2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Status
Not open for further replies.
tom baker

tom baker

First Chief Moderator & NEC Expert
Staff member
Location
Bremerton, Washington
Occupation
Master Electrician
A new rule in 300.15() states where accessible only to qualified persons, a box or conduit body shall not be required for conductors in handhole enclosures.

Is the intent:
1. The location of the handhole is restricted to places with qualiffed persons
or
2. Access to the wiring inside the handhole is restricted to qualfied persons by the lid requiring a tool to open or weigh more than 100 lbs.
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

It?s bad English! :D

That aside, I think the intent is your item #1. The new article 300.15(L) first talks about something being accessible, and next tells us what we don?t need to install. Only then does it refer us to two other articles (i.e., on manholes and on handholes). You don?t get to tie in the 100 pounds or special tool until you turn to the other two sections.
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Charlie I submitted a WAC (washington state electrical code rule) to change this by deleting the word handhole, in essence returning to the 2002 NEC rules. the rule was interperted to mean acessible to qualified persons by being located inside the handhole enclosure.
I fear this rule will be misapplied by AHJ's. I need to look at the ROP and ROC for the change.
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Sometimes I wonder if codes are proof read befor being adopted and printed.

I have to plead ignorance as to how a code gets from a piece of paper to the NEC but I would imagine one of the reasons it's so hard to change anything would be the amount of work it takes to do it right.

That and it's so close to perfect already.
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Sam, the panel looks at the effect the change will make to their Article, if the wording fits the style manual, and to some extent, the rest of the Code. The TCC then looks at the panel action to see if any conflicts will be made to the rest of the Code and if any other problems exist. The ROP is published so anybody can see what the panel has done (most of us have our favorite parts that we peruse).

During the next stage, the panel looks at all the comments and may modify their action, the TCC does their thing again, and the ROC is published.

Now we are at the NFPA annual meeting to accept the new Code. Items are brought to the Electrical Section and the floor of the meeting. Some items are sent back to the panel for reconsideration. Again it goes to the TCC and then to the Standards Council. After that, all the changes are proof read by the NFPA staff and then it is sent to the printers. After that errata is published.

Trust me, this is a condensed version. All the changes are indeed looked at closely and mistakes still get through. :D
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Charlie: it is the last operation that is the obvious problem "...all the changes are then read by the ...staff and then sent to the printer." it is obvious that here is where outside input is needed. The final proof has to be read by someone not involved in the actual writing of the change, who has knowledge of the whole process. in house proofing is prone to errors.

paul
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

I'm in complete agreement with you Paul. I probably miss my own errors half of the time. And another problem could be that the wording is so confusing sometimes that a proof reader may think it's right because they think the topic is over their head when it actually is just written poorly. (Like what I just wrote) :confused:

Geeze Charlie, any wonder. What a beaurocratic mess. If that energy could be put into the code instead of the proccess I think we'd have a better product.

Could you decode your acronyms for me Charlie? I'm gonna plead ignorance again.
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

It is the last operation that is the obvious problem.

Paul, I'm sorry but I will take exception to that. The NFPA staff that is doing the proof reading are the same people that are in the panel meetings and know the Code as well as any of us know it. I really do not think there is a problem of the forest and the trees, these guys do catch a lot of things. This reminds me of proof reading books. I do this for a publisher and will find errors that have been there since the first edition. The next time I check that book, the same thing will happen.

What a beaurocratic mess. If that energy could be put into the code instead of the process I think we'd have a better product.

Sam, I'm sorry but I will take exception to that. In my opinion, the process is great! I agree that it is cumbersome but it is a good one. Everyone, including you, can have a voice in the revision process. No single group is permitted to have more than 1/3rd of the makeup of the panel. Each step of the process is exposed to the public for review and there are several steps in the appeals process. I do not believe we could have a better process. Additionally, since it is a consensus process, ANSI recognizes it immediately so the NFPA documents all (I think) become ANSI documents as soon as they go through the process.

Could you decode your acronyms for me?

