Hubble making money 2014 NEC illuminated receptacles

[brother]

I am surprised (but shouldn't be seeing the history of manufacturers) at the changes that are being made in the 2014 NEC. They are now going to require that all nonlocking type 125volt 15 and 20 amp receptacles be illuminated or have an indicator light to indicate that there is power to the receptacle for all receptacles on the essential electrical system in a hospital, and of course they will be 'hospital grade' .

Ill have to hand it to Hubble, since they are only ones making those type of receptacles right now (probably have a patent lol ), they will make a lot money off of this! I checked the price of those illuminated hospital grade receptacles and they are about $68 each starting!

Even though I read the reason for this, I still see no cause for them to make it a requirement. Was there really a major problem in hospitals concerning this issue?
I truely feel the NEC has left some of it's original purpose of safety and has become a nesting ground to sell products from manufacturers. What do you think of this?

 

[mbrooke]

I have not heard of issues regarding non illumined critical load receptacles, however I know others on here could answer this better.


My opinion I liken this to AFCIs that were pushed through by a manufacturer. In this case Hubble with the receptacles. Without a doubt Hubble has an advantage at this point. The facts shining through the code making panel is becoming a platform for manufacturers to push their products. I can think of hundreds of code improvements to emergency systems addressing issues way greater that no illumination on a plug. But those would not benefit any one manufacturer or give them a head start.


The part I dont like either is the fact that some of the people on the code panels are affiliated with manufacturers along with some who work for those companies making proposals.:rant:

 

[iwire]

The part I dont like either is the fact that some of the people on the code panels are affiliated with manufacturers along with some who work for those companies making proposals.:rant:

Yes, and that is how it always has been since the NEC was started.

 

[augie47]

I certainly agree, especially concerning manufacturers pushing thru changes on items unique to that manufacturer.
The only saving grace, albeit not used often enough, is that, if the effort is made, jurisdictions can waive those portions of the Code when adopting, or later, if warranted.

 

[steve66]

I did hear of one instance where a circuit breaker tripped cutting off critical power to a procedure room.

There were normal power receptacles in the same room that should have still had power, but I don't think staff was aware the normal ones were still hot. Staff normally just uses the red, critical receptacles. When the power went off, nobody thought to try the white ones.

I'm not sure if having an indicator light on the receptacle would have been enough for a nurse to realize "Oh, the white outlets still have power."

I think a lot of the equipment has battery backup, so there would have still been a lot of other indicators and lights and beeping stuff in the room.

 

[GoldDigger]

I'm not sure if having an indicator light on the receptacle would have been enough for a nurse to realize "Oh, the white outlets still have power."

Since the NEC requirement is only for receptacles on the essential power system, there would not have been any lights on the white outlets anyway.
Instead the nurses would have been able to say. "I guess the reason that all of the equipment stopped working was that the lights on the outlets went out."
If an outage affected just one branch on the essential system, I guess it could be useful to know which ones still have power.

 

[curt swartz]

Hubble is NOT the only manufacture. Leviton, P&S and Cooper all have these receptacles now.

Its really hard to tell what the real price will be at this point. The suppliers need to start stocking them and work out contract prices for their EC's.

When TR and WR receptacles were first introduced for dwellings in the NEC the prices were crazy. Once the suppliers started stocking them as a standard item the prices dropped substantially.

 

[mbrooke]

Yes, and that is how it always has been since the NEC was started.

But it does not mean they aren't now pushing what they have been told. :happyno:

 

[roger]

Go back and read who the major players in the proposals for full house AFCI's and the elimination of the 42 circuit maximum rule were.

Roger

 

[iwire]

But it does not mean they aren't now pushing what they have been told. :happyno:

And again this is nothing new.

 

[kwired]

I did hear of one instance where a circuit breaker tripped cutting off critical power to a procedure room.

There were normal power receptacles in the same room that should have still had power, but I don't think staff was aware the normal ones were still hot. Staff normally just uses the red, critical receptacles. When the power went off, nobody thought to try the white ones.

I'm not sure if having an indicator light on the receptacle would have been enough for a nurse to realize "Oh, the white outlets still have power."

I think a lot of the equipment has battery backup, so there would have still been a lot of other indicators and lights and beeping stuff in the room.

I agree, if it is important enough from the medical side of things, it likely has battery back up, probably actually runs on the battery for the most part and AC power is just there to maintain the battery.

Hubble is NOT the only manufacture. Leviton, P&S and Cooper all have these receptacles now.

Its really hard to tell what the real price will be at this point. The suppliers need to start stocking them and work out contract prices for their EC's.

