ARTICLE 90 -- INTRODUCTION
Log # 1568
1- 1- (Articles 90, 100, 110): Reject
SUBMITTER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los ~geles, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the word "approved" when used to mean the
use of alternate method(s) or materials.
SUBSTANTIATION: The NEC is incorporated in most construction
contract documents by reference. Therefore, the authority having
jurisdiction - the owner or the owner's representative, will not "
be the third party qualified person contemplated by the Code
Making Panel. Section 90-4 covers the case for governmental
bodies exercising legal jurisdiction.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The use of the term described in the proposal
substantlatlon is consistent with the definition of "approved" in
Article 100 and amplified in Section 90-4. The application of
this philosophy is essential to the proper application of devices
and materials.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Hart.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
HAMI: I do not believe that the Panel Action as expressed in
the Panel Comment is responsive to this proposal. The submitter's
substantiation is not answered in the Panel Comment. The intent
of this proposal could be accomplished by changing the definition
of "Apprgved" to, "Acceptable to the governmental authority having
jurisdiction."
Log # 1008
1- 2 - (Articles 90,100, 110): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee feels that this
proposal is editorial in nature and that i t is unnecessary to
repeat information already in the Code.
SUBMITTER: Ivan P. Nordstrand, Consumers Power Company
RECOMMENDATION: Propose each article have the Panel designation
thus:
Article 90 - Introduction
(Panel No. 1)
Article 100 - Definitions
(Panel No. i)
Article 110 - Requirements for Electric Installations
Panel No. 1)
r t i c l e 200 - Use and Identification of Grounded Conductors
Panel No. 5)
r t i c l e 210 - Branch Circuits
Panel No. 2)
tc.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present format of the published Code book
makes i t d i f f i c u l t and time consuming to determine the appropriate
Panel responsible for the article in which a problem is
developing. The addition of one line in parenthesis under the
article number giving the panel designation will quickly provide
the proper source.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~
:
Not within the Scope of CMP i to make such a
change. Refer to NEC CorrelatinB Committee.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
~
~
I
Log # 707
1- 3 - (90-2(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: James F. Meehan, New Haven, CT
~ATION:
Amend to read as follows:
(a) Covered: This Code covers all installations of electrical
conductors, devices, f i t t i n g s , appliances or equipment for l i g h t ,
heat, power, distribution of electrical energy, transmission of
sound, signal, pictures, characters of information, whether alpha
or numerical, not specifically exempted in Section 90-2(b) of this
Code.
SUBSTANTIATION: Historically, i t was the intention of the early
Code-writing authorities to include everything of an electrical
nature except those items, which they specifically exempted. I t
is ~y opinion, that present day Code Writers should have the same
intention. By the adoption of this requirement, i t will never
again be necessary to add such words as, "within and on," or
Nfloating dwelling units" a~ain. Everything electrical is covered
except that which is speciflcally exempted. I t would not make any
difference how the electrical energy is generated:, i.e. by steam,
atomic, solar, chemical, etc.
In future editions of the Code when someone desires to be
exempted from the provisions of the Code, i t will be necessary for
the proponent to supply the documentation for such exemption,
rather than. the Code Panel, for any additional wording for Section
90-2(a).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel agrees with the intent of the proposal
but feels that the present wording more clearly expresses that
intent.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1446
1- 4 - (90-2(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
~ h a n ,
New Haven, CT
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Paul M~ore, Paducah, KY
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Hogan, Chicago, IL
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: AmendSection 90-2(a) so as to read as follows:
"(a) Covered. This Code covers all installations of electrical
conductors, devices, appliances or equipment for l i g h t , heat,
power, distribution of e l e c t r i c i t y , transmission of sound,
signals, pictures, characters or information not specifically
exempted in Section go-2(b) of this Code."
(There would be no 1, 2 or 3.)
SUBSTANTIATION: I t seems to us that i t was the intention of the
early code writing people to include in the code everything of an
electrical nature, except those things which were specifically
exempted because of rules, regulations or laws propounded and
enforced by some legally constituted authority. I t is further our
opinion that we, today, should be likeminded. By adopting the
suggested wording we will have expressed quite clearly such a
position. I t will never again be necessary to l i s t all of the
things that are covered, since everything except those things that
are SPECIFICALLY exempted are covered.
In future editions of the Code, when someone desires to be
exempted from the provisions of the Code, i t will be necessary for
that person to supply the documentation necessary to convince the
C~; rather than the CMP having to supply documentation supporting
their position. All they will have to say is, "IT IS COVERED.".
