard a great line last night on TV that I'll change to fit;

"Codes aren't like grown children, you can't just throw them out because they annoy you.":)
 

qcroanoke

Sometimes I don't know if I'm the boxer or the bag
Location
Roanoke, VA.
Occupation
Sorta retired........
I heard a great line last night on TV that I'll change to fit;

"Codes aren't like grown children, you can't just throw them out because they annoy you.":)

You were watching @$#! my dad says!
I like that show! And the Big Bang Theory!
There are a lot of things in the NEC I don't agree with, but rules are rules........
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
The change I am least fond of is Section 110.24.

While I strongly agree equipment ratings in regard to available fault current is extrmeley important, the new criteria for markings in 110.24 is not practical, nor will be that effective, but will be a real pain to enforce and comply with....
 
Brother, TR receptacles where in the 2008 code so why is this a big deal. The 2011 gives us a chance to not use gfci when replacing a 2 wire receptacle since it will allow non TR 2 wire as a replacement. The reason is that no one is making 2 wire TR receptacles.

Im aware that Dennis, I didnt like that in the 2008 either, thats why its an issue with me. But oh well, just have to 'comply' I guess. I especially dont like the 'subjectivity' the NEC has on these t.r. If you want them in then just say all receptacles, the uneccessary 'subjective' exception for 'dedicated' and 'not easily moved' space is silly to me.
 

pete m.

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
The change I am least fond of is Section 110.24.

While I strongly agree equipment ratings in regard to available fault current is extrmeley important, the new criteria for markings in 110.24 is not practical, nor will be that effective, but will be a real pain to enforce and comply with....

I agree. The question I have is whose responsibility will it be to comply with and or enforce B?

(B) Modifications. When modifications to the electrical
installation occur that affect the maximum available fault
current at the service, the maximum available fault current
shall be verified or recalculated as necessary to ensure the
service equipment ratings are sufficient for the maximum
available fault current at the line terminals of the equipment.
The required field marking(s) in 110.24(A) shall be
adjusted to reflect the new level of maximum available
fault current.

Pete
 

Strife

Senior Member
Just did a course on the 2008 changes as my continuous education and looked at some of the changes in 2011.
is it me, or the NEC is changing into a "protect the handyman"?

Even though there are some 'changes' I don't like, I did go ahead and get my new 2011 NEC. I have noticed that they are forbidding multiwire branch circuits in patient bed locations, 517.18, 19. This is a 'good' change IMO.

Tamper resistant receptacles, and Afci's expanded, Im not happy with that one. :(

But Im sure youv'e heard them all. :)
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
I agree. The question I have is whose responsibility will it be to comply with and or enforce B?

(B) Modifications. When modifications to the electrical
installation occur that affect the maximum available fault
current at the service, the maximum available fault current
shall be verified or recalculated as necessary to ensure the
service equipment ratings are sufficient for the maximum
available fault current at the line terminals of the equipment.
The required field marking(s) in 110.24(A) shall be
adjusted to reflect the new level of maximum available
fault current.

Pete

I agree with you on this one. All the POCO has to do is change a transformer and it could change you available fault current.
 

jerryalan

Member
Location
Perry, Mi. Shiawassee
Occupation
electrician
i have a client, she's 84 and he's 96. i changed out the tr's i'd installed on the kitchen counter because she found it impossible to plug/unplug the toaster . . .
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Even though there are some 'changes' I don't like, I did go ahead and get my new 2011 NEC. I have noticed that they are forbidding multiwire branch circuits in patient bed locations, 517.18, 19. This is a 'good' change IMO.

Can you explain why it is a 'good' change?

Can you show any substantiation for this change other than your personal feelings?

I went looking and I cannot find any.

Here is the proposal that lead to the change
15-45 Log #1805 NEC-P15 Final Action: Accept
(517.30(B)(2))

Submitter: Marvin J. Fischer, Monroe Township, NJ

Recommendation: Add at the end of paragraph: “[NFPA 99: 4.4.2.2.1.1]”.

Substantiation: 1. Requirement is the performance criteria and responsibility
of T/C on Health Care Facilities.
2. Conform to NFPA Standards Council on policy for extracted text.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept

Number Eligible to Vote: 13

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

Ballot Not Returned: 1 Conry, C.

Maybe some one can tell me how this "NFPA 99: 4.4.2.2.1.1" became this "The branch circuit serving patient bed locations shall not be part of a multi-wire branch circuit." and what the reason was?

I suspect it is because we now have to handle tie MWBCs to protect us from ourselves. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top