Fixing the NEC

don_resqcapt19 said:
There are lots of "qualified person" rules in the NEC and in the real world, there is absolutely no way to enforce those rules.
Click to expand...
Not saying they should. Let Darwin do it. Get rid of all the "qualified person" and you can't fix stupid rules and preface the book with "unless you are trained and qualified you work on electrical systems at your own risk of death or serious injury" in big bold type. Too many YouTube videos out there that make it look easy. You don't see any about disarming bombs though. :unsure:

-Hal
 
Last edited:
hbiss said:
That's just a disclaimer. The NEC isn't a "how to" manual.
Click to expand...

So we should add ambiguous, if not unenforceable language, into an already inflated code.
Isn't one reason for permits, to have qualified people do the work? How is that working out? And let's not get into safety training and PPE.
 
going_commando said:
GFCI protection of 120v receptacles is great. Especially in wet areas and places where things are plugged in and unplugged frequently like garages, basements, outdoors, workshops, kitchen counters, residential bathrooms, etc. I have no problem at all with that. I do have a problem with requiring GFCI protection for fastened in place appliances to protect people from hazards due to poor manufacturing.

The appliances like dishwashers, HVAC condensers, laundry equipment, etc should not have a failure mode that makes the frame or housing a current carrying conductor, period. GFCI protection for those is limiting liability for appliance and equipment manufacturers and has nothing to do with the structure wiring. Manufacturers are making junk products that the UL approves, and then we have to cover their butts by adding expensive circuit breakers due to poor engineering and assembly practices. That's where I have a problem with it. Manufacturers could add their own GFCI protection in their appliances that would cost a fraction of what we pay for circuit breakers, and then it's their problem and not ours. A Square D QO GFCI 1 pole 20 amp breaker is now something like $70 for a $1 board and some CTs that the equipment manufacturer could install for the same protection.

I run into this all the time doing service work for gas stations. I get a service ticket a month for an outdoor ice chest tripping GFCI receptacles. The ice chest guys say everything is fine, I go check, and the GFCI trips when the compressor kicks on, and the customer has to pay me to tell them to call the ice chest company back. I suppose that's a poor example since outdoor 120v receptacles should be GFCI protected, but it's the same for all kinds of equipment.
Click to expand...
Requirement for dishwashers in dwellings to be GFCI protected wasn't even about shock/electrocution when first required in code (IIRC it was 2014 NEC that first introduced this) What triggered it was a component failure (not even sure what component) that tended to start fires but they found that a ground fault also developed when this failure occurred and GFCI would trip before it started a fire. IMO that should have been a product recall thing and not a freebie for the appliance manufacturers by letting the GFCI bail them out on this defect.

The HVAC units was triggered by one electrocution incident that had a bad or missing EGC and unit frame was energized. That can happen with anything if not installed properly or something is damaged, yet the number of these types of incidents isn't really all that high.

Laundry equipment - IDK, kind of suspect sort of a "because we can" requirement. I may be somewhat ok with requiring it for 5-15 or 5-20 receptacles as these have long been a problem with missing EGC pins on cord caps and a main reason many other locations over the years got added to the list of receptacles requiring GFCI protection but was almost entirely 15 and 20 amp 125 volt receptacles that required it. Then they started adding more receptacles - anything 125 volts to ground and up to 50 amps - no real good reason AFAIK those rarely are missing EGC pins unless someone intentionally removes it, they don't break off unintentionally like some 5-15 cord caps seem to do easily.

Then when they started adding three phase receptacles as well I remember reading the PI/comments on that and it basically said something to the effect of "we now have that capability", nothing about any sort of shock/electrocution incidents or related statistics that show there is any significant trouble with these applications. I fail to see any significant number of compromised EGC pins on cord caps in these applications as well and feel this had to be pushed by the manufacturers more than any other group. They may not sit on the CMP that handles this section, but you can bet they are going to present information to try to convince those on that CMP to help sway their decisions on making these code changes.
 
kwired said:
What triggered it was a component failure (not even sure what component) that tended to start fires but they found that a ground fault also developed when this failure occurred and GFCI would trip before it started a fire. IMO that should have been a product recall thing and not a freebie for the appliance manufacturers by letting the GFCI bail them out on this defect.
Click to expand...
It was the motor. The tub seal would fail allowing water to drip into the motor. Not heard about fire, possible overheating but I'm sure there was a ground fault creating a shock hazard if the DW wasn't properly grounded.

-Hal
 
kwired said:
Requirement for dishwashers in dwellings to be GFCI protected wasn't even about shock/electrocution when first required in code (IIRC it was 2014 NEC that first introduced this) What triggered it was a component failure (not even sure what component) that tended to start fires but they found that a ground fault also developed when this failure occurred and GFCI would trip before it started a fire. IMO that should have been a product recall thing and not a freebie for the appliance manufacturers by letting the GFCI bail them out on this defect.
Click to expand...