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
FANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal I-3.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 797
I - 5 - (90-2(a)(4)-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Hy A. Bershad, The Staten Island Hospital
RECOMMENDATION: "Add" a new subparagraph (4) as follows:
"(4) New installations, as specified above. Existing
installations shall be covered by the edition of the NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODEin effect at the date of the I n s t a l l a t i o n . "
SUBSTANTIATION: Modifications to new editions of the NEC
guarantee that f a c i l i t i e s , once in compliance with former editions
of NFPA70, will no longer comply with this continually revised
document. A reasonable approach for any new edition is to make
that edition apply "only" to installations performed after the
effective date of that edition.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: All electrical installations were not necessarily
installed in accordance with the Code in effect at the date of
installation. The effective date, insofar as tile NEC is
concerned, is the NFPA adoption date, but there is invariably a
lag in adoption dates at the local level.
Rejection is based on the fact that this is an administrative
matter for the authority exercising legal jurisdiction.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1135
i - 6 - (90-2(a)(4)-(New)):
Accept
SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group
RECOMMENDATION: Add go-2(a)(4) to the Scope under Section 90-2(a)
covered.
(4) Installations of optical fiber cable.
SUBSTANTIATION: This statement in the scope will permit the
inclusion of proposed Article 770 on Optical Fiber Cables. The
Scope Section from the proposed Article 770 follows:
770-1. Scope. The provisions of this article apply to the
installation of optical fiber cables along with electrical
conductors. This article does not cover the construction of
optical fiber cables. I t also does not cover the installation of
optical fiber cables in circumstances other than those covered in
this article.
The substantiation for the proposed Article 770 follows:
Fiber optic technology should be included in the Code to permit
its orderly development and usage for communications, signaling
and control circuits in lieu of metallic conductors. I t is
reasonable for an optical fiber cable to be installed in
electrical raceway and enclosures along with associated electrical
conductors. An example of such an application is an optical fiber
control circuit for electrically noisy equipment. Since optical
fibers are not affected by electrical noise, one could, i f
permitted by the Code, run the optical fiber cable in the same
raceway with the power wiring. A further example is the use of
optical fiber communications cable. One would expect to place
this cable in a common raceway along with ordinary metallic '
conductor telephone cable. However, i f the Code is not changed to
recognize optical fiber technology, a separate conduit system may
be demanded by some local authorities.
The proposed article divides optical fiber cables into three
types: nonconductive, conductive and hybrid. Obviously the
nonconductive types cannot be accidentally energized when placed
in raceway so i t is proposed that they be permitted in raceway
with conductors for electric light, power or Class i circuits
operating at less than 600 volts only where the functions of
optical fiber cables and electrical conductors are associated.
Since the conductive optical fiber cables have a potential for
inadvertant ener~izlng of metallic strength members and metallic
vapor barriers, i t is proposed that these cables be permitted to
share raceway with low voltage wiring systems only, and the
conductive members of these cables must be grounded. Grounding
(or isolation) is also proposed for entrance cables in a manner
consistent with the Code requirements for ordinary communications
cable.
The proposed article deals with f i r e properties of optical fiber
cables in a manner identical with other low voltage wiring.
The scope statement, in order to be consistent with the purpose
of the Code, which is the "practical safeguarding of persons and
property from hazards arising from the use of e l e c t r i c i t y , " limits
the coverage of the proposed Article to j o i n t installations of
electrical cable and optical fiber cable.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel Action is conditional upon the
acceptance of Article 770 by CMP 16. Referred to CMP 16.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 900
1- 7 - (90-2(a)(4)-(New)):
Accept
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fiber Optics
RECOI~MENDATION: Add 90-2(a)(4) to the Scope under Section 90-2(a)
covered.
(4) Installations of optical fiber cable.
SUBSTANTIATION: This statement in the scope will permit the
inclusion of proposed ArticIe 770 contains a more detailed scope
statement.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMt~NT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal I-6.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 512
1- 8 - (90-2(b)(I), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J . K . Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOI~MENDATION: Revise Section 90-2(b)(1) to:
(1) Installation in ships, watercraft, railway rolling stock,
aircraft, or automotive vehicles.
Exception: Floating dwelling units, mobile homes, and
recreational vehicles.
SUBSTANTIATION: Floating dwelling units, n~bile homes, and
recreational vehicles are exceptions to the basic statement and as
such should comply with Section 3-4.3 of the Manual of Style for
NFPA Technical Committee Documents 1978.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COI~¢4ENT: The Panel does not agree with the proposer's
substantiation and feeIs that no additional clarification would be
achieved by the proposal.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 904
1- 9 - (90-2(b)(2)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Committee on Mining Related Subjects
]TE'i~R~IQE'-N-I]ATION: Revise Section 90-2(b)(2) to read:
(2) Installations underground in mines and equipment and
installations located above ground that are used exclusively in
conjunction with the mining operation, that are under the
exclusive control of the mine, and where the conditions of
maintenance and supervision assure that only qualified persons
will operate and service the installation.
(FPN) I t is the intent that this Code cover installations in
buildings used by the mine for purposes other than the mining
operation, such as office buildings, warehouses, garages, machine
shops, and recreational buildings.
