bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Does anyone know the results of the convention yet? Do we have an official 2005 NEC?
Any suprising votes?
Any suprising votes?
2005 NEC
- Thread starter bphgravity
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: 2005 NEC
It still won't be "official" 'til sometime in July. I do know at least one appeal will be made.
It still won't be "official" 'til sometime in July.
I do know at least one appeal will be made.bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: 2005 NEC
Do you know about what issue?
Do you know about what issue?
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: 2005 NEC
Yes
I was going to leave it that way as a teaser - but that would be wrong.
Look at Proposal 11-114 to Annex A. It was not within CMP11's scope and should have been reviewed by CMP1. The TCC failed to forward it as they did a similar proposal from CMP13 (Proposal 13-156a). No comments were made during the ROC cycle.
Read the preamble of Annex A and think about the implications of UL1004 especially in terms of "intent."
[ May 27, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
Yes
I was going to leave it that way as a teaser - but that would be wrong.
Look at Proposal 11-114 to Annex A. It was not within CMP11's scope and should have been reviewed by CMP1. The TCC failed to forward it as they did a similar proposal from CMP13 (Proposal 13-156a). No comments were made during the ROC cycle.
Read the preamble of Annex A and think about the implications of UL1004 especially in terms of "intent."
[ May 27, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: 2005 NEC
The convention is over and we sort of have a 2005 NEC. There were some issues that were sent back to the Technical Committee (Code Making Panels).
The process now is to send the comments made on the floor (they use a court reporter to take comments verbatim) along with the issue back to the CMP for action. All of their work will be forwarded to the TCC (Technical Correlating Committee). Appeals to the panel action may then be made to the Standards Council. At that point, the Code is sent to the printers but a further appeal may be made to the NFPA Board of Directors (that is the end of the line until the next Code cycle).
Even though the floor vote is to reject the CMP action and to send it back, that does not mean that the panel will change it's mind. The CMP is permitted to vote the same way this time and the decision will stand.
The convention is over and we sort of have a 2005 NEC. There were some issues that were sent back to the Technical Committee (Code Making Panels).
The process now is to send the comments made on the floor (they use a court reporter to take comments verbatim) along with the issue back to the CMP for action. All of their work will be forwarded to the TCC (Technical Correlating Committee). Appeals to the panel action may then be made to the Standards Council. At that point, the Code is sent to the printers but a further appeal may be made to the NFPA Board of Directors (that is the end of the line until the next Code cycle).
Even though the floor vote is to reject the CMP action and to send it back, that does not mean that the panel will change it's mind. The CMP is permitted to vote the same way this time and the decision will stand.
electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Occupation
- Massachusetts Master Electrician, one man show.
Re: 2005 NEC
What is this the TV news?
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: 2005 NEC
I just spoke to my contact who attended the NFPA conference and he confirmed his intent to appeal at least part of Proposal 11-114.
At issue is the inclusion of UL1004 in Appendix A.
Appendix A is a list of product safety standards ??where that listing is required by this Code.?
Motors for ?ordinary locations? are not currently required to be listed, and in fact, as of this date, no motors are so listed
While, ?Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only?,? it certainly can be reasonability used as the basis for interpreting the ?intent? of the Panel.
There are several problems:
1. UL1004B "Outline of Investigation for Electric Motors and Generators" is the standard that motors for ?ordinary locations? (Category Code PRGY) should be listed to.
2. UL1004 ?Electric Motors,? is the standard for ?Recognized Components? (Category Code PRGY2) which are specifically NOT listed.
3. CSA ?listed? motors are not certified to a recognized American national safety standard and are thus not NRTL certified for the purpose. Where CSA does certify motors per US standards it is for ?Recognized Component? service ? just as UL currently identifies them. Not all manufactures have sought CSA listing either ? nor are they required to unless they want to sell their product in Canada.
4. The content of 11-114 should have been reviewed by CMP1. The TCC failed to forward it.
There were five variations of ?Ah S---" when I pointed these problems out to four CMP11 members and one TCC member. I literally discovered this the week before the conference.
