What code section do you find absolutely ridiculous?

[kwired]

Here's another one that takes the cake:

IF I have a branch circuit with #6 conductors on a 60 Amp breaker, then I need a #10 EGC.

Take that same circuit, but put it on a 20 Amp breaker, and now I need a #6 EGC??!?

Totally insane!!

I understand and agree with the reasoning for that section that requires that, but think your example is a kind of side effect not taken into consideration when writing that section, yet they have had a chance to correct it but have not done so.

 

[Pharon]

Does there not arise a hazard if there is a cascading of overcurrent devices that protect life safety systems?

Not a hazard that leads to a shock, fire, or explosion. If it's a life safety concern about people fumbling around in the dark (still a solution in search of a problem in this case, IMHO), it should be addressed in NFPA 101 or 110.

What does determining minimum conductor size (doesn't matter if a service, feeder, branch circuit..) have much to do with the safety of an installer or maintenance person, it is more likely to be a hazard to the end user if not done correctly, or not to follow minimum receptacle placement requirements in a dwelling?

Well, a conductor too small to handle the current passed through it would lead to a fire, would it not? I'd say that section qualifies. As for receptacle placements, I agree that it's a design issue and should reference the IRC. I'm thinking that the reason it was put there is because most electrical layouts in dwellings aren't designed by electrical engineers, and it was the easiest place to put it at the time. But I don't think that's the case any longer.

Here's another one that takes the cake:

IF I have a branch circuit with #6 conductors on a 60 Amp breaker, then I need a #10 EGC.

Take that same circuit, but put it on a 20 Amp breaker, and now I need a #6 EGC??!?

Totally insane!!

You lost me. Where are you getting this from? Table 250-122 says that a 20A OCPD only needs a #12 EGC (Cu).

 

[kwired]

Well, a conductor too small to handle the current passed through it would lead to a fire, would it not? I'd say that section qualifies. As for receptacle placements, I agree that it's a design issue and should reference the IRC. I'm thinking that the reason it was put there is because most electrical layouts in dwellings aren't designed by electrical engineers, and it was the easiest place to put it at the time. But I don't think that's the case any longer.

But it doesn't create as much hazard to the installer or maintenance man, mostly presents a hazard to the user. This was a response to what you had earlier said, " The purpose of the NEC is to provide direction to minimize the risk of electrical shock and fires/explosions centered around installation and maintenance."

You lost me. Where are you getting this from? Table 250-122 says that a 20A OCPD only needs a #12 EGC (Cu).

Read 250.122(B).

If the ungrounded conductors are increased in size, say for voltage drop reasons, then the equipment grounding conductor must be increased proportionally. So we have what could normally be an ungrounded 12 AWG and increase it to 6AWG. Equal proportion increase of the minimum 12AWG EGC would mean it also must be 6AWG.

 

[Pharon]

But it doesn't create as much hazard to the installer or maintenance man, mostly presents a hazard to the user. This was a response to what you had earlier said, " The purpose of the NEC is to provide direction to minimize the risk of electrical shock and fires/explosions centered around installation and maintenance."

Yeah, I worded that poorly I guess. Obviously the highest priority of any electrician is to install a system that won't burn down or explode, at any time. I didn't mean to imply that such a hazard is only important during installation or when they get called in to replace a light switch.

Read 250.122(B).

If the ungrounded conductors are increased in size, say for voltage drop reasons, then the equipment grounding conductor must be increased proportionally. So we have what could normally be an ungrounded 12 AWG and increase it to 6AWG. Equal proportion increase of the minimum 12AWG EGC would mean it also must be 6AWG.

Ah, thanks. I think that could be defined better. To upsize an ECG because the ungrounded conductors were upsized for voltage drop or derating makes sense. But if you just happen to have #6 conductors where #12 would be just fine in their place, I don't see any reason to upsize the EGC.

 

[iwire]

You guys are nuts.

All code the code sections are perfect, they are as precious as little children and you should all be ashamed of yourselves for questioning any of them.

 

[kwired]

You guys are nuts.

All code the code sections are perfect, they are as precious as little children and you should all be ashamed of yourselves for questioning any of them.

How many children do you have?

I once shook my family tree and a bunch of nuts fell out of it:lol:

 

[Maders]

You don't suppose the manufacturers had any input on this one do you ?

Probably, just a bit.