SUBSTANTIATION: The existing Code wording excludes only
installations underground in mines and not the equipment located
above ground that is essential for the mining operation, such as
the equipment installed at the top of a hoist and the handling or
processing equipment and installations. A mining operation
regardless of its location, underground or above ground, has
special features and demands. These inject unique electrical
system requirements that are not covered in the Code. Mine Safety
and Health Administration (MSHA) of the Department of Labor has
specific regulatory and inspection responsibilities for all mining
operations. MSHAregulations would certainly satisfy Section
90-1(a) of the Code. Furthermore, to bring the Code into line
with the needs of the mining industry and its federal and state
regulatory agencies would require expanding the Code with a
separate section to f i t within those needs, including revision of
the present Code line-by-line and article-by-article to provide
the necessary exclusions. A separate document, apart from the
Code, appears a more logical way to satisfy the mining-industry
requlrements. The Industry Applications society in the IEEE has
already formed working groups of mine-electrical experts; these
individuals are pursuing the IEEE Standards Projects 791,
"Recommended Electrical Practices for Underground Gassy Mines,"
and 794, "Recommended Electrical Practices for Underground
Non-Gassy Mines." The resulting standards will more than
adequately cover any missing safety area connected to
underground-mining operations that might be encountered by the
adoption of the above recommendation or that is not covered under
present federal regulations. Nevertheless, to eliminate
conflicting reguIations between the Code and that of MSHA, the
Code should be revised to exclude all equipment and installations
used exclusively in a mining operation regardless of its location,
underground or above ground.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Abovegroundmining operations should continue to
be covered by the NEC.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NOT VOTING: PaIko.
EXPLANATION OF NOT VOTING:
PALKO: I am abstaining from voting because I do not feel that
the Panel gave due consideration to the findings of the Ad Hoc
Subcommittee that worked over a period of 10 months to develop the
proposal. I feel that this proposal--developed by consensus of a
well-balanced Ad Hoc Subcommittee comprising 27 members--should
have been deliberated in nmre depth.
Log # 657
1- 10 - (90-2(b)(5)): Reject
SUBMITTER: George C. Gingher, Association of Iron and Steel
~'nglneers
RECOMMENDATION: Changeto read: "Installations for the purpose
of communication or metering; or for the generation, control,
transformation, transmission, and distribution of an electric
supply located in buildings or outdoors on property owned or
leased for such purposes or on public highways, streets, roads,
etc. or outdoors by established rights on private property under
the exclusive control of electric u t i I i t i e s , or similar systems
under the control of qualified persons such as those associated
with an industrial complex.N
SUBSTANTIATION: Many industrial complexes have electric supply
systems installed under the provisions of the National Electric
Safety Code, ANSI-C2-1981, and are covered by the scope of that
standard, Sec. 1-011. The scope of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
does' not recognize ANSI-C2 and this, the NEC language can be
interpreted to include such installations despite the fact that
the Code does not, and is not intended, to cover such
installations.
This fact of an overlap between both Standards became apparent
in testimony at the Public Hearings in Washington, DC in 1980 when
OSHA promulgated the revised electrical standard 1910 Subpart S.
OSHA has confirmed in writing that the steel industry does have
electric supply systems that are similar to those of electric
utilities.
This proposal is intended to eIiminate the overlap between
standards by a marriage of the existing language from the scope of
each document. No change in actual coverage of these standards is
anticipated, but the change will clearly delineate the application
of the standards to al] concerned.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Such industrial systems should be covered by the
NEC requirements. The Panel dues recognize that there is a
problem and would suggest that the NEC Correlating Committee
pursue the establishment of a joint committee with the ANSI C.2
Committee to further investigate this area.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Palko.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
PALKO: Utility-type systems should be covered by the National
Electrical Safety Code (ANSI C2)--and not the NEC--whether they
are owned by a public u t i l i t y company or not. Exempting
utility-owned " u t i l i t y - t y p e " systems from the NEC is justified by
the fact that such systems are "different." Different is
different--and this fact does not change as a function of
ownership.
Arguments have been presented to the effect that adoption of
this proposal would open the door to everyone claiming the
exemption (even 120/240 volt u t i l i t y distribution systems are
exempt from the NEC). These objections can be disposed of by
prescribing minimum cohditions that must be met to qualify for the
exemption.
This proposaI should be adopted in principle by defining those
types of systems that are exempt. I suggest as possibilities for
the Pane] to consider power distrubition systems operating at more
than 15 kv (nominal), and generating installations of 5 mva
capacity or larger.
Such limits would keep typical industrial and commercial
distribution systems--and standby and emergency power
generators--within the NEC, while exempting u t i l i t y - t y p e
distribution systems and large, base-loaded generators that are
operated in the same manner as u t i l i t y company generating
equipment.
Log # 791
I - 11 - (90-2(b)(5) FPN): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~ATION:
Insert the words "service drop conductors and
service lateral conductors" between the words "wiring or," and
delete the words (on the load side of the service point), in the
f i r s t sentence.
