NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

FYI,

XXXXXX, known as the "people's lawyer," has spent the past 20 years building a highly respected practice specializing in injury law. XXXXXXX is a very highly respected trial attorney who has gained acclaim throughout the legal community and also teaches classes to other attorneys. Along with XXX and XXXX, the attorneys that work for XXXX, XXXX, Attorney at Law have the experience, knowledge, and overwhelming desire to get you the results you deserve. Our attorneys are committed to the highest ethical standards. While our practice has grown over the years, one thing has remained
constant -- our dedication to personal attention.

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has indicated that there were 440 total accidental electrocutions in the United States in 1999. One hundred and seventy of these electrocutions were related to consumer products. Electrocution is now the fifth leading cause of work-related deaths in the United States, with over 50% of the total occurring in the construction industry.

According to the latest statistics from the National Fire Protection Association, there is an annual average of over 100,000 home fires caused by faulty electrical distribution systems, electrical appliances and equipment, or heating and air conditioning systems. Homes fires take an average of 860 lives, injuring 3,785 and causing nearly $1.3 billion in property damage.

Workplace injuries are just as common as injuries that occur in the home. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health estimates over 400 deaths per year occur on job sites as a result of electrical contact. Tragically, many such deaths could have been prevented by simply following proper hazard recognition and prevention procedures. For example, a common type of injury on the job site involves power line contact. Products that are regularly involved in power line contacts are cranes, bucket trucks, drill rigs, forklifts, man lifts and other aerial lifts. There have been insulating devices and various types of warning devices available to manufacturers and distributors of these products for many years. Sadly, most product manufacturers choose not to equip their products with these important safety devices.

You can prevent yourself from becoming a statistic, at home or at work, by following these simple precautionary measures:
Do not overloading outlets and extension cords
Examine electrical cords to make sure they are not damaged
Do not exceed the recommended wattage limits on light fixtures
Consider the installation of ground fault circuit interrupters
Test smoke detectors annually
Carefully follow safety precautions and manufacturer's instructions on all products
Lawsuits involving electrical injuries are usually based on serious shocks, electrical fires, even electrocutions caused by negligent maintenance and defective equipment. Often the defendants include equipment manufacturers, construction entities, and utility companies.

If you, or a loved one, have been the victim of an electrical accident that you believe was caused by someone else?s negligence, you may be able to obtain compensation for your medical and rehabilitation costs, as well as lost wages. Litigation is often the only way to ensure that you receive the compensation that you are entitled to. Please contact XXXXXX attorneys immediately regarding your injuries. We will make arrangements for your medical bills to be paid out of any future settlement, which will allow you to focus on your recovery instead of your medical bills.

The most often asked question regarding personal injury lawsuits is, ?What is the value of my claim?? This is dependent on a variety of factors; such as previous verdicts, cost of medical bills, type of injury, disability rating given to you by your physician, liability of the person who injured you and the amount of your lost wages.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

I'm not even gonna read it.

If you want to go around making your own laws and trying to inflict them on innocent upstanding people you go right ahead. I only hope that you wont be allowed to do it from a position of any form of authority..
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

Originally posted by johnsonl:

International Mechanical Code (IMC)

IMC 202 Definitions: Air Conditioning, Equipment, Ventilation

IMC 301.7 Electrical

IMC 310.11 Repair

IMC 306.5 Equipment and appliances on roofs or elevated structures

IMC 306.6 Sloped roofs
30.17 refers you to the ICC electrical code, which does not address this question.

There is no 310.11.

306.5 talks about gaurdrails and ladders, not receptacles.

306.6 says you need a level platform, not a receptacle.

If, by 310.11, you meant 301.11, it address defective equipment...I see no relevence in this section either.

Once again, you haven't a leg to stand on. :(

YOU CANNOT ENFORCE MORE THAN THE CODE! :mad:

[ May 18, 2005, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: ryan_618 ]
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

Originally posted by johnsonl:
In follow up to my original posting, I provide the following as additional support concerning requiring a rooftop outlet to a comercial building that only has mechanical ventilation (i.e ones that have power to them supplied at the rooftop unit), and they are as follows:


8. NEC 440.3 Air-Conditioning and Refigerating Equipment

Please note: NEC 440.3 references NEC 430 (Motors).
You're right about that, it does reference motors..BUT IT DOES NOT REFERENCE 210.63!!!

