I found these in the May 2004 ROC ,..thought may be someone else might find them worth reading?,.. may be,.. God I hope so,... otherwise I'm just a goon with a strange addiction..
17-157 Log #1884 NEC-P17
Final Action: Reject
( 680.25(B) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter:
Frederic P. Hartwell, Hartwell Electrical Services, Inc.
Comment on Proposal No:
17-109
Recommendation:
The proposal should be accepted.
Substantiation:
The submitter was closely involved with the 2002 rewrite of
Article 680, and this is one of a group of comments intended to bring a common
editorial perspective to the proposals submitted in this cycle that apply to
the various changes that were implemented as part of that process.
The proposal corrects a conflict in the existing language in that the allowance
in 680.25(B)(2) is not adequately correlated with the parent language in
680.25(B), and addresses the fact that 250.32(B)(2) allows for the elimination
of a separate equipment grounding conductor; once the conductor is eliminated
the presence of insulation is academic. The wording in the present NEC reflects
this submitterʼs 2002 Comment 20-10, which intended to convey the concept
of an absent equipment grounding conductor which, if installed, would have to
be insulated from the grounded conductor in accordance with 250.32(B)(1). On
reconsideration, the word ?insulated? introduces confusion and is inappropriate
for this location.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:
The proposed text does not add clarity, and the substantiation
is not convincing.
Number Eligible to Vote:
10
Ballot Results:
Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1
Explanation of Negative:
HUTCHINGS: The submitter is correct. The existing wording is confusing
and contradictory. The proposal should be accepted for the reasons specified in
the submitterʼs substantiation.
________________________________________________________________
17-158 Log #1885 NEC-P17
Final Action: Reject
( 680.25(B)(2) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter:
Frederic P. Hartwell, Hartwell Electrical Services, Inc.
Comment on Proposal No:
17-112
Recommendation:
Reject the proposal.
Substantiation:
The submitter was closely involved with the 2002 rewrite of
Article 680, and this is one of a group of comments intended to bring a common
editorial perspective to the proposals submitted in this cycle that apply to
the various changes that were implemented as part of that process.
The proposal flip-flops this code provision two cycles after CMP 20 looked at
this issue. The substantiation is unlikely at best, since it assumes that somehow
the bonding grid of a pool would become a meaningful path for parallel neutral
currents originating at the pool equipment panelboard. As long as that panelboard
meets 250.32, even 250.32(B), it will be connected to a local grounding
electrode. The genuine safety issue presented by a three-wire distribution
occurs when the swimming pool is connected to a panelboard at the end of a
three-wire feeder in the same building as the service equipment, and therefore
there is no local grounding reference. The result in this case is that as the
voltage to ground rises and falls on the neutral as a function of IZ effects, the
voltage on the bonding grid rises and falls to the same degree because there is
always a connection between the bonding grid and the local equipment grounding
system. That system will, in turn, be bonded to the neutral in the local
panel.
These arrangements do not meet code, but they do commonly exist on existing
systems. This is why 680.25(A) Exception now expressly disallows existing
Type SE cable assemblies unless they have a separate equipment grounding
conductor. And the converse is why, contrary to the proposal substantiation,
CMP 20 revised this rule in 1999 to allow any distribution to a remote building,
even per 250.32(B)(2). In fact, the substantiation for 1999 Proposal 20-
157, which motivated the change in the first place, cited this exact issue in
wiring to a remote building. The submitter recalls debating the merits of this
1999 change in his mind at the time, and finally decided that the panel was
correct, and a pool connected to a regrounded neutral at a second building was
functionally equivalent in hazard to the same pool wired to a service panel in
the first building. Remember that the service panel would be connected to a
regrounded neutral in common with other services on the same street fed from
the same utility transformer secondary. The 2002 rewrite simply carried the
1999 change forward.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:
The intent of identifying 250.32(B)(1) as grounding means
for a second building does not indicate that pool steel is intended as a grounding
electrode system.
Number Eligible to Vote:
10
Ballot Results:
Affirmative: 10