SUBSTANTIATION: "Service point" is not defined in the Code but
could be defined as the point of connection of service entrance
conductors and service drop or service lateral conductors, which
are generally installed and/or owned by the serving u t i l i t y . By
definition of "premises wiring (system)" in Article 100, this FPN
appears to exclude Code requirements for service drops or service
laterals. This appears to conflict with Article 230 which
contains specific requirements for these portions of wiring
systems.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The installation of the aforementioned conductors
is covered by the NEC. Also the definition of "service point" is
defined in Section 230-200.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 903
I - 12 - (90-2(b)(6)-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Mining Related Subjects
RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 90-2(b)(6) to read:
(6) Equipment and installations under the exclusive control of
a mining company which are used exclusively for the purpose of
surface mining, strip mining, or opeD ~ i t mining, and where the
conditions of maintenance and supervlslon assure that only
qualified persons will operate and service the equipment and
installation.
FPN I t is the intent that this Code cover installations in
buildings used by the mine for purposes other than the mining
operation, such as office buildings, warehouses, garages, machine
shops, dining f a c i l i t i e s , v i s i t o r centers, and recreational
buildings.
SUBSTANTIATION: The existing Code, by inference, applies to
surface-mining operations, commonly referred to as strip mining or
open-pit mining. These mining operations have special features
and demands, such as power-system mobility and p o r t a b i l i t y ,
extremely d~namic loading, the remote location of many loads, and
so forth. The differences from other general industrles inject
unique electrical-system requirements that are not covered in the
Code. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) of the
Department of Labor has specific regulatory and inspection
responsibility for all mining operations. MSHAregulations would
certainly satisfy Section 90-1(a) of the Code. Furthermore, to
bring the Code into line with the needs of the mining industry and
its federal and state regulatory agencies would require expanding
the Code with a separate section to f i t within those needs,
including revision of the present Code line-by-line and
article-by-article to provide the necessary exclusions. A
separate document, apart from the Code, appears a more logical way
to satisfy the mining-industry requirements. The Industry
Applications Society of the IEEE has already formed working groups
of mine-electrical experts; one group is pursuing the IEEE
Standards Project 795, "Recommended Electrical Practices for
Surface Mines." The resulting standard will more than adequately
cover any missing safety area connected to underground-mining
operations that might be encountered by the adoption of the above
recommendation or that is not covered under present federal
regulations. Nevertheless, to eliminate the potential of
conflicting regulations between the Code and that of MSHA, the
Code should be revised to exclude all equipment and installations
used exclusively in a surface-mining operation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal i-9.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NOT VOTING: Palko.
EXPLANATION OF NOT VOTING:
PALKO: I abstain for the same reason given for Proposal 1-9.
Log # 901
I - 13 - (90-2(b)(6)-(New)):
Reject
SUBMII-FER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fiber Optics
RECOMMENDATION: Add 90-2(b)(6) to the Scope Section 90-2(b) not
covered.
(6) I n s t a l l a t i o n of noncurrent-carrying f i b e r optic
communications, signaling and control systems. However, t h i s Code
does not preclude the i n s t a l l a t i o n of optical f i b e r cable in or
out of raceway with e l e c t r i c a l conductors provided requirements
covering grounding, bonding and f i r e resistance are met.
SUBSTANTIATION: Fiber o p t i c technology should be recognized by
the Code to permit i t s o r d e r l y development and usage f o r
communications, signaling and control c i r c u i t s in lieu of m e t a l l i c
conductors. However, the scope of the Code which states 'The
purpose of t h i s Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and
property from hazards arising from the use of e l e c t r i c i t y , '
can be
interpreted to exclude optical f i b e r s . The issues that the Code
should address are the hazards associated with the inadvertent
energizing of metallic members of f i b e r optic cable and the f i r e
hazards associated with the combustible components of such cable.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment to Proposal I-6.
two sentences of the proposal are conflicting.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
The
Log # 1128
I - 14 - (90-2(b)(6)-(New)):
Reject
SUBMI1-FER: D. J. Christofersen, United Power Association
RECOMM-M~-N-DATION: Add No. (6):
Installations of electrical load management equipment under the
exclusive control of electric u t i l i t i e s installed in sealed
cabinets located outside or immediately inside the building near
the service entrance.
SUBSTANTIATION: Allows electric u t i l i t i e s to secure an
installation of electrical load management equipment at a building
or household for the express purpose to offer an interruptible
load rate. The seal on the equipment prevents unauthorized
operation or tampering.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COh%MENT: Already covered by Section 90-2(b)(5). These
types of installations are under the exclusive control of
utilities.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 902
1- 15 - (90-2(b)(7)-(New)):
Reject
SUBMII-FER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Minin 9 Related Subjects
]TE'?~-OI;~'I{~OATION: Add new Section 90-2(b)(7) to read:
(7) Installations in mining-related tipples, mills,
concentration beneficiation, and preparation plants that are used
exclusively in conjunction with a mining operation, that are under
the exclusive control of the mine, and where the conditions of
maintenance and supervision assure that only qualified persons
will operate and service the installation.
