Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

[joe tedesco]

Here is the present 2008 Revision Cycle Information:

Proposal Closing Date:
11/4/2005

Report on Proposals (ROP) Date:
6/23/2006

Comment Closing Date:
10/20/2006

Report on Comments (ROC) Mailing Date: 2/23/2007

Revised Edition Date: 2007

SUGGESTED PROPOSALS:

1. Get rid of the words "sufficient" and "adequate" throughout the NEC, they violate the NEC Style Manual

2. Put all FPN's in a separate ANNEX. They are not enforceable anyway

3. Change the term "Grounding" and "Grounding Methods" in most Titles of Parts to "Grounding and Bonding Methods", etc., to catch up with the new Article 250 Title

4. Change the word "unless" to except throughout the NEC.

5. Put all Residential requirements in a separate Article, like Article 212.

6. Change NM, NMC, and NMS to NM-B, NMC-B, and NMS-B everywhere in the NEC, currently this is the correct way these products are identified.

7. Add 70E for "Electrical Safety in the Workplace" as a NEW Article 591 - Electrical Safety

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Originally posted by joe tedesco:
1. Get rid of the words "sufficient" and "adequate" throughout the NEC, they violate the NEC Style Manual
I agree with the idea to a point, but I'd imagine you'd need to take the time to do a case by case revision of each occurence.

2. Put all FPN's in a separate ANNEX. They are not enforceable anyway
I strongly disagree with this. FPN's, given their non-enforceable status, have the benefit of the ability to be worded in laymen's terms. This is very helpful to a user of the NEC, when located next to the relevant enforceable text.

3. Change the term "Grounding" and "Grounding Methods" in most Titles of Parts to "Grounding and Bonding Methods", etc., to catch up with the new Article 250 Title
I agree, can we see how you are going to word this proposal? Currently, they are joined at the hip and intermingled fairly strongly. I believe I've also heard TCC or someone is researching how to accomplish this.

4. Change the word "unless" to except throughout the NEC.
Why? I don't believe this would add any clarity to existing text.

Example: 210.52(A)(3) Floor Receptacles. Receptacle outlets in floors shall not be counted as part of the required number of receptacle outlets unless located within 450 mm (18 in.) of the wall.

Would become:

210.52(A)(3) Floor Receptacles. Receptacle outlets in floors shall not be counted as part of the required number of receptacle outlets except when located within 450 mm (18 in.) of the wall.

Why do you think that's clearer?

5. Put all Residential requirements in a separate Article, like Article 212.
I think this would be a monster to execute, and would inflate the page count needlessly. As it stands, if a swimming pool is installed for a dwelling unit, I know to go to 680. As it would be, we'd go to 212 which would likely direct us to 680 anyway.

Distinct "Parts" might be a good idea, IMO.

6. Change NM, NMC, and NMS to NM-B, NMC-B, and NMS-B everywhere in the NEC, currently this is the correct way these products are identified.
I agree.

7. Add 70E for "Electrical Safety in the Workplace" as a NEW Article 591 - Electrical Safety
I haven't seen this document, but it doesn't sound like a terrible idea. I'd wonder were we'd draw the line, however. OSHA reg's? The NEC style manual seems to frown on such practices, given coordination issues.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Joe,
Item #1. What about "neat and workmanlike"? That term also violates the style manual. There are a large number of places in the code where terms listed as "vague and possibly not enforceable" in the style manual are still in use in the NEC.
Item #2. There is important information in the FPNs and if relocated no one would see this information.
Item #7. Work place safety and safe work practices are not within the scope of the NEC.
Don

 

[charlie]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

I agree whole heartedly with Don so I am not going to address items 1, 2, and 7.

3. Change the term "Grounding" and "Grounding Methods" in most Titles of Parts to "Grounding and Bonding Methods", etc., to catch up with the new Article 250 Title

I believe that this is going to take care of itself. Wasn't this held over for a task group to look at and make proposals to the 2008 Code?

4. Change the word "unless" to except throughout the NEC.

You are out in left field on this one, take a look at George's answer.

5. Put all Residential requirements in a separate Article, like Article 212.

That has already been done with the IRC.

6. Change NM, NMC, and NMS to NM-B, NMC-B, and NMS-B everywhere in the NEC, currently this is the correct way these products are identified.

Cable types should be used and not the following letters or numbers to indicate the type of use the cable is listed for.

Joe, instead of trying to get everyone on board to make your proposals have a ground swell, just write up good justification. If you can't get a good justification, then maybe you don't have good proposals to begin with.

 

[kiloamp7]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

joe tedesco -
2. Strongly disagree
4. Is it really worth the trouble?
5. Strongly disagree
7. Strongly disagree

 

[pierre]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Making whole sale changes to the NEC is a daunting task that may and will take more than one cycle.
I think that the changes need to be done so that as one cycle is in progress, the TCC can see how it is affecting the industry... then they may have a better chance with some of the other sweeping changes being discussed.

There is a document for dwellings already, it is

NFPA 70A National Electrical Code Requirements for One-and Two-Family Dwellings

Sufficient and adequate both need to be changed, before they are changed, each item needs careful attention as to the change.

I also think the FPNs need to stay, but some can be eliminated, such as in 760, 725, and chapter 8 where they are repeated so often.

70E does not belong in the NEC. Maybe they can package it for those who will be willing to read another document that will take some time to learn.

