2017 New Articles

Status
Not open for further replies.
tom baker

tom baker

First Chief Moderator & NEC Expert
Staff member
Location
Bremerton, Washington
Occupation
Master Electrician
I like the new electronic format for code proposals, er first drafts.
How do you find out if there any new articles for the 2017? There is always 3 or 4...
 
A369 Metal-Enclosed Bus Duct
A373 Industrial Equipment in Mobile Structures
A425 Fixed Commercial and Industrial Process heating Equipment
A691 Large Scale PV Supply Stations
A706 Energy Storage Systems
A710 AC Microgrids
A711 DC Micorgrids
 
bphgravity said:
A369 Metal-Enclosed Bus Duct
A373 Industrial Equipment in Mobile Structures
A425 Fixed Commercial and Industrial Process heating Equipment
A691 Large Scale PV Supply Stations
A706 Energy Storage Systems
A710 AC Microgrids
A711 DC Micorgrids
Click to expand...


Give us more updates NEMA REP.....;):angel:
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Do individuals suggest new articles or do the cmp members come up with them?
Click to expand...
Actually BOTH.

At the latest CMP Meetings their were many changes added and some new sections as well that were at the pleasure of the committee. The CMP can create a First Revision, Develop a PI in a task group, take the suggestion of a public submitted PI and so on. They group works at the pleasure of the chairman and the various task groups can do it directly without a public PI submitted if they feel the need.

However, when adding an entirely new article it usually takes some "SPURING" (is that a real word?) by someone or some group and then it sparks consideration within a task group which could result in a new article.

Take the new Article 691 "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Large Scale PV Supply Stations" I can almost (can't really validate that) guarantee Mr. Bill Brooks who is on the CMP for A690 probably proposed it in a task group and individually as a PI as well. He is one of the leading experts in the subject to it would stand to reason he would be heard and spontaneous actions could take place.[/FONT]
 
Sounds like a major undertaking. So does the entire article come under public comment. For instance suppose, not likely of course, many people responded with reason the entire article should get chucked-- would it actually happen or since the panel members adopted it would it not come under our scrutiny.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Sounds like a major undertaking. So does the entire article come under public comment. For instance suppose, not likely of course, many people responded with reason the entire article should get chucked-- would it actually happen or since the panel members adopted it would it not come under our scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Anything done at the CMP becomes a First Revision and it open for public comment. The items that were Resolved do not come under public comment but will require some sort of explanation as to why they were resolved. That is going to be the tricky part I am awaiting to see.....because the new system in place is not like the old system so you will have to actually LOOK for the resolved comments versus the First Revisions that will be placed forward for public comment. Everything again is open to public comment when it is presented in the First Revision.

Also remember that much of what is being done in Hilton Head at the CMP Meetings will also require a vote by the members in a few weeks. Believe it or not things could change on some items when it comes to an actual vote as some hand votes at the CMP were close.....very close...like 5-6 or 6-5 and so on. You can bet everyone in the room who has an interest knows who to contact to "educate" them on moving to a different opinion before voting.

It really seemed to me that this cycle was different...the CMP had much more leeway to write " On The Fly" PI's and change items that were not even based on a submitted public PI...but maybe that was just my sole observation. The only problem I felt was that each PI that was resolved might not get a full reason as to why it was resolved...but I am told it will not be a problem so I am optimistic as the individuals who work on these panels are extremely dedicated to making the NEC better...despite what some people may say.
 
Master,

The PI's that were resolved will have a full panel statement with them to explain the reason that the PI was resolved. NFPA emphasized to all the panels that each PI should get an explanation as to why the PI was resolved.

Each of the PI's that were resolved by CMP10 are accompanied by a panel statement with an explanation for the reason for the resolution. Some my be as simple as "This public input does not meet the requirements of 4.3.4.1(d) of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards. The submitter did not provide adequate substantiation for the proposed change"

Chris
 
raider1 said:
The PI's that were resolved will have a full panel statement with them to explain the reason that the PI was resolved. NFPA emphasized to all the panels that each PI should get an explanation as to why the PI was resolved. ...
Chris
Click to expand...

Will the "resolved" items be published in the first draft for public comment?
 
mbrooke said:
But has it ever been considered?
Click to expand...
Well now....that is a totally different thought.....as it has but never submitted to my knowledge....but it just did for Type SE Cable which a lack of real data on testing Type SE is available. The theory presented at the CMP in Hilton Head (which was not a vacation as some suggested in another thread...lol) was that Type SE is made very similar to Type NM-B so the testing done for Type NM-B should apply to Type SE....I happen to disagree but more testing is required and it is being done as we speak as well before the PC Stage in November.

