2014 - 600.6(A)(1)

Status
Not open for further replies.

pete m.

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
600.6(A)(1) .... and shall disconnect ALL wiring where it enters the enclosure of the sign or pole.

After looking at the ROC (18-47) I see it isn't the intent that grounded and grounding conductors be disconnected along with the ungrounded conductors but I can't, for the life of me, understand why it wasn't fixed even when one of the CMP members brought it forth..:slaphead:

The panel member statement:

WRIGHT, R.: I accept the action of the panel to correct and clarify our
intention. My concern is we have omitted the words ?Body? after sign and
before enclosure. Also we did not change the word wiring to ?ungrounded
conductors? and could have the impression the neutrals need opened as well.

The wiring is not as critical as the exclusion of the sign body. The intention of
this section is to protect the service personnel from contacting live conductors
when they believe they have disconnected the sign. Electric signs have either a
sign body or sign enclosure or both. My concern is with the revised text we
could allow a conductor to be live in the sign body and then disconnected when
it enters the sign enclosure. Corrective text could be:
(1) At Point of Entry to a Sign Body or Enclosure. The disconnect shall be
located at the point the feeder circuit or branch circuit(s) supplying a sign or
outline lighting system enters a sign body, enclosure or a pole in accordance
with 600.5 (C) (3) and shall disconnect all wiring ungrounded conductors
where it enters the enclosure or body of the sign or pole.

Pete
 
Pete,

Member panel statements are added at the balloting stage. At the balloting stage you can't change the proposal just vote on the action.

Most likely what happened is that the CMP member realized that there was a mistake made at the panel meeting and wanted to clarify his position in a panel statement.

Chris
 
Pete,

Member panel statements are added at the balloting stage. At the balloting stage you can't change the proposal just vote on the action.

Most likely what happened is that the CMP member realized that there was a mistake made at the panel meeting and wanted to clarify his position in a panel statement.

Chris

Thanks Chris. I did not realize this. I suppose a PI is in order if it's not addressed in the 2017.

Pete
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top