Life Safety and ... "The Code"

Status
Not open for further replies.

lazorko

Member
Location
Philadelphia
Today I think of the nonsense changes proposed for the safety code by industry "champions" (My Woo Hoo, Friends! That's what I call the salesmen who are put on the professional code-change panels by companies with a new product to sell. They have the money to buy in.) Where was "Bath-Tub-Anti-Shock-O-Matic" 100 years ago? Maybe they needed to shorten the name to some catchy acronym. Maybe it used to be about safety.

Today, we have a proposal to have all switches wired with a neutral so that a particular company's (to remain un-named to protect the guilty) device will work properly. Hey - if your engineers can't figure out how to make it work, go back to the table and think about it again. I really don't want your bag of trouble because I have four kids and a leaky radiator I don't expect you to fix for nothing. The radiator, that is. I'll fix the kids, if it's the last...ahhhhh, cookie?

Hey, I used to respect the Code. Kind of a bible for electricians, it was a compendium of decades of engineering and reality-based knowledge of untold thousands of tradesmen and engineers. The end of all of these annoying rules was to protect life. When I was a young wire slinger, I grew to have a great respect for the wisdom it contained because I began to see how it all fit together. A dark force has since entered. Call it special interests.

Remember when we used to put two runs of romex under the same staple?Then 3-M invented a special plastic cable holder that didn't sell because it cost 30 times as much as a wire staple. "But, It had a nail and a nifty plastic fingery-thing! " you say. Hah, still cost them a penny. Where were the studies that showed possible excessive heat buildup in the old installations? Nowhere! But we all bought the concept because the Code said so. Because the company is big enough to put lots of its own people on code panels. They have degrees. They're smarter than most of you because they sit at desks and use calculators. Ahh... yeah... but most of us electrical contractors do too, now. See what I'm saying?

Now we're worried that a toddler who can't find his own mouth with any regularity will somehow stick two pins simultaneously into an outlet and get a lethal shock. Yeah, change the code yesterday, Friends! Ahem, because some corporation had a new product without a real market, we got another "life safety" change to the code. Ten times as many children die from toys every year as get injured from an electrical outlet. Thanks NEC, I really like screws. I use them every day.

Now I understand that recent studies have shown that the purported reasons for requiring a $50 AFCI breaker- the risk of incipient fire - have never been duplicated after extensive tests. Gee - they actually did serious damage to a wire and couldn't make a fire in a wire protected with a regular old $4 circuit breaker? Since the requirement to use these pricey devices has become embedded in the code for years, I wonder what research was used to suggest this was a problem in the first place? A balance sheet, perhaps?

I recall the marvelous revelation that the wire nut that UL listed for a copper to aluminum connection eventually caught fire because - no one actually tested. They accepted the company's assertion on faith. Some of us remember the eventual withdraw of "weather-tight" EMT fittings that were never tested despite decades of acceptance. We all waited years for the "industry " to re-invent an actual weather-resistant conduit fitting, during which time we sat on our hands. ARE YOU KIDDING!

Just a thought for the electrical industry - when a "life safety" code becomes co-opted for commercial interests it will likely loose the moral imperative that makes it work. Where I used to consider real life-safety ramifications of my work, I find myself now only thinking about liability if I don't follow the rules because they have degraded into a province of special privilege for those few that can write them. I think that it's time for the NEC to remove corporate shills from the real work that needs to be done. This is our bible, after all. We should require evidence-based work for changes from therein.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Today, we have a proposal to have all switches wired with a neutral so that a particular company's (to remain un-named to protect the guilty) device will work properly. Hey - if your engineers can't figure out how to make it work, go back to the table and think about it again.
.

That NEC requirement was the only way the NFPA could get UL to stop listing and manufacturers to stop making devices that used the EGC as a current carrying conductor.

As much as I dislike the requirement it is all the NFPA could do to stop that practice.

You may also note the. NFPA put enough exceptions to that requirement that it is rarely required.
 

lazorko

Member
Location
Philadelphia
That NEC requirement was the only way the NFPA could get UL to stop listing and manufacturers to stop making devices that used the EGC as a current carrying conductor.

As much as I dislike the requirement it is all the NFPA could do to stop that practice.

You may also note the. NFPA put enough exceptions to that requirement that it is rarely required.

The NFPA needed to make a new special rule to force the UL and manufacturers to start following the rules? I read elsewhere that it was suggested by a manufacturer to prevent electricians from using the EGC as a current carrier. But that's already prohibited, and no electrician would use it that way. Before installing a switching device that requires a neutral connection, we check to see if one is present. If there isn't, we provide an estimate to rewire as needed, right? That might end up costing manufacturers a few sales, as installations would be more expensive. From an installer's perspective, there isn't much money to be made from a simple device change, so we wouldn't hurt by walking away from such a job. For the manufacturer of the device - its sale is the only source of income. Let's not pretend this is about anything more than financial gain - or conversely, who has the most to loose.
 

DBoone

Senior Member
Location
Mississippi
Occupation
General Contractor
OP, I woke up thinking almost the exact same thing this morning. Was going to start a thread but now I will post my quick thoughts right here.

Each code cycle the NEC adds new codes to follow..."minimum safety standards" if you will, but yet older installations that were legal at the time are allowed to stay put. Seems to me if these new codes were so important to life safety then every 3 years every electrical system would need to be upgraded. After all, older intallalations no longer meet the minimum standard.