FPN I t is the intent that this Code cover installations in
buildings used by the mine for purposes other than the mining
operation and its mining-related plants, such as office buildings,
warehouses, garages, machine shops, and recreational buildings.
SUBSTANTIATION: The existing Code, by inference, applies to
mining-related preparation plants and other similar f a c i l i t i e s ,
such as concentration plants, beneficiation plants, mills, and
tipples. These operations can often contain special features and
demands that inject unique electrical system requirements that are
not covered in the Code. Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) of the Department of Labor has specific regulatory and
inspection responsibility for all mining operations. MSHA
regulations would certainly satisfy Section 90-i(a) of the Code.
Furthermore, to bring the Code into line with the needs of the
mining industry and its federal and state regulatory agencies
would require expanding the present separate section of the Code
to f i t within those needs, including revision'of the balance of
the Code line-by-line and article-by-article to provide the
necessary exclusions. A separate document, apart from the Code,
appears a more logical way to satisfy the mining-industry
requirements. The Industry Applications Society in the IEEE has
already formed working groups of mine-electrical experts; one
group is now pursuing the IEEE Standards Project 793, "Recommended
Electrical Practices for Mining-Related Preparation Plants." The
resulting standard will more than adequately cover any missing
safety area connected to underground-mining operations that might
be encountered by the adoption of the above recommendation or that
is not covered under present federal regulations. Nevertheless,
to eliminate conflicting regulations between the Code and that of
MSHA, the Code should be revised to exclude all equipment and
installations used exclusively in a mining operation or its
mining-related plants.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COI~MENT: Abovegroundmining operations should continue to
be covered by the NEC. See Panel Action and Comment on
Proposal 1-9.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NOT VOTING: Palko.
EXPLANATION OF NOT VOTING:
PALKO: I abstain for the same reason given for Proposal I-9.
Log m 619
1- 16 - (90-3): Reject
SUBMI~ER: Earl W. Roberts, General Electric Co.
RECOMMENDATION: Revise last sentence and add new paragraph as
follows:
Chapter 9 consists of tables.
Examples, which are not o f f i c i a l l y part of this Code but which
can be useful in applying the Code, are included in an Appendix.
SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording states that examples are part of
Chapter 9 and Chapter 9 is part of the Code. Decision has been
made by NFPA that the Examples are not part of Panel
responsibility. Therefore, i t should be clearly spelled out that
the Examples are not part of the Code.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel Action is based on the present
instructions from the NEC Correlating Committee which make the
Examples part of the Code and the responsibility of the Panel
Chairman and the Secretary of the National Electrical Code
Committee. The Panel points out that the second sentence of the
substantiation is incorrect.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1800
I - 17 - (90-4): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: F. K. Kitzantides, NEMA
I~E~O-~g~L'~-~ATION: Add new third paragraph as follows:
Some requirements in this Code specify new products,
constructions, or materials which may not yet be available at the
time the Code is adopted. In such event, the authority having
jurisdiction may permit the use of the products, constructions, or
materials which comply with the most recent previous edition of
this Code adopted by the jurisdiction.
SUBSTANTIATION: There is a need to c l a r i f y what is acceptable
during the interim period between the acceptance of a new edition
of the Code and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of new products, constructions,
or materials.
This was highlighted in the 1981 Code by the new
cable bending space requirements.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Replace the words "some requirements in this Code specify" with
the words "This Code may require."
PANEL COMMENT: Editorial clarification.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NECV~TIVE: Hart.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
HART: I am opposed to the acceptance of this proposal because
there is no real need. A new Code is adopted by NFPA at its
Annual Meeting in May and I am not aware of any jurisdiction which
adopts a new Code prior to January 1st of the following year.
This is approximately eight months and should be ample time for
the manufacturers of new euipment or equipment with new
requirements to have these products available. In most cases the
manufacturers are aware that such changes will be adopted as early
as the January of the preceding year, even before the Code is
o f f i c i a l l y adopted by NFPA.
This proposal, i f adopted, would be used to delay perhaps
forever a change adopted by the National Electrical Code
Committee, depending upon the influence of the manufacturers
involved and the weakness of local enforcement authorities. I can
recall that thermal protection of ballasts was delayed for more
than ten years until the manufacturers could "get tooled-up" to
produce these devices. Also, i t is not f a i r to the public to
permit manufacturers to have additional time available to deplete
existing stock. I f the National Electrical Code Committee
believes that a new product or a change in design is necessary
then the public should not be forced to accept the risk of
inferior equipment simply for the convenience of the
manufacturers. Another example is the delay in the effective date
of 4-6 milliampere t r i p levels for ground-fault
circuit-interrupters. The public was forced to accept these
devices with t r i p levels as low as 2.2 milliamperes and they are
s t i l l paying for i t many years later.
