2011 Code Changes- Post your favorite and Discuss them

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
I thought it might be fun to start a thread with some changes in the 2011. If anyone is interested in discussion and adding others please do so.

I will start with 200.4. This article seems to end the argument of whether or not you can oversize a neutral for more than one set of MWBC.


200.4 Neutral Conductors.
Neutral conductors shall not be used for more than one branch circuit, for more than one multiwire branch circuit, or for more than one set of ungrounded feeder conductors unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Code.

 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I will start with 200.4. This article seems to end the argument of whether or not you can oversize a neutral for more than one set of MWBC.


I agree with you that it ends all arguments about it but I did not, and still do not see the need to prohibit what would be safe.
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Personally I like that it's finally been spelled out. IMO it helps to keep things simple.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Personally I like that it's finally been spelled out. IMO it helps to keep things simple.
I agree. No more can we say -I think it is okay. Whether we like it or not I would rather have a black & white code section than a gray one. :)
 
Last edited:

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
I agree with you that it ends all arguments about it but I did not, and still do not see the need to prohibit what would be safe.

It probably got lumped into a lot of Code changes that are a result of handy-man type work..... it's dummying down the Code so non-licensed people are safer.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Here is another good change. Article 680 in the 2008 started this by req. GFCI to be in a readily accessible location for hydromassage. Now it will be for all GFCI. This may be an issue for vending machines etc.


210.8 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for Personnel.
Ground-fault circuit-interruption for personnel shall be provided as required in 210.8(A) through (C). The ground-fault circuit-interrupter shall be installed in a readily accessible location.

Informational Note: See 215.9 for ground-fault circuitinterrupter

protection for personnel on feeders.

 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I agree. No more can we say -I think it is okay. Whether we like it or not I would rather have a black & white code section than a gray one. :)
I agree clarity is better then vagueness.

But IMO the section should have said it is allowed, there is no legitimate safety reason not to. It is directly allowed for some applications.

I see it like Ken, more dumbing down of the trade.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Here is another good change. Article 680 in the 2008 started this by req. GFCI to be in a readily accessible location for hydromassage. Now it will be for all GFCI.
I agree, it is a good change.:)

But one that will burn us if we do not think about during rough.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
But IMO the section should have said it is allowed, there is no legitimate safety reason not to. It is directly allowed for some applications.
Where is it allowed elsewhere in the code? I assumed it was since it said so but don't know where that would be.

I agree, it is a good change.:)

But one that will burn us if we do not think about during rough.
Absolutely-- rough in will be critical in some areas.
 

ceb58

Senior Member
Location
Raeford, NC
Here is another good change. Article 680 in the 2008 started this by req. GFCI to be in a readily accessible location for hydromassage. Now it will be for all GFCI. This may be an issue for vending machines etc.


I agree, it is a good change.:)

But one that will burn us if we do not think about during rough.
One problem that already comes to mind is the double water coolers ( one handy capped accessible, one normal) in some models the cord is short and the recp. is usually installed where it is behind the cover of the cooler.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
One problem that already comes to mind is the double water coolers ( one handy capped accessible, one normal) in some models the cord is short and the recp. is usually installed where it is behind the cover of the cooler.
In a case like that I think the work around will be a faceless GFCI located in an accessible place.

 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Or a GFCI breaker.
Of course but there are reasons that make a breaker less desirable.

AFCI requrments

Bolt on and/or high AIC rated GFCI breakers are expensive.

A breaker may supply more outlets than you want to protect.

I am just saying that I think the common less expensive work around will be a faceless GFCI. :)
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
I am just saying that I think the common less expensive work around will be a faceless GFCI. :)
I agree but I am afraid they can be installed anywhere and we may go nuts looking for them. Just something else to think about. Hopefully they will be installed in obvious locations.:)
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
It probably got lumped into a lot of Code changes that are a result of handy-man type work..... it's dummying down the Code so non-licensed people are safer.
No, it was just an attempt to make the code clear and to move away from the code using trying to use a specific permission to prohibit other things. It was the code making panel's position that the two specific permissions to use a "common neutral" acted to prohibit all other uses of a "common neutral". It is my opinion that a specific permission can never act as prohibiting other installations.
(I submitted the proposal)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top