I am currently dealing with an AHJ who insists 90.7 ?intends? for all electrical equipment to be listed and I am required to show where motors are specifically exempt. The fact that there is no reference to motors in Appendix A is simply an oversight in unenforceable material. While he will accept CSA listing most of the supplied motors are without it.
I just spoke to my contact who attended the NFPA conference and he confirmed his intent to appeal at least part of Proposal 11-114.
At issue is the inclusion of UL1004 in Appendix A.
Appendix A is a list of product safety standards ??where that listing is required by this Code.?
Motors for ?ordinary locations? are not currently required to be listed, and in fact, as of this date, no motors are so listed
While, ?Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only?,? it certainly can be reasonability used as the basis for interpreting the ?intent? of the Panel.
There are several problems:
1. UL1004B "Outline of Investigation for Electric Motors and Generators" is the standard that motors for ?ordinary locations? (Category Code PRGY) should be listed to.
2. UL1004 ?Electric Motors,? is the standard for ?Recognized Components? (Category Code PRGY2) which are specifically NOT listed.
3. CSA ?listed? motors are not certified to a recognized American national safety standard and are thus not NRTL certified for the purpose. Where CSA does certify motors per US standards it is for ?Recognized Component? service ? just as UL currently identifies them. Not all manufactures have sought CSA listing either ? nor are they required to unless they want to sell their product in Canada.
4. The content of 11-114 should have been reviewed by CMP1. The TCC failed to forward it.
There were five variations of ?Ah S---" when I pointed these problems out to four CMP11 members and one TCC member. I literally discovered this the week before the conference.
I am currently dealing with an AHJ who insists 90.7 ?intends? for all electrical equipment to be listed and I am required to show where motors are specifically exempt. The fact that there is no reference to motors in Appendix A is simply an oversight in unenforceable material. While he will accept CSA listing most of the supplied motors are without it.
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
- Occupation
- Master Electrician
Re: 2005 NEC
There were two suprises for me at the NFPA meeting last week:
1. Comment 5-81 would require a ufer ground by changing "if available" to "are present" in 250.50
2. Comment 18-52 would require a 2 pole disconenct for a lighting ballast.
I don't feel the proposal to require AFCI's in all dwelling unit living spaces will pass the revote. The CMP's have 21 days to reballot.
There were two suprises for me at the NFPA meeting last week:
1. Comment 5-81 would require a ufer ground by changing "if available" to "are present" in 250.50
2. Comment 18-52 would require a 2 pole disconenct for a lighting ballast.
I don't feel the proposal to require AFCI's in all dwelling unit living spaces will pass the revote. The CMP's have 21 days to reballot.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: 2005 NEC
The intent of this new section is to require a disconnecting means to be installed at each luminaire for both the phase and neutral wires. If this causes anyone heartburn, I would ask if you made a comment to this action in the comment period?
The intent of this new section is to require a disconnecting means to be installed at each luminaire for both the phase and neutral wires. If this causes anyone heartburn, I would ask if you made a comment to this action in the comment period?
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: 2005 NEC
What was the original proposal on this? I can't find it in the ROP.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: 2005 NEC
I have to confess my ox wasn't being gored so I wasn't paying attention. I didn't get the impression there was a floor issue on Comment 18-52 though.
Charlie, it's hard for the public to comment on new material introduced at the comment stage. The original proposal only required a local disconnect for energized conductors. It was the comment that introduced ALL current carrying conductors.
"New material" is grounds for an appeal should someone choose to do so.
I have to confess my ox wasn't being gored so I wasn't paying attention. I didn't get the impression there was a floor issue on Comment 18-52 though.
Charlie, it's hard for the public to comment on new material introduced at the comment stage. The original proposal only required a local disconnect for energized conductors. It was the comment that introduced ALL current carrying conductors.
"New material" is grounds for an appeal should someone choose to do so.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: 2005 NEC
Bryan,
The original Proposal was 18-93 for Section 410-79.