I f manufacturers are willing to accept the advantages of
nationwide acceptance of their products which results from
acceptance by the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, then they should be
willing to also accept the need for change in equipment design
which might be caused by the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. The
manufacturersparticipate in this process and their risks should
not have to be born by the public, which we all serve.
Log # 2016
I - 18 - (90-4(b)-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Idaho Chapter IAEI
ITE~C'~I~]~E-NrDATION: The authority having jurisdiction may waive the
specific requirements of a new Code change that involves
electrical equipment, material or wiring methods that are not
immediately available at the time this edition of the Code was
adopted only where Section go-4(b) is specifically referenced in
the new or revised sections involved. The authority having
jurisdiction'shall then require the installation in question to
comply with, i f any, the most recently adopted previous edition of
this Code or in its absence, other equivalent appropriate
requirements u n t i l , such time as, the necessary electrical
equipment or material becomes available as determined by the
authority having jurisdiction.
SUBSTANTIATION: In many Code enforcing localities, due to their
laws covering the adoption of the NEC, no grace periods or waiver
of the Code requirements, as written, are permitted. The Code in
some instance creates a problem due the time required to retool,
manufacture, and make available to the industry the new electrical
equipment, materials and wiring methods necessary to comply with
Code at the time of its adoption. The addition of Section gO-4(b)
would permit the supplier, contractor, and the inspector to work
in harmony during the extension of time granted by the authority
having jurisdiction.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that inserting the reference to
Section 90-4(b) in the body of the Code is unnecessary and
cumbersome. There may also be cases where the Panel would not
recognize the need for the reference. See Panel Action and
Comment on Proposal 1-17.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 705
1- 19 - (90-5): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: James F. Meehan, New Haven, CT
RECOMMENDATION: Section 90-5 be amended by adding thereto the
following: "These procedures may be found in Section 16 of the
NFPA "Regulations Governing Committee Projects."
Note: I f future changes in the Regulation Governing Committee
Projects are changes then i t would be an editorial change for
indicating such change.
SUBSTANTIATION: The addition of this sentence will provide
information for many people who at the present time write to
Code-Making Panel chairmen, secretaries in the NFPAseeking
Official Interpretations, or "Formal Interpretations." The
inclusion of this information may forestall some of those requests.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Change the text of Section 90-5 to read as follows:
"To promote uniformity of interpretation and application of the
provisions of this Code, Formal Interpretation procedures have
been established."
FPN: These procedures may be found in the "NFPA Regulations
Governing Committee Projects."
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal has been revised to be technically
correct. CMP 1 requests that the NEC Correlating Committee
consider the advisability of including the rule in the rear of the
Code book.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1447
1- 20 - (90-5): Accept in Principle
SUBMII'[ER: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
~T~ Meehan, New Haven, CT
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Hogan, Chicago, IL
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 90-5 by adding thereto the
following:
These procedures may be found in Section 16 of the "NFPA
Regulations Governing Committee Projects.
SUBSTANTIATION: The addition of this sentence will provide
information for the many people who presently write to the C~P
Chairmen seeking "Official Interpretations". The inclusion of
this information may forestall many of these requests and head the
people in the right direction.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-19.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 85
i - 21 - (90-7(a)): Reject
SUBMII-TER: Victor S. Whitoomb, Brooks, ME
~ATION:
Add a new penultimate sentence as follows:
Space should be provided f o r the future i n s t a l l a t i o n of manual or
automatic transfer switch equipment.
SUBSTANTIATION: The informative language of A r t i c l e 90 should
caution that designs and specifications should include space f o r
transfer equipment. All too many times complete i n s t a l l a t i o n s
have to be altered immensely to provide t h i s space. Future
additions of transfer equipment have proven costly f o r t h i s reason.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel Action is based on Section gO-l(c).
This requirement would allocate space wherein the vast m a j o r i t y of
e l e c t r i c a l i n s t a l l a t i o n s would never u t i l i z e such space.
Proposal is too sweeping in nature.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 706
i - 22 - (90-8): Reject
SUBMII-TER: James F. Meehan, New Haven, CT
RECOMMENDATION: Amend A r t i c l e 90 of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
6y deleting therefrom Section 90-8.
SUBSTANTIATION: This document i~ intended to be the NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODE: The people who use the Code on a day to day
basis, -- the e l e c t r i c a l mechanics, the e l e c t r i c a l contractors,
the e l e c t r i c a l inspectors, the e l e c t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t o r s , and most
e l e c t r i c a l manufacturers have no e a r t h l y use f o r these additional
figures that have been added in only parts of the Code. In my
READILY ACCESSIBLE: Admitting close approach; not guarded by
locked doors, elevator, or other effective means (as applied to
equipment). Capable of being reached quickly for operation,
renewal, or inspections, without requiring those to whom ready
access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort
to portable ladders, chairs, etc.