When TR and WR receptacles were first introduced for dwellings in the NEC the prices were crazy. Once the suppliers started stocking them as a standard item the prices dropped substantially.

My understanding with AFCI's was Cutler Hammer had the first complete device and was one of the main players in getting it into code, but that is also why the first mentioning of AFCI in the NEC had a date attached to it, because other manufacturers did not yet have a device on the market. NEC has been pretty good about not making a required item be something that only one manufacturer provides.

 

[joebell]

Same old song and dance

Same old song and dance

This discussion seems to arise with every new edition of the NEC. I too am of the thought that manufacturers and NEMA representitives should not be voting members on any of the CMP's. I guess the reality is we as whole should get more involved with the process, I have submitted several proposals over the last few code cycle but have yet to submit any comments. I know some on this site are extremely diligent in the code making process. I see familiar names all through out the ROP & ROC, but more folks must get involved.

What I find fascinating about the proposal is it cites no instances where there was a loss due to the scenerio presented.

Proposal to Change 2011 NEC

15-64 Log #3270 NEC-P15 Final Action: Accept
(517.30(E))

________________________________________________________________

Submitter: Brian E. Rock, Hubbell Incorporated
Recommendation: Add new text and update the NFPA 99 reference to read as follows:
517.30 Essential Electrical Systems for Hospitals.
[517.30(A) through 517.30(D) are unchanged by this Proposal]
(E) Receptacle Identification. The cover plates for electrical receptacles or the electrical receptacles themselves supplied from the emergency system shall have a distinctive color or marking so as to be readily identifiable. [99:4.4.2.2.4.2(B) 99:6.4.2.2.6.2(C)]
Nonlocking-type, 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall have an illuminated face or an indicator light to indicate that there is power to the receptacle.
Substantiation: Receptacles that are supplied from the emergency system must be clearly identified to insure that vital equipment and instrumentation continue to function in the event of power interruption. However, there is no method of indicating that the receptacles on these circuits are, in fact, supplying power to the equipment. While the distinctive color or marking identifies that the receptacle is connected to the emergency system, an illuminated receptacle will insure that there is clear indication that the receptacle is providing power. The increased visibility of an illuminated receptacle will insure that a receptacle that is providing power can be quickly accessed in an emergency situation, especially when power failures result in diminished illumination by that portion of the room lighting not connected to the emergency system. Furthermore, reliance solely on some distinctive color in an emergency situation may be ineffective for personnel who are color blind.
Such illuminated indication of the powered state of receptacles on Type 1 Essential Electrical Systems (Type 1 EES) is fully consistent with the requirement for pilot light indicators of switch position in 2012 NFPA 99, clauses 6.4.2.1.5.12 and 6.4.2.1.5.15(B).
There appears to be some confusion in forums outside Code-Making Panel 15 that proposals similar to this one had been rejected by the CMPs responsible for Article 517 in the past. Research of prior Code cycles reveals that there had been no Proposals or Comments whatsoever in this regard. This 517.30(E) section resulted from a Proposal P17-39a in the Code cycle leading to the 2002 NEC?. During that Code cycle, there were Proposals (P17-40 through P17-44) that the ?distinctive color? be prescriptively assigned to a specific color (typically red), correctly rejected by the Panel, that may be the source of this ?urban legend? confusion. There were however no Proposals or Comments regarding powered-status indication for receptacles in that 2002 Code cycle or any Code cycle thereafter.
The revision of the existing NFPA 99 clause reference is to reflect the renumbering that occurred with the 2012 edition of NFPA 99.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 4
Ballot Not Returned: 1 Krupa, G.
Explanation of Negative:
BEEBE, C.: With the reliability, frequent testing, and regulatory oversight of emergency systems in healthcare facilities there is no need to require an indicator light on every receptacle. Alarms or battery backup or both are provided to indicate / accommodate a loss of power on vital life support equipment. There was no technical data provided to indicate that there is a widespread problem with poor patient outcomes that could have been averted with the presence of an indicator light. This change would not improve current conditions. If anything, this change could add additional risk to the patient. If the indicator light is faulty, staff may unnecessarily disconnect vital equipment from the emergency system and connect it to non-emergency system receptacles, posing additional risks.
DUNCAN, J.: The panel should have rejected this proposal and referred the submitter to NFPA 99 as this is a performance issue.
NASH, JR., H.: Pilot lights are unnecessary and do little to improve the quality of patient care. The cost is prohibitive.
TALKA, D.: While an illuminated face or pilot light is an attractive option, the submitter failed to provide any reference to a problem he has identified and is attempting to correct. Section 517.30(E) is extracted material from NFPA 99 meaning it is performance/design related. If material dealing with identification of receptacles on the essential system is under NFPA 99?s purview, it stands to reason that the need for illumination of these same receptacles should also be under NFPA 99?s purview.
Comment on Affirmative:
FRIEDMAN, S.: NEMA urges Members of CMP15 to vote Affirmative with the Panel Action to Accept Proposal 15-64. The Panel Actions for Proposals 15-35, 15-36, 15-39 and 15-41 increase the minimum numbers of receptacle outlets required. Rapid visual confirmation of which receptacle outlets are still energized when normal electrical service is interrupted may be essential to avoid incorrect connection into unpowered receptacle outlets of portable cord-and-plug-connected medical equipment and instrumentation during emergency conditions.