By the way, 440.1 discusses hermetically sealed motors, which am evaporative cooler does not contain.

I would love to install in your area. I would go over your head faster than you can imagine :)
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

JohnsonL: I think I will be leaving this thread shortly. As can be seen from THIS THREAD it is painfully obvious that when you are wrong you won't argue logically, you won't answer direct questions, and you suddenly pick up your toys and go home.

Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps when you are right and the entire rest of the world is wrong that maybe you need to stop and reconsider yourself?
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

Ryan,

Wrong I can be, for I am only human, yet as a human that understands the hazards as a plans examiner, inspector, installer and servicing technician, I am proud that as part of the AHJ for the area that I represent, that the code is taken to the extent that affords the greatest amount of safety, therefore, please choose to leave this thread and with this thought.

If this "code" is Black and White, and there is no amount of interpretation or latitude given to afford the greatest amount of safety for a given circumstance or situation (i.e. installing a GFCI device), then yes, I am guilty of being wrong.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

OK, I don't agree with Johnsonl either, but come on Ryan! Can you really blame the guy for bailing out of a 6 page thread on bonding :D

Steve
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

It is my understanding that as a plans examiner you are reviewing the plans for compliance with all applicable codes. If the requirement for a GFCI receptacle is not in any of those you are wrong in requiring it. IMO, if the building owner wishes to have a design that exceeds the minimum safety standards/requirements it is their responsibility to communicate that information to the engineer doing the work. Someone else then has responsibility to ensure that the additional design requirements are fulfilled, you are ensuring that the design, as submitted, is code compliant.

Diluting the issue with some ambulance chaser lawyer's advertisement does not address the reasons you are requiring the GFCI's. There are lawyers that will represent people who by their own willful negligence were injured. Why, because the company that makes what they used to injure themselves will most likely offer an out of court settlement rather than incur the cost of defending themselves in court and the lawyer pockets an easy 25%.

Tony
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

Taken from the 2005 ROC's:

18-4 Log #552 NEC-P18 Final Action: Accept
( 210.63 )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on National Electrical Code?
Comment on Proposal No: 2-248
Recommendation: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee
that this proposal be forwarded to Code-Making Panel 18 for action in Article
406. This action will be considered by Code-Making Panel 18 as a public
comment.
Substantiation: This is a direction from the National Electrical Code
Technical Correlating Committee in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the
Regulations Governing Committee Projects.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
The panel accepts the direction of the TCC on this comment, and has considered
Proposal 2 248. The panel rejects Proposal 2 248.
Panel Statement: The panel intends that outdoor receptacles for this application
be protected with a ?while in use cover.? No technical substantiation was
presented to the contrary.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
________________________________________________________________
2-141 Log #163 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
( 210.63 )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: David Shapiro, Safety First Electrical Contracting, Consulting,
and Safety Education
Comment on Proposal No: 2-250
Recommendation: Reject.
Substantiation: I can testify that the use of battery-powered tools is not the
norm where I work, and that when thereʼs no power handy an extension cord
gets dragged over. Provide a receptacle. If thereʼs absolutely no power to be
had, a generator may be brought in for a big job.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel reaffirms its position that power is not a necessity
to service evaporative coolers. The submitter has not substantiated that
the revision results in a hazard.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2
Explanation of Negative:
KING: This Comment should have been accepted. I disagree with the panel
statement. There are many incidents where power would be needed to service
this type of equipment. I agree with Mr. Weberʼs Explanation of Negative
for Proposal 2-50. Panel 2 should have considered the remote location of the
equipment and not assumed that all service work on the equipment would be
done with battery powered tools. Persons servicing this type of equipment
are at a greater risk of electric shock or electrocution as a result of this panel
action.
WEBER: As I voted against the panel action to accept in principle on the
original proposal , I would also agree with the commentor and the statement in
the substantiation as being a valid concern. It is in my opinion better to provide
a readily accessible GFCI receptacle at that location, which may be used for
other types of maintenance work or projects; than to not have anything at all
and the supposed use of only battery powered tools appears to be ajob preference
issue as to what a home owner or contractor may have available and put
into use.