SUBSTANTIATION: The term accessible is effectively the same as
readily accessible. A switch located 7 feet from the ground is
not readily accessible nor is i t accessible. Change all sections
that require i t to be accessible to readily accessible.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The submitter's substantiation is. in error. The
differences in the two definitions can be quite substantial and
this proposal would change the intent of the specific Code rules
that were written based on the existing definitions.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
opinion the United States is not on the verge of changing to the
modernized metric system, "International System of Units." The
addition of these values do nothi•ng to assist the daily users of
the Code, but do tend to make the book longer and more costly.
Does not tend to c l a r i f y rules.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal is inconsistent with the directions of
the NFPA Standards Council.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1448
I - 23 - (90-8): Reject
SUBMITTER: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
~ g a n ,
Chicago, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota ,
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Leo Nagel, North Dakota
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: AmendArticle go of the NEC by deleting therefrom
"Section 90-8."
SUBSTANTIATION: This document is intended to be the NATIONAL
Electrical Code; not the INTERNATIONAL Electrical Code. The
people who use this Code on a day to day basis; mechanics,
contractors, inspectors, engineers, distributors, unions, trade
schools and many manufacturers have no earthly use for these
additional figures or words. The United States is not on the
verge Of changing to the metric system. The metric values in the
present code serve no function for the people in the USA. Their
presence serves only to make the code longer, wordier, more obtuse
and costlier with no benefit for the users.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-22.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 720
1- 26 - (Article lO0-Ampacity): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to CME's 2, 4 and 6 for
comment.
SUBMII-TER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los Angeles, CA
~ATION:
Revise definition of the word "An~)acity" as shown
below.
Ampacity. The current in amperes a conductor can carry
continuously under the conditions of use without exceeding its
temperature rating.
SUBSTANTIATION: In the present definition, use of the word
"capacity" infers that a conductor has a precise numerical limit
of current i t can safely carry. This is an incomplete statement.
The variables which must be recognized in arriving at the ampere
value which must be observed to limit temperature, are not alluded
to in the present definition.
The proposed definition recognizes the work of Nehr-McGrath,
Shurig & Frick and others. This proposal is the combined opinion
of a CMP 6 Task Force studying the matter of ampacity.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: Referred to CMP's 2, 4, and 6 for comment.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
ARTICLE 100 -- DEFINITIONS
Log # 216
I - 27 - (Article lO0-Allowable Load Current-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: John C. Miller, Abolite Lighting, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Create a new definition for "Allowable Load
Current" as follows:
Allowable Load Current: The amount of load current permitted to
be imposed on a conductor under specified conditions expressed in
amperes.
SUBSTANTIATION: Since CMP 6, in the f i r s t paragraph of Note 8 to
Tables 310-16 and 310-18, has indicated that there is a difference
in the meaning and application of the terms "Ampacity" and
"Allowable Load Current" and since "Ampacity" is already defined
i t seems that "Allowable Load Current" should also be defined.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: CMP i feels the proposed wording describes
;'ampacity." See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-26.
Referred to CMP's 2, 4 and 6 for comment.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
I - 23A - (Article 100)
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that each
Panel review the articles under its responsibility for conflicts
which may arise because of changes in the definitions and revise
those areas that require consistency with the actions of CMP I .
Log # 1450
I - 24 - (Article 100): Reject
SUBMITTER: B i l l Hogan, Chicago, IL
~ z ,
Continental Electric Co.
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Leo Nagel, North Dakota
Anton GanJe, North Dakota
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: AmendArticle 100 by deleting the words, "under
specified test conditions," from each definition in which they
appear; and further amend Article 100 by inserting in lieu thereof
the words, "under standard test conditions."
SUBSTANTIATION: Rather than repeat the same substantiation for
each time these words appear in the definitions we refer you to
our proposal for the change in the definition for Interrupting
Rating and use that as our substantiation for this proposal.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal does not meet Section 10-10 of "NFPA
Regulations Governing Committee Projects."
Proposal is nonspecific in regards to which definitions the
proposal references.
Standard test conditions could vary with various testing
agencies.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
SEELBACH: I have voted in support of the motion to reject as
the proposal does not conform to Section 10-10. I do not agree
with the statement in the Panel Comment that - "Standard test
conditions could vary with various testing agencies." They should
not.
Log # 626
1- 28 - (Article lO0-Ampacity): Reject
SUBMITTER: R. P. O'Riley, Dallas Joint Electrical Apprenticeship
and Training Committee
RECOMMENDATION: Add new definition.
Ampacity-As Applied to Electrical Conductors:
.The ampacity of an electrical conductor is the listed ampacity
iven in the Code ampacity Tables 310-16 through 310-19.
