424.19

[Twoskinsoneman]

I found it. I guess it was re-submitted by the original submitter as a comment on the CMP ruling.

___________________________________________________
17-50 Log #464 NEC-P17 ​

​

​

​

Final Action: Accept in Principle
(424.19)​

________________________________________________________​

Submitter:​

​

​

Dan Leaf, Seneca, SC​

Comment on Proposal No:​

​

​

17-32​

Recommendation:​

​

​

Accept proposal revised:
An approved means shall be provided to that simultaneously disconnects
all ungrounded conductors of the circuit for the heater, motor controller(s),
and supplementary overcurrent device(s) from all fixed electric space heating
equipment from all ungrounded conductors.​

Substantiation:​

​

​

Since the panel declined to limit disconnecting means to
switches and circuit breakers, they should be specifically required to be
approved. Lugs, terminals, and wire connectors are means of disconnection
which may not be suitable. Ungrounded conductors should be specifically
required to be simultaneously disconnected, as required in many code sections.​

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle​

Revise the first sentence of 424.19 to read as follows:
Means shall be provided to simultaneously disconnect the heater, motor
controller(s), and supplementary overcurrent protective device(s) of all fixed
electric space-heating equipment from all ungrounded conductors.​

Panel Statement:​

​

​

The revised language more clearly presents the requirement
and meets the intent of the submitter.​

Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results:​

​

​

Affirmative: 12​

Ballot Not Returned: 1 Gill, C.

 

[lmchenry]

Thanks for searching and finding. So what do you think of the original post?
Do you require a new disconnect that will open all ungrounded con. at once?

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Thanks for searching and finding. So what do you think of the original post?
Do you require a new disconnect that will open all ungrounded con. at once?

IMO I believe that the CMP did not intend to say it but it says it. If you look at the ROC the submitter specifically used the word circuit which to me would have clarified that only each hot of each circuit need be disconnected simultaneously....The CMP had to go a mess with it....

But IMO according to what the code says and not what I think the intent was ALL hots going to the piece of equipment need to be disconnected simultaneously....

And if the inspector is smart enough to figure it out without me helping him then I will comply.