Whatever the "intent" was, the fact remains that it is not a requirement.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I don't see that anyone is arguing that this requirement would be a bad idea; they're just upset about the method you are using and the fact you are forcing this without anything showing that it's a requirement. It's no different in my mind than a policeman pulling me over for doing 40mph in a 45 mph zone because he believes that 40 is too fast.

The proposal form is available for 2008 & needs to be submitted by November, I believe.

Either that or make it a requirement in your particular area through city or state.

The third option is to have the owner specify this requirement in the specs.

I'm sure you are aware of all this so I don't understand what it is you're trying to accomplish on this forum. Use the processes available if you feel this strongly about the matter.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

Johnsonl, this isn't an issue of interpretaion, you are wrong period.

A healthy responce to this revelation would be to acknowledge where you had misunderstandings and learn how to correctly view the subject.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

U.S. Department of Labor
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
www.osha.gov MyOSHA [skip navigational links] Search Advanced Search | A-Z Index

Search Results
Accident Report Detail [Find It! in DOL]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to Result Page

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accident: 171011034 - Electric Shock - Possible Ground Fault In Electric Cord


Accident: 171011034 -- Report ID: 0950631 -- Event Date: 08/15/2000

Inspection Open Date SIC Establishment Name
119890564 08/17/2000 1799 Saunders Construction Inc

A 24-year-old employee was electrocuted when he plugged a 120-volt light into an extension cord set.

Keywords: electrical, electrocuted, ground fault, cord set, attachment plug, cord connector, electric cord, e gi vii

End Use Proj Type Proj Cost Stories NonBldgHt Fatality
Commercial building Alteration or rehabilitation Under $50,000 1 20 X

Inspection Age Sex Degree Nature Occupation Construction
1 119890564 24 M Fatality Electric Shock Occupation not reported FallDist:
FallHt:
Cause: Other Activities-Installing Ornamental And Archite
FatCause: Electric shock, other and unknown cause
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

An unhealthy responce would be to offer irrelevant excuses.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

NEC SCHEDULE FOR 2008
Date Weeks between Event
each event
_____________________________________________________________________________
Nov. 4, 2005 -- Receipt of Proposals
Jan. 9-21, 2006 9 (-1) Code-Making Panel Meetings (ROP)
Jan. 27, 2006 1 Mail Ballots to CMPs
Feb. 24, 2006 4 Receipt of Ballots
April 24-28, 2006 8 (-1) Correlating Committee Meeting
June 4-9, 2006 -- NFPA Annual Meeting ? To be Determined
June 16, 2006 7 (+1) NEC-ROP to Printer
July 14, 2006 4 NEC-ROP to Mailing House
Oct. 20, 2006 14 Closing Date for Comments
Nov. 28- Dec. 9, 2006 5 Code-Making Panel Meetings (ROC)
Dec. 15, 2006 1 Mail Ballots to CMPs
Jan. 9, 2007 3 Receipt of Ballots
Feb. 19- 23, 2007 5 Correlating Committee Meeting
March 2, 2007 1 NEC-ROC to Printer
March 23, 2007 3 NEC-ROC to Mailing House
May 4, 2007 6 Intent to Make Motion (ITMAM)
May 18, 2007 2 Posting of ITMAMs
June 3-7, 2007 2 NFPA Annual Meeting ? To be Determined
July 2007 Standards Council Issuance
Sept. 2007 Release of 2008 NEC
Rev 3/18/04

Save your statistics for this committee ;)

Get your proposal form here!
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

I appreciate everyone's input and the efforts and thoughts that are put forth concerning this thread.

NEC Article 100 does not define ?Air Conditioning?, and Article 440 does not as well, but the International Mechanical Code does.

If you apply NEC?s Article 100?s Scope, you may find that other references are used for defined terms (i.e. International Mechanical Code and others) and it can be ?reasonably? argued that ?Ventilation? or ?Exhaust? equipment is part of the air conditioning system.

Since I have been aware of this discrepancy or lack of consistency in the usage of terms between the NEC and IMC, I have insured that if the circumstance warrants that these outlets are included in the Construction Documents so there is no surprises for the installer.