It's Log#3421 found on Pg 1106 of the May 2004 ROP
Bryan,
The original Proposal was 18-93 for Section 410-79.
It's Log#3421 found on Pg 1106 of the May 2004 ROP
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: 2005 NEC
This is the text of the panel action at the proposal stage:
Add a new 410.73(G) to read:
410.73 (G) Disconnecting Means. In other than dwellings and associated accessory structures, luminaires containing ballast(s) shall have a disconnecting means that will open all ungrounded ballast(s) supply conductors. The line side terminals of the disconnecting means shall be guarded. The disconnecting means shall be located so as to be accessible to qualified persons before servicing or maintaining the ballast. This requirement shall become effective January 1, 2008
Exception No. 1: A disconnecting means shall not be required for luminaries fixtures installed in hazardous (classified) location(s) as defined in Article 500.
Exception No. 2: A disconnecting means shall not be required for fluorescent exit luminaires (fixtures).
Exception No. 3: For cord-and-plug connected luminaires, an accessible separable connector or an accessible plug and receptacle shall
be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means.
********
Please note the following second paragraph of Costello's statement:
Comment on Affirmative:
COSTELLO: By placing a disconnecting means that will open all ungrounded ballast(s) supply conductors of a luminarie, the potential of a hazardous situation from contact with the ungrounded conductor while servicing a luminarie will be eliminated. While this action alone will not address all of the of the hazards presented in servicing luminaries i.e., the opening of grounded conductors in a multiwire branch circuit, it will be a major accomplishment in the safeguarding of persons. Perhaps the Panel should take an even bolder step by taking action to ensure that both the ungrounded conductor and the grounded conductor are disconnected at the luminaire. This will ensure that the grounded conductor on multiwire branch circuits won't pose an additional hazard to the worker servicing the luminaire.
****************
By making that in the comment, the concept has been exposed to public review and the panel is permitted to use it. That is why some of the comments do not address the panel action but only the comments made by the panel members.
Bottom line, it is OK since it is not new material.
This is the text of the panel action at the proposal stage:
Add a new 410.73(G) to read:
410.73 (G) Disconnecting Means. In other than dwellings and associated accessory structures, luminaires containing ballast(s) shall have a disconnecting means that will open all ungrounded ballast(s) supply conductors. The line side terminals of the disconnecting means shall be guarded. The disconnecting means shall be located so as to be accessible to qualified persons before servicing or maintaining the ballast. This requirement shall become effective January 1, 2008
Exception No. 1: A disconnecting means shall not be required for luminaries fixtures installed in hazardous (classified) location(s) as defined in Article 500.
Exception No. 2: A disconnecting means shall not be required for fluorescent exit luminaires (fixtures).
Exception No. 3: For cord-and-plug connected luminaires, an accessible separable connector or an accessible plug and receptacle shall
be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means.
********
Please note the following second paragraph of Costello's statement:
Comment on Affirmative:
COSTELLO: By placing a disconnecting means that will open all ungrounded ballast(s) supply conductors of a luminarie, the potential of a hazardous situation from contact with the ungrounded conductor while servicing a luminarie will be eliminated. While this action alone will not address all of the of the hazards presented in servicing luminaries i.e., the opening of grounded conductors in a multiwire branch circuit, it will be a major accomplishment in the safeguarding of persons. Perhaps the Panel should take an even bolder step by taking action to ensure that both the ungrounded conductor and the grounded conductor are disconnected at the luminaire. This will ensure that the grounded conductor on multiwire branch circuits won't pose an additional hazard to the worker servicing the luminaire.
****************
By making that in the comment, the concept has been exposed to public review and the panel is permitted to use it. That is why some of the comments do not address the panel action but only the comments made by the panel members.
Bottom line, it is OK since it is not new material.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: 2005 NEC
It appears that both proposal 18-93 and 18-92 address a disconnect at the luminaire itself, meaning it sounds like this is going to be more a manufacturing issue than installer issue. Plus there is the iussue of Dwelling units only. Are manufactures going to provide two classifications of fixture?