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Thanks for all your comments and your opinions too, and remember that these suggestions were only my opinion based upon what I believe to be in need of change in a document that continues to generate questions that take volumes to explain.

"Sufficiently" and "Adequate" are words used almost 150 times each in the 2005 NEC, and they are meaningless and would have no positive interpretation by anyone. The Lawyers will agree I am sure.

I also think that the term "unless" is defined as "except" in the dictionary, and should be changed to an "Exception" with the words that follow.

The IRC? I am talking about the NEC.

The FPN's calling attention to other standards are fine, but if a FPN is necessary then the rule should be cleared up.

The NEC is the one standard using this method of explanatory material.

Standard. A document, the main text of which contains only mandatory provisions using the word ?shall? to indicate requirements and which is in a form generally suitable for mandatory reference by another standard or code or for adoption into law.

Non mandatory provisions shall be located in an appendix, footnote, or fine-print note and are not to be considered a part of the requirements of a standard.

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Without much thought, I wouldn't be opposed to a page of all of the F.P.Notes listed.

Where the FPN's are now it could say 'See FPN #(xx), annex xxx'
But then again, I don't have a problem with where they are now.

Also, why not split 'Grounding' and 'Bonding' into their own articles? They perform different functions.
I don't know how that could be accomplished, though. More thought needed...

 

[pierre]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Hello Joe

You said:
"The FPN's calling attention to other standards are fine, but if a FPN is necessary then the rule should be cleared up."


Some of the FPNs give info for areas where some who read these requirements may be new to the topic and could use the explanation.


Here is an example:

517.11 General Installation ? Construction Criteria. It is the purpose of this article to specify the installation criteria and wiring methods that minimize electrical hazards
by the maintenance of adequately low potential differences only between exposed conductive surfaces that are likely to become energized and could be contacted by a patient.

FPN: In a health care facility, it is difficult to prevent the occurrence of a conductive or capacitive path from the patient?s body to some grounded object, because that path may be established accidentally or through nstrumentation directly connected to the patient. Other electrically conductive surfaces that may make an additional contact with the patient, or instruments that may be connected to the patient,
then become possible sources of electric currents that can traverse the patient?s body. The hazard is increased as more apparatus is associated with the patient, and, therefore, more intensive precautions are needed. Control of electric
shock hazard requires the limitation of electric current that might flow in an electric circuit involving the patient?s body by raising the resistance of the conductive circuit that
includes the patient, or by insulating exposed surfaces that might become energized, in addition to reducing the potential difference that can appear between exposed conductive surfaces in the patient vicinity, or by combinations of these
methods. A special problem is presented by the patient with an externalized direct conductive path to the heart muscle. The patient may be electrocuted at current levels so low that additional protection in the design of appliances, insulation of the catheter, and control of medical practice is required.

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Thanks again for your personal opinions and comments.

Pierre, the information you describe in the FPN to the 517 rule, should be in the handbook.

I would also recommend that the Annex C Tables, for each conduit and tubing, be included in each of their articles. Annex C is not used when mixed sizes are installed. Using Table 5 is mandatory for that purpose.

Having to use a computer generated Table to determine the maximum fill that "is not a part of the code" per the mandatory Chapter 9, Table 1 fill conditions, is always an interesting discussion, especially when we ask: "what are the maximum number of 14 AWG's that are allowed in a raceway" -- 608 to be exact. 2005 Proposals

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

The state of Utah adopts the IRC as a stand alone code for dwelling units, with the exception that if there is a discrepency between it and the NEC, the NEC prevails. The reason that I mention this is that I have used the IRC rather a lot, and it is nearly impossible, in my opinion, to lump all of the residential requirememtns into one document, or even one code article. There are too many instances where there is something strange, and you have to revert back to the NEC.

Think about it...there is much more than just the requirements in article 210. Many houses around here have seperatley derived systems. Do you want all of the rules for generators, fuel cells, photovoltaics, etc, to be repeated? I agree with the people above, this would be much too great a task and an uneeded increase in pages.

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Ryan:

Buy NFPA 70A instead and glue it to the NEC and pay another $50.00 or so. Why was the IRC necessary anyway?

NFPA 70A: Electrical Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Mobile Homes

Document Scope:

Covers electric conductors and equipment installed within or on public and private buildings or other structures, including mobile homes and recreational vehicles and other premises such as yards, carnivals, parks and other lots and industrial substations; conductors that connect the installations to a supply of electricity; and other outside conductors on the premises.

Additional Information about this document:

NOTE: NFPA 70A is an excerpt of NFPA 70.
Please see NFPA 70 for more information

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Originally posted by joe tedesco:
Ryan:

Why was the IRC necessary anyway?

The IRC governs the building, mechanical, plumbing, energy conservation, fuel and electrical provisions for one and two family dwellings. It is easier to have all of these rules in one place, instead of in 6 different books.

 

[charlie]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Joe, you already know how all this works, instead of trying to get everyone else to do your work, just do it yourself. You know that there are other standards such as the IRC (at least I thought you knew) that have the electrical Code included. Trying to get them combined is foolish.

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Originally posted by charlie:
Joe, you already know how all this works, instead of trying to get everyone else to do your work, just do it yourself. You know that there are other standards such as the IRC (at least I thought you knew) that have the electrical Code included. Trying to get them combined is foolish.

Yes, I already know how the system works, and me trying to get what combined?