If an older install was safe enough at the time shouldn't those standards still be acceptable today? And if old standards are no longer good enough for today shouldn't every system be upgraded to today's Code?

I have a hard time with this one.
 

DBoone

Senior Member
Location
Mississippi
Occupation
General Contractor
Would law enforcement allow us to drive an old car that wasn't made with seatbelts because it was acceptable at the time the car was made?
 

qcroanoke

Sometimes I don't know if I'm the boxer or the bag
Location
Roanoke, VA.
Occupation
Sorta retired........
Would law enforcement allow us to drive an old car that wasn't made with seatbelts because it was acceptable at the time the car was made?

Yes, they have no choice but to allow me to drive an old car that came without seatbelts.
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
OP, I woke up thinking almost the exact same thing this morning. Was going to start a thread but now I will post my quick thoughts right here.

Each code cycle the NEC adds new codes to follow..."minimum safety standards" if you will, but yet older installations that were legal at the time are allowed to stay put. Seems to me if these new codes were so important to life safety then every 3 years every electrical system would need to be upgraded. After all, older intallalations no longer meet the minimum standard.

If an older install was safe enough at the time shouldn't those standards still be acceptable today? And if old standards are no longer good enough for today shouldn't every system be upgraded to today's Code?

I have a hard time with this one.
Be careful what you wish for, because that's the way the ADA requirements are written. It doesn't matter if the install was legal when it was done, if it's not legal now you have to change it. so for instance you used to be able to install built up ramps, now you would have to remove that and put in a curb cut. The ADA requirements then gave you a break with the latest code cycle, where it says "if it was installed under the previous code cycle, then it is still compliant."
 

mwm1752

Senior Member
Location
Aspen, Colo
I always like the requirement for the EGC installed in a feeder for a structure that is not within sight & past 50' from the service disconnect. I use the 50" due to similar code language for motors. In reality lets put 200' or more away from the structure. The reason I like this ruling so much because you have a chance to create a paralall path for the grounded conductor. Without the EGC there is no possible way to accidently create this path,both service equipment & structure have thier own electrode system ensuring the induction of voltage by lighting strikes are guide to earth. True society has created a nanny state by the NIMBY types. Check you voting record to decide how this has happened & if you want it to continue.
 

DBoone

Senior Member
Location
Mississippi
Occupation
General Contractor
Be careful what you wish for, because that's the way the ADA requirements are written. It doesn't matter if the install was legal when it was done, if it's not legal now you have to change it. so for instance you used to be able to install built up ramps, now you would have to remove that and put in a curb cut. The ADA requirements then gave you a break with the latest code cycle, where it says "if it was installed under the previous code cycle, then it is still compliant."

To clarify, I don't want to have to upgrade the system every code cycle. I was just using it in my argument.
 

qcroanoke

Sometimes I don't know if I'm the boxer or the bag
Location
Roanoke, VA.
Occupation
Sorta retired........
My point is, don't give them any idea's.

At one time our area tried to enforce new requirements in homes that were only having a service upgrade,
2 circuits in kitchens, smoke detectors etc, etc.
It only succeded in the homeowner deciding not to do anything because they might be able to pay for a new service but not all the other stuff that was being forced on them.
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
At one time our area tried to enforce new requirements in homes that were only having a service upgrade,
2 circuits in kitchens, smoke detectors etc, etc.
It only succeded in the homeowner deciding not to do anything because they might be able to pay for a new service but not all the other stuff that was being forced on them.
And that's exactly what I would expect to happen.:happyyes:
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
The NFPA needed to make a new special rule to force the UL and manufacturers to start following the rules?

How would a private company (NFPA) tell another private company (UL or the manufacturers) what to do?

It would be like expecting your own company to be able to force another EC to do things a certain way.
 

fmtjfw

Senior Member
It is my understanding that the "Neutral at the switch location" rule was added at the behest of IBEW electricians who were tired of getting shocked when working on grounding conductors that were being misused as neutrals for occupancy senors.

In buildings with lots of occupancy sensors the milliamp or less for each added up to "shocking" levels.

I prefer the "apprentice" conspiracy theory to the money-bags theory.
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
If you have a sensor which is designed to use the EGC as its power return, would it be a code violation to hook it up to a neutral instead?
As long as you did not create a ground to neutral bond or connect exposed metal surfaces to the neutral in the process, that is.

Tapatalk!
 

fmtjfw

Senior Member
If you have a sensor which is designed to use the EGC as its power return, would it be a code violation to hook it up to a neutral instead?
As long as you did not create a ground to neutral bond or connect exposed metal surfaces to the neutral in the process, that is.

Tapatalk!

Explain to me, how, using the laws of physics in the known universe, could the sensor know it was connected to the Neutral rather than the safety ground?

I would not hesitate to install a sensor "green" wire to a "white" neutral, unless the device read about 0 ohms between the green wire and the metallic yoke. If it read 0 ohms, I would not install it.
 

hurk27

Senior Member
Yes, they have no choice but to allow me to drive an old car that came without seatbelts.

It's called grandfathering, which is based upon the Constitution, Article 9 section 21 which states "No post factual laws shall ever be enacted" which is interpreted as if it met the law at the time of manufacture no law shall make it unlawful.

If anyone would want to get around this it would be the EPA and the NTSB, on cars, could you imagine having to bring up your old car to todays standards and requirements, do you think the American public would stand for laws like that, but we have building inspectors trying to do this very same thing all the time but not many fight them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top