Comments due for 2008 NEC 10/20/06!

[George Stolz]

Reminder fellas and ladies! Comments are due soon!

 

[George Stolz]

So far, my list:

• 2-198 Center Floor Outlet - Continue to reject
• 2-274 Reconsider & accept
• 2-196 Reconsider, accept/principle/part
• 5-171 Reconsider & accept
• 5-1 (EGC - EBC) Reconsider and accept
• 5-84 Continue to accept
• 5-88 Continue to reject
• 5-119 Reconsider and reject

Any pet proposals that someone wants to see passed or gunned down?

Any lobbying of the members?

 

[tallgirl]

(George made me do it ...)

Okay, I've been unable to find the section in the code in several weeks of trying to find it again, and all it says is "in the event of a flood, disconnect power manually before leaving" or something else of the sort.

If someone has the section, I'll start scribbling down what I have in mind.

The basis for the proposal is my experience in New Orleans, and in particular the number of instances where there is evidence that circuit breakers failed to trip before electrical components started to melt, and in a few places, catch fire. Fortunately (or not) the water continued to rise, but I believe that some of the fires in New Orleans were caused by the electric service remaining "on" long after it should have been "off".

Anyone care to help out here?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Tallgirl,
That would belong in some other code. The NEC covers the requirements for safe installation, not safe use.
Don

 

[iwire]

Don

The NEC covers the requirements for safe installation, not safe use.
Don

That seems to conflict with 90.1(A).

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Bob,

That seems to conflict with 90.1(A).

Which conflicts with the scope, 90.2(A).
Don

 

[iwire]

Bob,

Which conflicts with the scope, 90.2(A).
Don

LOL

I don't really see Tallgirls proposal as NEC territory either. I was just curious what you thought of the conflict.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Bob,
Actually I skipped right by 90.1 and went to the scope.
Don

 

[tallgirl]

Tallgirl,
That would belong in some other code. The NEC covers the requirements for safe installation, not safe use.
Don

But this is "safe installation". It's akin to requiring different devices and wiring methods for dry, damp and wet locations. Except that in this instance, the entire house is a potentially wet location.

Julie

(Edited because I was being redundant.)

 

[iwire]

Who would this requirement be aimed at?

Homeowners?

In my opinion rules added to the NEC that stand no chance of being enforced or complied with take away from the document as a whole.

 

[tallgirl]

Who would this requirement be aimed at?

Homeowners?

In my opinion rules added to the NEC that stand no chance of being enforced or complied with take away from the document as a whole.

Anyone building in a flood plain.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Julie,
The means of disconnect is already required by the NEC. There is no way that a rule that tells someone when to operate the disconnect belongs in the NEC. Also what means would there be to enforce a rule like this? It is hard enough to get the installation rules enforced.
Don

 

[cpal]

17-91 reconsider and accept

 

[tallgirl]

Julie,
The means of disconnect is already required by the NEC. There is no way that a rule that tells someone when to operate the disconnect belongs in the NEC. Also what means would there be to enforce a rule like this? It is hard enough to get the installation rules enforced.
Don

Don,

It's an automatic means of disconnecting. That's the point -- in a flood plain area the entire structure is a potentially "wet" location. In a flood plain area subject to routine evacuation, disconnecting the service prior to evacuation is unfeasible and no one would do it after returning to a thawed freezer more than once anyway.

It's not a manual method.

And to answer the invariable "But is it going to protect life and property?", I believe the answer is "Yes" based on damage I've seen between the time water rose and the power failed.

 

[iwire]

A GFP main could do this job and is required in larger services already.

You thought is not without foundation.

In many earthquake zones automated natural gas shut offs are required.

I am sure an inexpensive device could be created to shunt trip a breaker during flood conditions.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Julie,
I didn't see anything about an automatic shut off in the original post. That may have some merit, but where would you require it? Around here new construction in a flood plane is not permitted.
Don

 

[tallgirl]

Julie,
I didn't see anything about an automatic shut off in the original post. That may have some merit, but where would you require it? Around here new construction in a flood plane is not permitted.
Don

Don,

That's because originally I was trying to find the section which said whatever it was my faulty memory said.

 

[tallgirl]

You thought is not without foundation.

Can I take that as a compliment?

 

[iwire]

Can I take that as a compliment?

Take it however you want.

My thought was there are already codes in place to help during unusual conditions so yours would not have to break new ground.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Ceiling Boxes

Ceiling Boxes

There is an accepted proposal in 314.24 that requires any ceiling box in a dwelling with 2 switchlegs to be required to be a fan rated box. That is a problem... what about 2 circuit track? what about installing 2 circuits to a ceiling box, one for the light, one as a pass through circuit... or as a pass through to another ceiling fixture?

This should not pass, and comments should be presented for this one as well. What about a box with 2 circuits that installed within 1-3 feet from the corner of the wall... what fan could be installed there???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????