I believe that this requirement was originally intended to apply to all patient care areas. For some reason it now only applies to nursing homes.

Betcha those illuminated receptacles have a decent price tag.

They aren't cheap!

 

[augie47]

Probably, just a bit.

I believe that this requirement was originally intended to apply to all patient care areas. For some reason it now only applies to nursing homes.


They aren't cheap!

I did not catch the "nursing home" part. That may have been a revision after I first saw the proposal.
With me being just a step away from living in one.... it may make more sense for that application. Ask any of my contractors and they will say "that ole fart can't see"

 

[raider1]

It may be splitting hairs, but a local disconnect switch which de-energizes a piece of equipment and clearly makes it safe is a whole lot different than a maintenance mode switch on the trip unit of a circuit breaker. The function of the latter will not necessarily be apparent or understood by even by a qualified operator.

The definition of qualified person would require the person who would work on the equipment while energized to be familiar with the operation of the maintenance switch or else they would not be a "qualified person".

Qualified Person. One who has skills and knowledge related
to the construction and operation of the electrical
equipment and installations and has received safety training
to recognize and avoid the hazards involved.

I am not sure that is the case. The way I read the new requirements, 240.87 requires arc-energy mitigation on all circuit breakers 1200A and larger, regardless of instantaneous trip functionality or arc-flash hazard.

"Where the highest continuous current trip setting for which the
actual overcurrent device installed in a circuit breaker is rated
or can be adjusted is 1200 A or higher, 240.87(A) and (B) shall
apply."

Am I missing something?

I agree that it is not real clear but 240.87 (B)(5) can be used to say that an instantaneous trip function set at or below the available fault current would be an approved means of reducing arc energy.

Here is Robert Kauer's comment on 240.87 from the 2014 ROC's.

KAUER, R.: C
ode Panel 10 did not make it clear that the instantaneous break
er should be accepted as a means to
mitigate arc flash energy. If the instantaneous function is per
mitted as an alternative means to mitigate the arc energy,
than it should have been added to the list of solutions.
Because it is not spelled out in the code language, the authori
ty having jurisdiction in one
part of the country may accept
the instantaneous function as an alternative method and an insp
ector in another part may not. I don't believe that the
way it is written now, that we have good code language that is
enforceable. I know that it does not say that
instantaneous function cannot be used but it does not say that
it can.

This statement was intended to show that an instantaneous trip function would be an example of another approved means.

Chris

 

[Pharon]

The 2014 Handbook language also implies that breakers with instantaneous capability don't apply to this section:

Where a circuit-breaker trip unit does not provide the capability for an instantaneous response to a short circuit, 240.87 requires that (1) the location of the device in the electrical system be documented, and (2) a means be provided in the system to limit the energy that personnel may be exposed to while working on energized equipment.

However, that explanation is unenforceable and I share Mr. Kauer's concerns about various AHJ's interpreting 240.87(B)(5) differently. Perhaps this language should be made clearer in the next edition.

 

[roger]

But if you just happen to have #6 conductors where #12 would be just fine in their place, I don't see any reason to upsize the EGC.

I think most here agree but, without an exception to the rule it is what it is.

Roger

 

[Pharon]

Which is why I prefaced that comment with:

I think that could be defined better.

 

[raider1]

The 2014 Handbook language also implies that breakers with instantaneous capability don't apply to this section:


However, that explanation is unenforceable and I share Mr. Kauer's concerns about various AHJ's interpreting 240.87(B)(5) differently. Perhaps this language should be made clearer in the next edition.

I am the alternate to Robert Kauer on CMP 10. We both had the same issue and that is why we wrote that explanation.

I am working to fix this issue for the 2017 code.

Chris

 

[Maders]

The definition of qualified person would require the person who would work on the equipment while energized to be familiar with the operation of the maintenance switch or else they would not be a "qualified person".

Understood, however my point is that no matter how qualified the operator is, activation of maitence mode in and of itself does not give any apparent indication of the actual level of reduction of arc-energy.

I agree that it is not real clear but 240.87 (B)(5) can be used to say that an instantaneous trip function set at or below the available fault current would be an approved means of reducing arc energy.

Here is Robert Kauer's comment on 240.87 from the 2014 ROC's.



This statement was intended to show that an instantaneous trip function would be an example of another approved means.