Mr. Holt?s forum is a wonderful place to exercise the mind and to receive feedback from colleagues and others, and I take no offence and I will argue for both sides when necessary, but if I can afford to provide the most safe installation (this includes accommodations for upkeep and repair), it always helps to have the Code?s minimum standards to substantiate it.

With Thanks,

Larry
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

I hear your argument for safety, including the use of extension cords and gfi protection while servicing.
However, this code rule is specific.
I suggest a code change submittal is in order.

I am not arguing your reasoning for wanting it, I just don't see a code reason to enforce it.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

johnsonl,

Why then do YOU limit this to commercial buildings only? Is it safer to be a residential Service Tech.? These are probably the people getting hurt. On comm. rooftops,sometimes there are 20-30 GFCI recpts.,I don't think any "makeshift" wiring will be happening there,on the other hand,at a house there isn't any recpts. on the roof!!

frank
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

Frank,

As you have read, I have received an almost complete consensus that my interpretation of 210.63 concerning GFCI outlets to be added to ?Ventilation? or ?Exhaust? systems that have available power (i.e. penetrations already through the roof for the electrical branch conductors supplying the equipment or appliance) is incorrect because these systems are not considered ?Air Conditioning? ?Equipment? (Note; ?Air Conditioning? is not a defined term in the National Electrical Code, but it is in other references that the NEC ?Code? directs to refer to in Article 100?s Scope).

The International Mechanical Code does define ?Air Conditioning? its system components and its definition of ?Appliance? and ?Equipment? is in accord with the NEC, and as I have tried to present throughout this thread, ?Air Conditioning?, is not a defined term in the NEC.

As a Plans Examiner/Inspector (MEP and Fire) and Employee of a School Board, I am fortunate to be involved in developing the School?s Construction Project Specifications, and the NEC, other codes, references, standards and rules are applied to these Project Specifications.

At times, where the ?codes? do not present clear definitions, and there is any doubt concerning the application of the NEC, other codes, references, standards and rules, research by myself and others in my jurisdiction (to include the Architect and Engineers), is conducted, and upon completion of our research, we include into the Project?s Specifications the most stringent/greater safety rulings or interpretations and also include as many other safety features that are provided to our planning committee by the actual ?Service Technicians? that will be servicing the equipment and maintaining the structure.

I appreciate you comment, and if I were the Plans Examiner for this hypothetical ?house? I would insure the required outlet as specified by 210.52 (E) is in place, and I would direct a question to my Building Official if 210.63 would apply, for based upon research, the NEC does not define ?Air Conditioning?, but the International Mechanical Code does, and they are in conflict.
He or she would then ask what was my research findings, and I would present them, and then I would be asked what I thought and I would say, ? If there is any doubt concerning an application of a code, reference, standard or rule, then my stance is to take the one that that affords the greatest safety to the installer, the user and servicing technician that may have to install, use or service the equipment or appliance? .

With Thanks,
Larry


(Quote)

2-141 Log #163 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
( 210.63 )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: David Shapiro, Safety First Electrical Contracting, Consulting,
and Safety Education
Comment on Proposal No: 2-250
Recommendation: Reject.
Substantiation: I can testify that the use of battery-powered tools is not the
norm where I work, and that when thereʼs no power handy an extension cord
gets dragged over. Provide a receptacle. If thereʼs absolutely no power to be
had, a generator may be brought in for a big job.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel reaffirms its position that power is not a necessity
to service evaporative coolers. The submitter has not substantiated that
the revision results in a hazard.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2
Explanation of Negative:
KING: This Comment should have been accepted. I disagree with the panel
statement. There are many incidents where power would be needed to service
this type of equipment. I agree with Mr. Weberʼs Explanation of Negative
for Proposal 2-50. Panel 2 should have considered the remote location of the
equipment and not assumed that all service work on the equipment would be
done with battery powered tools. Persons servicing this type of equipment
are at a greater risk of electric shock or electrocution as a result of this panel
action.
WEBER: As I voted against the panel action to accept in principle on the
original proposal , I would also agree with the commentor and the statement in
the substantiation as being a valid concern. It is in my opinion better to provide
a readily accessible GFCI receptacle at that location, which may be used for
other types of maintenance work or projects; than to not have anything at all
and the supposed use of only battery powered tools appears to be ajob preference
issue as to what a home owner or contractor may have available and put
into use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top