2014 **DRAFT** -- 110.16 Arc-Fault Hazard Warning

[fmtjfw]

110.16 Arc-Flash Hazard Warning. Electrical equipment, such as switchboards, switchgear, panelboards, industrial control panels, meter socket enclosures, and motor control centers, that are in other than dwelling units, and are likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized shall be field or factory marked to warn qualified persons of potential electric arc flash hazards. The marking shall meet the requirements in 110.21(B) and shall be located so as to be clearly visible to qualified persons before examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance of the equipment. [ROP 9?14a, ROP 1?102, ROP 1?105, ROP 1?107]

I am concerned that this section may allow the requirements of the new 110.16 not to apply to massive service entrance installations in multi-family apartments of condos. Is a service entrance and meter bank for twenty 100A 120/240 exempt from this requirement?

 

[fmtjfw]

2014 **DRAFT** -- 110.24 Available Fault Current

2014 **DRAFT** -- 110.24 Available Fault Current

110.24 Available Fault Current.
(A) Field Marking. Service equipment in other than dwelling units shall be legibly marked in the field with the
maximum available fault current. The field marking(s) shall include the date the fault current calculation was performed and be of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved.

I'm concerned that in other than dwelling units can allow high amperage services to evade this a rule as well.

in 1-122 where I attempted to amend this requirement I got rejected with the following argument:

110.24 Available Fault Current.
(A) Field Marking. Service equipment in other than dwelling units shall be legibly marked in the field with the maximum available fault current. The field marking(s) shall include the date the fault current calculation was performed and be of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved.

Exception: Service equipment in dwelling with services not greater than 400A or 240V shall not be subject to the requirements of 110.24.

red means deleted text

Substantiation: These requirements should apply to service equipment that may have available fault currents in excess of normal dwelling service equipment. It should also apply to multi-family dwellings that may have
services for example in excess of 1000 Amperes.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: As written, the current text would already apply to multifamily dwelling occupancies that may contain individual dwelling units (which would be exempt from the requirement).

The Panel Statement is unclear to me. Anyone help me understand what they mean?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

It is unclear o me also. In multifamily dwelling units it is possible to have an aic rating that is higher than 10,000-- according to them , then they exempt dwellings. I wonder if they are thinking one and two family dwellings.

 

[iwire]

The service gear for a multfamily building is not in a dwelling unit.

 

[fmtjfw]

Is the service gear for a single family dwelling in the dwelling when it is mounted on the outside of the building and consists of a meter socket and service disconnect?

I'm not just stating this to be argumentative, rather to try to make sure that large services are covered by 110.16.

 

[iwire]

Is the service gear for a single family dwelling in the dwelling when it is mounted on the outside of the building and consists of a meter socket and service disconnect?

I'm not just stating this to be argumentative, rather to try to make sure that large services are covered by 110.16.

The large services are not in a dwelling unit as defined in Article 100.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Do they seriously mean "IN" to mean "INSIDE"?

 

[iwire]

Do they seriously mean "IN" to mean "INSIDE"?

I don't know what they meant, I do know what words they used.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: As written, the current text would already apply to multifamily dwelling occupancies that may contain individual dwelling units (which would be exempt from the requirement).
The Panel Statement is unclear to me. Anyone help me understand what they mean?

The multiple occupancy building with no individual occupancy above second floor may have service conductors run to each occupancy. By permitting such multiple services, the Code assured that the fault level gets reduced at such service locations,

However, in multiple occupancy building with individual occupancy above second floor, the service equipment need to be grouped in common accessible places. In such cases there may be common service disconnect for a number of service meters. I think if you re-frame your proposal for field marking of such service disconnects for arc-fault hazard, the CMP may consider it.