Chris

Thank you for posting this. Mr. Kauer and your comments make perfect sense. Unfortunately, some manufacturers are already promoting 240.87 to require arc-flash reduction mode, ZSI or differential protection on all circuit breakers 1200A and larger. Clearly stating that 'instantaneous function' is an acceptable method would allow the use of molded-case and insulated case circuit breakers. (And would get 240.87 stricken from my ridiculous list.)

 

[darekelec]

What bothers me about code the most is bureaucratic language. I am not english native speaker but still find the language of the code meant more for attorneys rather than guys with staple guns. Why can't be more for humans? Do this not that because of that, picture, example and next article. Just as Mike does it in his textbooks.

 

[sparkyrick]

Codes I feel need the boot or changed?

210.63 needs to be changed to at least 50', maybe even 75'. What HVAC contractor only carries a 25' extension cord?

210.4(B) needs to go. Drives me crazy when I start a new project and the plan has circuits in one room scattered all over the panel. Extra neutrals/larger conduits cost extra money.

210.8(B)(5)...There should be an exception for a refrigerator receptacle within 6' of a sink requiring GFCI protection. Perhaps a single outlet for that situation would work?

422.51 should have an exception for receptacles installed inside say a lunch room (not outdoors) for vending machines.

Get rid of the Zone classifications for hazardous areas altogether.

Luminaire???? Did we really need to rename a light fixture?


My biggest pet peeve....Roof Top Units not having a built-in disconnect :rant: Some manufactures offer it as an option, just make it a rule that they need to have the disconnect built in!

IMO, ALL HVAC equipment should have a built-in disconnect. Finding space on these mini-split systems, or a small air conditioner installed on the middle of a commercial roof with no wall nearby to mount a disconnect drives me nuts!



End of code rant

 

[kwired]

What bothers me about code the most is bureaucratic language. I am not english native speaker but still find the language of the code meant more for attorneys rather than guys with staple guns. Why can't be more for humans? Do this not that because of that, picture, example and next article. Just as Mike does it in his textbooks.

You ever read a document prepared by an attorney? NEC may have some difficult parts to understand, but is not as hard to understand as most legal documents. Now if you don't understand electricity, it will be harder to understand, but it is not intended for use by non electrical professionals.

 

[480sparky]

What bothers me about code the most is bureaucratic language. I am not english native speaker but still find the language of the code meant more for attorneys rather than guys with staple guns. Why can't be more for humans? Do this not that because of that, picture, example and next article. Just as Mike does it in his textbooks.

Because when an AHJ adopts the NEC, it becomes a legal document. One that must stand up in court if need be (and I'm sure it's been drug into many a court case!).

 

[darekelec]

Definitely learning process for apprentices is very difficult because of the legalistic BS. But we would not be here now because Mike Holt would be working somewhere else rather than explaining what the code says.
Sure it's easy for you guys after 10-20 years. It's easier for me after a couple ....but make a test and pass original text to a helper....
I started from nec handbook and it was much easier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

Definitely learning process for apprentices is very difficult because of the legalistic BS. But we would not be here now because Mike Holt would be working somewhere else rather than explaining what the code says.
Sure it's easy for you guys after 10-20 years. It's easier for me after a couple ....but make a test and pass original text to a helper....
I started from nec handbook and it was much easier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm going to say the hardest part is learning the terminology and maybe adjusting to the NEC "style". But that is kind of a part of learning any trade. NEC has it's own "style", with all the slang you will find in the trade and how it differs from one region to another there is no way NEC can not be written without including it's own definitions and other rules and be consistent with them in the content. If anything you would have to order a version written for the area where you live or work, an that could get more confusing unless people never moved or worked outside a specific area.

A couple simple examples: in the field many people call them "wires" NEC almost never uses the term "wire" instead uses the term "conductor" - which it does define in art 100. I think the term wire may be used in some instances to clarify exactly what style of conductor is being referred to like "a conductor of the wire type"

The term "raceway" is another common example of a term the NEC uses but may not be such a common term used in the field.

Art 250 is hard enough to learn for many, but would be even harder if NEC did not keep consistency with its own "style" and own definitions of words. But the words used are not as confusing as words used in legal documents, they are still common words to the electrical trades, but they do avoid the use of slang words. With that I say it is more so part of learning the trade then it is a complicated code. If you want to advance in this trade you learn it, if you just want to have a job and do what you are told you don't learn it, and whenever you do encounter some of it it just looks like a foreign language.