2008 possible changes

Status
Not open for further replies.

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Mark Ode was in town this weekend and I was able to pick his brain for any interesting 2008 information. He confiurmed several of the other posts made here regarding possible changes. Here's a couple other ones:

> All receptacles in wet locations will be required to be listed as suitable for wet locations. Yes, this is the receptacle itself. It is not clear if this would be permitted in lieu of an "in-use" cover or in conjunction with.

> The zone described in 410.4(D) would apply generally and not just for the purposes of that section, meaning the area within the zone will be identified as a wet or damp location for all installations. And with the 2005 change in 406.8(B)(1) which dropped the "outdoor" qualifier, this could mean receptacles in a bathroom within 3' of the shower or tub will require a weatherproof cover.

> 410.73(G) may be expaned to include all branch circuits not just multiwire.

I'll check my notes for some of the others. These are some I remember off the top of my head.


> A proposal was submitted to require metal studding to be bonded regardless if it is exposed to contact and it appears the CMP was in favor of the change.
 

ryan_618

Senior Member
Re: 2008 possible changes

> A proposal was submitted to require metal studding to be bonded regardless if it is exposed to contact and it appears the CMP was in favor of the change.
That was one of my proposals. I was told that the panel liked the concept but wasn't 100% on the language I used. I am interested in reading the ROP on that proposal.
I also learned that panel 10 doesn't like me :)
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Re: 2008 possible changes

Ryan,
How would you bond the metal stud system? In many cases the studs are connected to the track without a screw. The tool punches and folds a tab of metal to make a physical connection. I don't see that as a bonding path. Also, if the other code rules are being complied with, what would energize the metal stud system?
Don
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
Re: 2008 possible changes

Ryan, I have also been on projects where the studs are deliberately slotted (supposedly) on the screw head side to allow movement and by design are not making a solid connection at all.

In reality, with all the MEP installations in contact with the studs is this really a concern.

Roger
 
Re: 2008 possible changes

What happened to the topic that was here the other day regarding AFCI protection for all 15,20A recp.'s? wasn't that in "possible 2008 changes"? Can't find it anywhere. Just curious, was wanting to show a co-worker.
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Re: 2008 possible changes

Originally posted by slipknotbmg:
What happened to the topic that was here the other day regarding AFCI protection for all 15,20A recp.'s?
You'll find it here
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Re: 2008 possible changes

Don't worry, there will be lots of leaks before then and the ROP doesn't mean all that much until the proposal becomes a real change. At that point, the ROP becomes a good tool to figure the original intent and reason for the change.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Re: 2008 possible changes

Last code cycle the proposals were available online before the ROP was issued. This was just the proposals and not the panel action. I don't know if this will be true this time.
Don
 

Matt Harp

Member
Re: 2008 possible changes

I have no idea where it would go, but I would love to see the location of smokes specified in the NEC. We get failed if we don't have them and have them right, NEC should spell out where to put them or at least refer us to which of the blue million codes that does. I think the same should be done with exit signs and emergency lights.

On a related note, I had a job last year that got tagged by the building inspector (not the electrical inspector) regarding fire stopping penetrations. The electric is MY install. I am responsible for it, and if some yahoo day laborer screws it up while trying to firestop holes, I have to fix it. I don't mind figuring these thing into my price and making sure they are done right, but I need to know where to look for the appropriate codes. It wouldn't hurt my feelings any if the NEC would at least put me on the trail of "other applicable codes" regarding our work.

Sorry if this turned into a rant, it is just that we all depend on accurate info. and don't always know where to get it.
 

cloudymacleod

Senior Member
Re: 2008 possible changes

wouldnt exit signs and emergancy lights be part of the life safty code also. also the fire code has codes where to put smokes and pull stations
 

ryan_618

Senior Member
Re: 2008 possible changes

Emergency lighting and exit signage isn't an easy topic. It is a function of use, occupancy, sqaure footage, occupant load factor, travel distance, common path of egress travel...many different things.

The building code guys say the same thing about architectural requirements in the NEC, such as where fire resistance rated construction is required, and where panic hardware is required. I have a friend of mine that wants to put the rule regarding two exits and panic bars in equipment rooms. The problem is, it is a function of Table 110.26(A), and the exceptions to 110.26(C)(2)...not that simple of a rule.

I think sometimes code rules are best left in the document that requires them. I like emergency lights and exit signs in the building code, and I wouldn't want them in the NEC, personally.
 

raider1

Senior Member
Staff member
Location
Logan, Utah
Re: 2008 possible changes

I agree with Ryan,

There are so many variables to emergency lighting and exit signage that it just isn't plasible to put it in the NEC. Same with smoke detector locations.

Just my 2 cents

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top