The issue is there is valid testing done on the issues of thermal contact and bundling to support the reduction to 60 degree C........not to my knowledge of a single Type NM-B with no bundling or thermal contact issues (if that situation exists anymore with energy eff. construction)...but the Type NM-B nonmetallic sheathing (Per UL 719) is rated at 75 Degree C......so a well crafted PI in 2020 may just get support but more information would be needed to remove any fears of the bundle or thermal aspects of the equation.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Well now....that is a totally different thought.....as it has but never submitted to my knowledge....but it just did for Type SE Cable which a lack of real data on testing Type SE is available. The theory presented at the CMP in Hilton Head (which was not a vacation as some suggested in another thread...lol) was that Type SE is made very similar to Type NM-B so the testing done for Type NM-B should apply to Type SE....I happen to disagree but more testing is required and it is being done as we speak as well before the PC Stage in November.

The issue is there is valid testing done on the issues of thermal contact and bundling to support the reduction to 60 degree C........not to my knowledge of a single Type NM-B with no bundling or thermal contact issues (if that situation exists anymore with energy eff. construction)...but the Type NM-B nonmetallic sheathing (Per UL 719) is rated at 75 Degree C......so a well crafted PI in 2020 may just get support but more information would be needed to remove any fears of the bundle or thermal aspects of the equation.
Click to expand...


Ok, that's a lot of good info :D

SO in theory it is possible that with the right testing we could see a proposal that would allow NM-B at 75*C if its not bundled? Or perhaps in all cases?

On thing that would make me support this change without question is 310.16 before being turned into table 310.15 B 7. 14 gauge was rated 20 amps and 12 gauge was rated 25 amps at 60*C before the change. So far I have not heard any issues in AC and motor applications where 240.4 is overridden.
 
mbrooke said:
Ok, that's a lot of good info :D

SO in theory it is possible that with the right testing we could see a proposal that would allow NM-B at 75*C if its not bundled? Or perhaps in all cases?

On thing that would make me support this change without question is 310.16 before being turned into table 310.15 B 7. 14 gauge was rated 20 amps and 12 gauge was rated 25 amps at 60*C before the change. So far I have not heard any issues in AC and motor applications where 240.4 is overridden.
Click to expand...

@mbrooke - it is quite possible that if the data is produced the CMP will listen. It appears to me that it would take data that is in contrast to the UL report that came out a few year ago regarding Type NM-B in thermal contact with thermal insulation or a report showing in cases of no thermal contact the use at a higher value is validated...at this time it is not.

In terms of 310.15(B)(7), it was not a spawn child of 310.16 as the smaller table, previously 310.15(B)(6) has been around awhile and was based on the 83% concept being used in the 2014 NEC.

But yes, if someone is willing to do the research it is quite possible....
 
romex jockey said:
My understanding is the Coalition has a major influence on the code making process. Anyone care to enlighten me ?

~RJ~
Click to expand...
Actually the "Coalition" really plays no role in the CMP process. The main goal of the Coalition is to unite and help promote speedy adoption of the most recently published editions of the National Electrical Code around the country where getting speed adoptions are problematic.

Here is their mission statement :The mission of the Electrical Code Coalition is to increase focus and emphasis on electrical safety for persons and property through direct and full adoption, application and uniform enforcement of the latest edition of the National Electrical Code? (NFPA 70?) as the standard for safe electrical installations. Principles that support the ECC mission. - See more at: http://www.electricalcodecoalition.org/the-coalition.aspx#sthash.QTyS8Eut.dpuf
 
MasterTheNEC said:
@mbrooke - it is quite possible that if the data is produced the CMP will listen. It appears to me that it would take data that is in contrast to the UL report that came out a few year ago regarding Type NM-B in thermal contact with thermal insulation or a report showing in cases of no thermal contact the use at a higher value is validated...at this time it is not.

In terms of 310.15(B)(7), it was not a spawn child of 310.16 as the smaller table, previously 310.15(B)(6) has been around awhile and was based on the 83% concept being used in the 2014 NEC.

But yes, if someone is willing to do the research it is quite possible....
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this report, cant find it. I remember they did something similar with SER a while back taking it to the 60*C column over thermal insulation concerns.


Now, my understanding behind 310.16 changing to 310.15 was for the unification between NEC and CEC wire tables? Perhaps I became confused and misstated the dwelling table service feeder chart. My bad. I meant the regular 60, 75 and 90*C tables that changed some of the currents around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top