RV site requirements

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sahib

Sahib

Senior Member
Location
India
GoldDigger said:
An RV is a workplace? What happened to "recreation"?
And shortly after the hazard comes into being it will be removed by the OCPD, right?
How can you remove a dangerous touch voltage before it happens?
Click to expand...
Answer to question 1:
RV may not be a workplace; but the place surrounding a power outlet to the RV is.
Answer to question 2:
Right.
Answer to question 3:
Further Electrical Design to reduce touch voltage within permissible limits if not already by following the Code only.:)
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Sahib said:
Gentle men:
You better look at the issue from the viewpoint of a relevant Federal law, in addition to NEC, which states any hazard such as a dangerous touch voltage in a work place shall be removed. So the design should be such that the touch voltage resulting from a ground fault in a RV is within permissible limit even during the operation of OCPD to clear it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should stay silent about things you have little knowledge about.
 
Sahib

Sahib

Senior Member
Location
India
GoldDigger:
Sorry for the misunderstanding caused. I missed adding 'site' to 'RV' and it should be:
Sahib said:
Gentle men:
You better look at the issue from the viewpoint of a relevant Federal law, in addition to NEC, which states any hazard such as a dangerous touch voltage in a work place shall be removed. So the design should be such that the touch voltage resulting from a ground fault in a RV site is within permissible limit even during the operation of OCPD to clear it.
Click to expand...
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Sahib said:
Gentle men:
You better look at the issue from the viewpoint of a relevant Federal law, in addition to NEC, which states any hazard such as a dangerous touch voltage in a work place shall be removed. So the design should be such that the touch voltage resulting from a ground fault in a RV is within permissible limit even during the operation of OCPD to clear it.
Click to expand...
So you are saying we must install an equipotential grid for the complete campsite.

A ground rod only reduces the touch voltage under fault conditions to a safe level if you are touching the earth very close to the ground rod.
 
Sahib

Sahib

Senior Member
Location
India
don_resqcapt19 said:
So you are saying we must install an equipotential grid for the complete campsite.
Click to expand...
No. The adherence to Code may be sufficient to bring down the touch voltage to safe limit for the time an OCPD operates during a ground fault. A GFCI may disconnect the faulty circuit at low enough and fast enough time so that the touch voltage is not a hazard. Only the cases where there is no such GFCI protection or prolonged operating time of the OCPD so that there is a possibility of dangerous touch voltage despite adherence to Code need further analysis to eliminate that hazard.
don_resqcapt19 said:
A ground rod only reduces the touch voltage under fault conditions to a safe level if you are touching the earth very close to the ground rod.
Click to expand...
To improve that, an equipotential grid is provided. Correct?
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Sahib said:
110.3(a)
Click to expand...


No, it is not a violation of 110.3(A).

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.

(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:

(1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this Code

FPN: Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to identify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling.

(2) Mechanical strength and durability, including, for parts designed to enclose and protect other equipment, the adequacy of the protection thus provided

(3) Wire-bending and connection space

(4) Electrical insulation

(5) Heating effects under normal conditions of use and also under abnormal conditions likely to arise in service

(6) Arcing effects

(7) Classification by type, size, voltage, current capacity, and specific use

(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguard-ing of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment
Click to expand...

That section is about the type equipment used, not wiring methods.
 
Sahib

Sahib

Senior Member
Location
India
Use of equipment (receptacle) without GFCI here could be a hazard violating 110.3(a) and Federal Law.
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Sahib said:
No. The adherence to Code may be sufficient to bring down the touch voltage to safe limit for the time an OCPD operates during a ground fault.
Click to expand...
The rules in the code do not result in a safe touch voltage under fault conditions, unless you happen to be standing on over very close to the grounding electrode.
A GFCI may disconnect the faulty circuit at low enough and fast enough time so that the touch voltage is not a hazard.
Click to expand...
The design of campground feeder circuits, would almost always preclude the use of a GFCI. The normal leakage current of the underground conductors would, in most cases, exceed the design trip current of a GFCI.
Only the cases where there is no such GFCI protection or prolonged operating time of the OCPD so that there is a possibility of dangerous touch voltage despite adherence to Code need further analysis to eliminate that hazard.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the code requires that.

To improve that, an equipotential grid is provided. Correct?
Click to expand...
Yes, but cost prohibitive and not required by the code.
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Sahib said:
Use of equipment (receptacle) without GFCI here could be a hazard violating 110.3(a) and Federal Law.
Click to expand...

Things don't become a fact just because you keep repeating them.

110.3(A) applies to the use of equipment, it does not apply here. There is a GFCI on the standard 125 volt outlet on the pedestal. There is not a GFCI on the larger outlets, not required and would be a problem.

If you are thinking of a GFCI on the feeder to the pedestal you clearly don't understand how a campground is wired.

You keep saying federal law, quote or link to this law so we can look at it.
 
cuba_pete

cuba_pete

Senior Member
Location
Washington State
jumper said:
Maybe... work on a DoD project that mandates NEC compliance and it could be.;)
Click to expand...

Not quite the case. Rules and regulations under the FAR which require the use of local and state code for contracts are in there, but they are not under the umbrella of a Federal Law(2).jpg .

As a matter of fact, the BOSC (base on-site support contractor, a.k.a., public works) is not required to have licensed electricians to do work...unless in the rare case it is written into the original contract or made as an extension under an exercised option (which is highly unlikely).

The Supremacy Clause (which is in the U.S. Constitution) allows all of these shenanigans to take place. This would be article VI of the U.S. Constitution and is practiced as the Doctrine of Preemption under US Code.

I've been working electrical for the federal government for nearly 30 years and that's how it is.
 
cuba_pete

cuba_pete

Senior Member
Location
Washington State
iwire said:
That's really pretty Pete but I don't recall anyone saying the NEC is a federal law. ;)
Click to expand...

Saying that electrical work done poorly and not according to the code is a violation of federal law is kind of like saying that.

Re: Sahib: Use of equipment (receptacle) without GFCI here could be a hazard violating 110.3(a) and Federal Law.

...A lot like saying it in my interpretation...

Given though, that shoddy non-code-compliant-work which resulted in injury and/or death could go to a Federal court...but that would be highly unlikely.
 
cuba_pete

cuba_pete

Senior Member
Location
Washington State
Not all inclusive and hard to prove in a court of law when the rule doesn't even exist under OSHA.

The OSHA electrical standards were based on the National Fire Protection Association's standard NFPA 70E, and the NFPA 70 Committee derived Part I of their document from the 1978 edition of the NEC. The standards extracted from the NEC were those considered to most directly apply to employee safety and least likely to change with each new edition of the NEC. OSHA's electrical standards are performance oriented; therefore they contain few direct references to the NEC. However, the NEC contains specific information as to how the required performance can be obtained.

And the NEC is implemented by the states, if at all. i.e., not necessarily Federal Law (I'll forego the embellishment).

re: OHSA (sic): OSHA



















 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top