This is also an issue of unsafe work practices as stated by Member O'Boyle. Is the code going to start implementing code for every possible dangerous practice that can be made by an electrician? Whats next, just eliminatating multiwire circuits all together?
It appears that both proposal 18-93 and 18-92 address a disconnect at the luminaire itself, meaning it sounds like this is going to be more a manufacturing issue than installer issue. Plus there is the iussue of Dwelling units only. Are manufactures going to provide two classifications of fixture?
This is also an issue of unsafe work practices as stated by Member O'Boyle. Is the code going to start implementing code for every possible dangerous practice that can be made by an electrician? Whats next, just eliminatating multiwire circuits all together?
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: 2005 NEC
First, Charlie is absolutely right. The concept was introduced at the Proposal Stage. Talk about convoluted - an affirmative comment to a TCC directed "reject" proposal where everyone arguing in the negative wanted to get rid of the proposal altogether :roll: That is, requiring all current carrying conductors to be disconnected didn't address any of the negative comments. Where was the public going to go with that one?
Bryan, unless you specify an internal disconnecting means, it could well be an installation issue. Specifically requiring an integral disconnect was rejected. An external disconnect only needs to be accessible. Its not even required to be ?in sight.?
It appears this panel is woefully short of ?Users.? Only one (IEEE) from what I can tell. With IEEE, it?s often difficult to tell the actual perspective of the Rep.
It appears this will be the final wording:
First, Charlie is absolutely right. The concept was introduced at the Proposal Stage. Talk about convoluted - an affirmative comment to a TCC directed "reject" proposal where everyone arguing in the negative wanted to get rid of the proposal altogether :roll: That is, requiring all current carrying conductors to be disconnected didn't address any of the negative comments. Where was the public going to go with that one?
Bryan, unless you specify an internal disconnecting means, it could well be an installation issue. Specifically requiring an integral disconnect was rejected. An external disconnect only needs to be accessible. Its not even required to be ?in sight.?
It appears this panel is woefully short of ?Users.? Only one (IEEE) from what I can tell. With IEEE, it?s often difficult to tell the actual perspective of the Rep.
It appears this will be the final wording:
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: 2005 NEC
That is subject to your interpretation of "indoors". The Merriam-Webster definition is, "indoors
1 : in a building <worked indoors all afternoon> <stayed indoors during the storm>
2 : into a building <went indoors as soon as it began to rain>"
I don't think we can call outdoor signs "indoor locations", I think you would be required to refer to Article 600 for them.
That is subject to your interpretation of "indoors". The Merriam-Webster definition is, "indoors
1 : in a building <worked indoors all afternoon> <stayed indoors during the storm>
2 : into a building <went indoors as soon as it began to rain>"
I don't think we can call outdoor signs "indoor locations", I think you would be required to refer to Article 600 for them.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: 2005 NEC
A prediction.
Before 410.73(G) goes into effect in 2008 one, probably both, of two things will happen:
1.) A Proposal will be made that it be eliminated. I don?t believe that?s likely to be accepted under current trends.
2.) One or more Proposals will be made that it be further ?developed? such that, ?outdoor? locations will be included and the disconnecting means will have to be ?in-sight,? lockable, or both. (I could even make a fairly accurate prediction of at least one person who will make this proposal - it will not be me )
A prediction.
Before 410.73(G) goes into effect in 2008 one, probably both, of two things will happen:
1.) A Proposal will be made that it be eliminated. I don?t believe that?s likely to be accepted under current trends.
2.) One or more Proposals will be made that it be further ?developed? such that, ?outdoor? locations will be included and the disconnecting means will have to be ?in-sight,? lockable, or both. (I could even make a fairly accurate prediction of at least one person who will make this proposal - it will not be me
)
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: 2005 NEC
If everyone thinks someone else will make the proposal, it may never see the light of day.
If everyone thinks someone else will make the proposal, it may never see the light of day.
- Status