 

[renosteinke]

Slightly off topic, but: Does anyone still make the 'old fashioned' illuminated receptacles? I mean the ones that has a little light in them, that lit up the face of the device.

(I'm tired of fumbling in the dark, trying to plug something into the receptacle behind the sofa).

 

[kwired]

Slightly off topic, but: Does anyone still make the 'old fashioned' illuminated receptacles? I mean the ones that has a little light in them, that lit up the face of the device.

(I'm tired of fumbling in the dark, trying to plug something into the receptacle behind the sofa).

They do make receptacle devices that have a night light on same yoke.

I have seen illuminated switches but can't ever recall seeing an illuminated receptacle other than these newer units with a night light.

I think what you are talking about must have been a failing receptacle with a "glowing connection" at the conductor terminations:lol:

 

[brother]

It appears that there was an APPEAL of that requirement and the appeal was UPHELD. There will be new editions of the NEC without that requirement since it was found to be a performance issue.

Read it here.

http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/FD13_8_3_o_D13_5_NFPA70.pdf

 

[rbalex]

I'm a bit surprised, but gratified. It barely passed the 2/3 required.

I have long argued that when you can draw a clear line between "safe" and "unsafe", "safe" wins hands down and costs should be ignored; however, when "safe" and "safer" are compared, "safer" should be economically justified before requiring it by Code. I argued that position and often won (not always:rant when I was on the various NFPA Tech Committees.

 

[mbrooke]

I agree, if it is important enough from the medical side of things, it likely has battery back up, probably actually runs on the battery for the most part and AC power is just there to maintain the battery.

My understanding with AFCI's was Cutler Hammer had the first complete device and was one of the main players in getting it into code, but that is also why the first mentioning of AFCI in the NEC had a date attached to it, because other manufacturers did not yet have a device on the market. NEC has been pretty good about not making a required item be something that only one manufacturer provides.

Cutler Hammer was the co that got the requirement in. Dont ask me how I know, but with enough money and glitzy sexy experiments they got the NFPA to go along with it. Most of what CH claimed about the arc faults was a hoax too.

 

[brother]

I'm a bit surprised, but gratified. It barely passed the 2/3 required.

I have long argued that when you can draw a clear line between "safe" and "unsafe", "safe" wins hands down and costs should be ignored; however, when "safe" and "safer" are compared, "safer" should be economically justified before requiring it by Code. I argued that position and often won (not always:rant when I was on the various NFPA Tech Committees.

It appears they left that same requirement in part 2014 NEC 517.41(E), basically only affecting Nursing Homes and limited care facilities etc.. have to have those 'illuminated' receptacles. I wonder if this was just an oversight for the Appeals Committee to not delete that one too. I think there will be some local amendments to get rid of that one. ;-)

 

[kwired]

I am surprised (but shouldn't be seeing the history of manufacturers) at the changes that are being made in the 2014 NEC. They are now going to require that all nonlocking type 125volt 15 and 20 amp receptacles be illuminated or have an indicator light to indicate that there is power to the receptacle for all receptacles on the essential electrical system in a hospital, and of course they will be 'hospital grade' .

Ill have to hand it to Hubble, since they are only ones making those type of receptacles right now (probably have a patent lol ), they will make a lot money off of this! I checked the price of those illuminated hospital grade receptacles and they are about $68 each starting!

Even though I read the reason for this, I still see no cause for them to make it a requirement. Was there really a major problem in hospitals concerning this issue?
I truely feel the NEC has left some of it's original purpose of safety and has become a nesting ground to sell products from manufacturers. What do you think of this?

I will say that I believe that if this requirement is deemed necessary it belongs in other codes governing the hospital and not in the NEC. Maybe an informational note strategically placed in the NEC giving a reference to that code would be fine.