Sure Sam, I'll do them in the order that I used them.</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">TCC => Technical Correlating Committee</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ROP => Report On Proposals</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ROC => Report On Comments</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">NFPA => National Fire Protection Association</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

:D
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Charlie: it is only my opinion. I was an English major, i was a printer, I edited a mag, sometimes i write good "bad" poetry, i play loose with the language, but my experience is still that outside proofing is best. Not by someone who isn't in on the process, but by someone who isn't in on the writing. Why do you think that publishers outsource their proofing to others, like you?

It is impossible to proof well your own writing. It takes the devil's advocate or a disinterested party to see the hole you are going to step in when you are concentrating on seeing both the forest and the trees.

this is not to denigrate the process, but a friendly observation. No in house corrections before press. Minor corrections like caps okay, but any wording changes need to go back thru the whole bit.

On the other hand, it would be nice for the editors to print the rules for interpreting the scope of exceptions in the body of the codes so it is part of the code. it would also be nice for them to put in code number annotations when there is a sub-heading as it is sometimes a bit cumbersome to see what the new heading is part of, if it is a change or a continuation. Just easier to use if a running number on the side.

anyway, have a fat turkey day to all

paul
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Paul, I don't think I made myself clear. The proof reading is not to correct the language or sentence structure. The proof reading is to keep the errata pages to a minimum.

The sentence structure and clarity is determined exclusively by the Code Making Panels even the position of the commas. Nothing of that nature is permitted to be changed during the proof reading and text cleanup. Even the TCC can not change the structure of a sentence. We have had proposals to just delete or move a comma. That is part of the process.

As fer as English is, it was my wurst subjet an' I ain't gotten ov'r it yet. :D
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Charlie, it's been my experience that the less somebody knows about something the easier it is to criticize. You, on the one hand, appear to have well developed understanding of the proccess. I, on the other hand, have a very limited knowledge of it. To you it looks rational, to me it looks irrational.

It's probably actually in the middle somewhere.

There is one part of the proccess I actually appreciate and that's where they cross check that codes don't conflict with each other. It really bothers me when two codes disagree.

Thank you for the decodes. :)

Edit: Please don't think I mean any disrespect. :)

[ November 24, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Sorry Charlie, :D , you're last post showed up while I was typing.

I wish I had access to the new code but I don't.

Are you saying the appearent difficulties with 300.15() that Tom brings up is either intentional or can't be corrected?

I don't mean to be difficult but?
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Unless the actual wording was copied incorrectly from the panel meetings, it can not be changed now. It will be the responsibility of the panel to correct it in the 2008 cycle based on the proposals submitted to them. I am sure the panel understood what they intended but after the process, the words have to stand by themselves.

The problem is that the NFPA staff has a computer in the meeting room to take down the exact words and punctuation that the panel wants. It is projected on a screen so that everyone can see exactly what will go into the Code. It is unlikely that many mistakes go into the Code but they do sneak in. For instance, 240.93 was not intended to be in the Code but it is there. It will show up in the errata as an error. The interesting thing is that I was the reason for the error. :D
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

I am on Panel 10 but that doesn't make me special. I just know the process better than most. Why do you ask? :D
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Because it suddenly occured I'm preaching to the choir.

There's more I want say on the subject but I haven't got my brain started yet. You people on the east side get up earlier than I do.
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

You know, the guys on the west side stay up really late. For what it is worth, it is 7:14 AM here right now, I think that makes it 4:14 there. :D
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

I was up till about 2:00 havin a couple toddies. Then my Mom's stupid dog woke up at 7:30. Thanksgiving's fun though. I'm on her old dinosour computer right now. Windows 98, bllegh.
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Hey, watch it, I'm running Windows 98 SE with high speed Internet from cable (in fact, I also have VoIP for my telephone service). I have been thinking about spending part of my annual bonus on a new computer but this one still works (with 128k of RAM and a clock speed of 500 MHz. it is not fast or good). :D
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

My own PC is rather minimal by todays standards, but it does everthing I ask it to without much difficulty. I want more RAM and a seperate drive for internet. I'll tell you this much, I used to curse Bill Gates every day with 95 and 98, with XP it's been more like once a month.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top