Update from Hilton Head, SC- CMP 17

Status
Not open for further replies.

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
FYI-

The CMP 17 created a new Section. They created 422.5 and moved all GFCI requirements currently found for various appliances (water cooler, vending machines, etc) and moved them to one area which looks a lot like (well exactly like 210.8). So the big debate was over the moving of 210.8(D) for dishwashers to Article 422. While I can't say what will happen in the other panel I can tell you that it did make it's way to Article 422...but it did not mandate that the manufacturers of the dishwashers had to incorporate GFCI protection...it was listed as an option only. This basically changed nothing within the requirement as the options will be as follows:


422.5 Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter
(A) General- Appliances identified in 422.5(A)(1) through (7) rated 250 volts or less and 60 amperes or less, single or three phase shall be provided with GFCI protection for personnel.

1) automotive vacuum machines- provided for public use (paraphrased)
2) Boat Hoists
3) Drinking Water Coolers
4) Dwelling unit dishwashers
5) High Pressure Spray Washing Machines - provided for public use (paraphrased)
6) Tire Inflation Machines -provided for public use (paraphrased)
7) Vending Machines

(B) The GFCI shall be readily accessible, listed and label , and permitted to be in one or more of the following locations:

(1) within the branch circuit overcurrent device
(2) A device or outlet within the supply circuit
(3) an integral part of the attachment plug
(4) within the supply cord not more than 12in. from attachment plug
(5) factory installed within the equipment.

Informational note: Multiple GFCI protective devices cab be used to protect the person subject to contact with the appliance, but are not required.

Anyway....thats an update on that one from Hilton Head. SC. .....PEACE BROTHERS !
 
Last edited:

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
nah....I did not bring the clubs on this trip and it has been quite nasty since I have been down here.
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
Another Update - CMP 7 accepted Type TC-ER to be used in One Family Dwellings, outside of a raceway or cable tray, as long as the manufacturers of the Type TC-ER meet the "JP" test that is done on Type NM Cable. While their will be some additional language that is the jist from CMP 7.

Now some work has to be done in UL 1277 to make this all come together nice and pretty but it is beginning to open up and expand the use of Type TC-ER for a specific practice....Generator installations in one family dwellings. The panel voted on it and it was accepted.

Now as I stated UL 1277 will have to do a rewrite to work it into the standard. I am sure that will happen in 2015/16 by the STP.

Note: It is still restricted outside of a raceway or cable tray and so on as before and the Industrial limitations remained.....just relaxed it for a specific application based on a presentation done by Generac at the CMP meeting.

I can smell a PI for 2020 to remove the Industrial Only limitations provisions. They just have to meet the JP tests...
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired) DINOSAUR
I'm surprised the mini-split HVAC lobbyist were not a part of the change on TC in residential push !
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
I'm surprised the mini-split HVAC lobbyist were not a part of the change on TC in residential push !
Yeah...we talked about that down here, we fully expected them to present something to CMP 7 but they did not and never put in a PI so go figure. They should have because the "allowances" were flowing so they might have had a chance. As it stands now the allowance for Type TC-ER is only in single family dwellings and only for Generator applications.

BUT they opened the door........look for 336.10 to be under potential fire next cycle.
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired) DINOSAUR
What do you mean? TC cable , as I understood, is not compliant in single family resi unless it is in a raceway.
If I am reading into it correctly he is saying it is proposed to accept TC-ER without a raceway in only SF residences and only for Generators.

Just my opinion, but that sounds way to "manufacturer oriented" for a Code proposal.
If TC-ER is deemed good enough for a generator install, it should be good enough for any type install.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I agree also.

Wow a new avatar! How long did you have the other one, I think that it precedes me joining this forum. :cool:

You were not around for this one?

Clint-Eastwood.jpg


I had used Clint for a long time.



Here is the new one in full size. :thumbsup:
 

Attachments

  • Brady.jpg
    Brady.jpg
    10.2 KB · Views: 0

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
I do remember Clint, I'm assuming that Avatar had a direct correlation to your personality. :D
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
Dennis,

That was the proposal....nothing within Section 336.10 changed except the provision to permit Type TC-ER that passes the "JP" test to be used specifically for use in a single family dwelling (without a raceway or cable tray) for generator applications only. Everything else remains the same......

Well you can call it manufacturer driven if you wish but I can tell you the vote was not as clear since half of the cable manufacturers voted against it, this was being driven by the generator people and I sat in on the entire debate. It was expressed that it was a specific allowance but clearly some of the cable manufacturers were against it because it goes directly against Section 336.10. It will still have to get through ballot and the vote was kinda close so we will see how it goes in a few weeks.

Also a companion PI asking the exact same question you presented Dennis would have been great at that point.....but it was not presented so they only considered that was on the table and the generac people convinced enough people that it was not a problem for this limited application.

Personally....I can smell the PI's coming for 2020 for Article 336....as I have been asking a long time for us to submit Type TC for a broad use so it looks like it is happening. Our TC Cable has a much more robust jacket/covering than NM Cable so it's uses, where supported exactly like Type NM Cable, should expand over the next cycle as long as it can pass the "JP" tests sufficiently.....and I am sure I will have my share of proposals again next time.
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
Another very close vote was on the removal of the second paragraph in Section 338.10(B)(4) regarding the 60 degree C reduction when installing SE Cables in thermal insulation. The CMP 7 removed this provision with a narrow vote, which still has to survive the balloting stage of course. Again the manufacturers were split on this debate as one company was driving hard about removing it but did not actually provide technical support their position....yet had a strong enough presence at the table and got it pushed through anyway....with a close vote.

The problem was they kept saying that SE Cable is evaluated at 75 Degrees C anyway and that the ampacity for it. However, they never considered the real reason for the reduction, the condition of use was never discussed which I found very interesting. Since I was not at the table (yet or maybe never on this one) no one went into the reasoning as to why it was in the NEC in the first place. They also began to question the reduction for Type NM Cable as well but tests have been done on that in thermal insulation and have shown the reduction is warranted, right now anyway...however, the tests I believe were done before the expanded use of closed cell spray in foam....so more tests are needed.

Anyway just wanted to keep you abreast of the situations that took place....it may or may not survive the ballot stage but was pushed through as a first revision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top