Turns out when searching for EV charging electrocution reports during this Summer's GFCI kerfuffle, something else came up in the CSPC data.:
Electrocution deaths from dishwashers. All male, all repairing the dishwasher while live.

This will be an ongoing problem, at least on the assumption that stupid people breed faster than they kill themselves.. Since a lot of work goes into rare but interesting deaths in the code process, this issue should be of interest. An appliance vendor based solution is two shunts or two small CT's and do a comparison, shutting the dishwasher down and making all sorts of beeping noises if they don't match. That and electronic circuitry borrowed from the EVSE world to validate the integrity of the EGC prior to operation. And to top it off, a tamper switch on the front cover plate. At least raise the stakes a bit so the future Darwin award winners have to put in some effort to die.

See, problem solved with today's technology.


kwired said:
The HVAC units was triggered by one electrocution incident that had a bad or missing EGC and unit frame was energized. That can happen with anything if not installed properly or something is damaged, yet the number of these types of incidents isn't really all that high.
Click to expand...
The original newspaper article and analysis give some more color: the original HVAC units was stolen, a relative found a unit somewhere, installed it with flex: no permit, and perhaps even no reading the NEC. Likely when it was jumped on and damaged, this completed the circuit to the case. EGC validation is trickier than with dishwashers, as the HVAC unit is a life safety device in heat waves you can't just shut it down hard without creating a consequence that may be worse than the problem you solved.
 
Last edited:
don_resqcapt19 said:
There are lots of "qualified person" rules in the NEC and in the real world, there is absolutely no way to enforce those rules. The AHJ has no way to determine if you are a qualified person.
Click to expand...
And that's I submitted again to dump 625.4. Installing an EVSE is a DIY friendly job and we should be bringing those DIY'ers into the permit and training world, not making them do it behind everyone's back. There's no way for an AHJ to determine which Joe homeowner is "qualified".
 
brycenesbitt said:
And that's I submitted again to dump 625.4. Installing an EVSE is a DIY friendly job and we should be bringing those DIY'ers into the permit and training world, not making them do it behind everyone's back. There's no way for an AHJ to determine which Joe homeowner is "qualified".
Click to expand...
All of the qualified person rules need to be removed, but that will not happen as they have the support of many of the interest groups that have members on the code making panels. Those rules are a total waste of print, and there is no way that they can be enforced. About the only way they can be enforced is by the electrical licensing process, but the way the rules are written, they strongly suggest that a licensed electrician is not a qualified person for some installations. That is total BS.
 
electrofelon said:
It's one of the great mysteries of the universe that "interest groups" are allowed on code making panels
Click to expand...
Interest groups are REQUIRED for all ANSI consensus standards and the NEC is an ANSI consensus standard as are the UL product standards. It is required that all of the interest groups that are impacted by the standard have members on the committee developing the standards.
The following interest groups apply to the NEC.
  • Manufacturer (M): A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof, that is affected by the standard.
  • User (U): A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the standard.
  • Installer/Maintainer (I/M): A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product, assembly, or system affected by the standard.
  • Labor (L): A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace.
  • Applied Research/Testing Laboratory (R/T): A representative of an independent testing laboratory or independent applied research organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards.
  • Enforcing Authority (E): A representative of an agency or an organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards.
  • Insurance (I): A representative of an insurance company, broker, agent, bureau, or inspection agency.
  • Consumer (C): A person who is or represents the ultimate purchaser of a product, system, or service affected by the standard, but who is not included in (2).
  • Special Expert (SE): A person not representing (1) through (8), and who has special expertise in the scope of the standard or portion thereof.
  • Utility (UT): This classification is used specifically for the National Electrical Code project.
Click to expand...
The members of any one interest group cannot exceed 1/3 of the total membership of the Code Making Panel. It requires a 2/3s majority to make a code change. There are a number of groups that have members on all of the Code Making panels. Those groups include NECA, IEC, IAEI, IBEW, UL (or other testing lab), and NEMA.
 
electrofelon said:
Exactly. I can't think of anything good that can come from having a union having influence on the code.
Click to expand...
So no installers should have a voice on what is in the code?? The IEC also has members on every code panel.

The ANSI rules for these standards are so that everyone that can be affected by the code or standard has a voice on the content of that code or standard.
 
jim dungar said:
What does that leave; uninformed and inexperience people like politicians or maybe lawyers?
Click to expand...
Them neither.

How about educated people who know the trade and industry and can make their own decisions without being influenced by special interests.

It's a business. Name me one business that relies on outside interests and committees to run.

-Hal
 
Last edited:
hbiss said:
Them neither.

How about educated people who know the trade and industry and can make their own decisions without being influenced by special interests.

It's a business. Name me one business that relies on outside interests and committees to run.

-Hal
Click to expand...
Every person in the world has his or her own bias and without a balanced panel the code gets much worse. The code making panels do a much better job than our legislators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top