UBSTANTIATION: There is considerable confusion concerning the
use of the terms "ampacity" and "load current" as applied to
electrical conductors. Therefore, there is need for a definition
for clarification of these two terms.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: A definition cannot include the term being
defined. See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-26. Referred
to CMP's 2, 4, and 6 for comment.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
~
q
Log # 1657
1- 29 - (Article lO0-Ampacity): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y , Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition of Ampacity. "The a b i l i t y of a
conductor to carry current where no load limiting factors apply."
SUBSTANTIATION: The Code throughout uses the term ampacity.
However, what does ampacity mean. Table 310-16 through 310-19 are
conductor ampacities but the load on conductors are limited by
continuous loads, Note 8, and ambient temperature factors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Ioad-limlting factors do apply to the ampacity
of conductors. See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-26.
Referred to CMP's 2, 4 and 6 for comment.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1703
I - 25 - (Article lO0-Accessible): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity, Inc.
RECOI~MENDATION: Delete definition of Accessible and incorporate
i t with Readily Accessible.
5
READILY ACCESSIBLE: Admitting close approach; not guarded by
locked doors, elevator, or other effective means (as applied to
equipment). Capable of being reached quickly for operation,
renewal, or inspections, without requiring those to whom ready
access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort
to portable ladders, chairs, etc.
SUBSTANTIATION: The term accessible is effectively the same as
readily accessible. A switch located 7 feet from the ground is
not readily accessible nor is i t accessible. Change all sections
that require i t to be accessible to readily accessible.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The submitter's substantiation is. in error. The
differences in the two definitions can be quite substantial and
this proposal would change the intent of the specific Code rules
that were written based on the existing definitions.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
opinion the United States is not on the verge of changing to the
modernized metric system, "International System of Units." The
addition of these values do nothi•ng to assist the daily users of
the Code, but do tend to make the book longer and more costly.
Does not tend to c l a r i f y rules.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal is inconsistent with the directions of
the NFPA Standards Council.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1448
I - 23 - (90-8): Reject
SUBMITTER: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
~ g a n ,
Chicago, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota ,
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Leo Nagel, North Dakota
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: AmendArticle go of the NEC by deleting therefrom
"Section 90-8."
SUBSTANTIATION: This document is intended to be the NATIONAL
Electrical Code; not the INTERNATIONAL Electrical Code. The
people who use this Code on a day to day basis; mechanics,
contractors, inspectors, engineers, distributors, unions, trade
schools and many manufacturers have no earthly use for these
additional figures or words. The United States is not on the
verge Of changing to the metric system. The metric values in the
present code serve no function for the people in the USA. Their
presence serves only to make the code longer, wordier, more obtuse
and costlier with no benefit for the users.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-22.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 720
1- 26 - (Article lO0-Ampacity): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to CME's 2, 4 and 6 for
comment.
SUBMII-TER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los Angeles, CA
~ATION:
Revise definition of the word "An~)acity" as shown
below.
Ampacity. The current in amperes a conductor can carry
continuously under the conditions of use without exceeding its
temperature rating.
SUBSTANTIATION: In the present definition, use of the word
"capacity" infers that a conductor has a precise numerical limit
of current i t can safely carry. This is an incomplete statement.
The variables which must be recognized in arriving at the ampere
value which must be observed to limit temperature, are not alluded
to in the present definition.
The proposed definition recognizes the work of Nehr-McGrath,
Shurig & Frick and others. This proposal is the combined opinion
of a CMP 6 Task Force studying the matter of ampacity.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: Referred to CMP's 2, 4, and 6 for comment.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
ARTICLE 100 -- DEFINITIONS
Log # 216
I - 27 - (Article lO0-Allowable Load Current-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: John C. Miller, Abolite Lighting, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Create a new definition for "Allowable Load
Current" as follows:
Allowable Load Current: The amount of load current permitted to
be imposed on a conductor under specified conditions expressed in
amperes.
SUBSTANTIATION: Since CMP 6, in the f i r s t paragraph of Note 8 to
Tables 310-16 and 310-18, has indicated that there is a difference
in the meaning and application of the terms "Ampacity" and
"Allowable Load Current" and since "Ampacity" is already defined
i t seems that "Allowable Load Current" should also be defined.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: CMP i feels the proposed wording describes
;'ampacity." See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-26.
Referred to CMP's 2, 4 and 6 for comment.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
I - 23A - (Article 100)
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that each
Panel review the articles under its responsibility for conflicts
which may arise because of changes in the definitions and revise
those areas that require consistency with the actions of CMP I .
Log # 1450
I - 24 - (Article 100): Reject
SUBMITTER: B i l l Hogan, Chicago, IL
~ z ,
Continental Electric Co.
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Leo Nagel, North Dakota
Anton GanJe, North Dakota
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: AmendArticle 100 by deleting the words, "under
specified test conditions," from each definition in which they
appear; and further amend Article 100 by inserting in lieu thereof
the words, "under standard test conditions."
SUBSTANTIATION: Rather than repeat the same substantiation for
each time these words appear in the definitions we refer you to
our proposal for the change in the definition for Interrupting
Rating and use that as our substantiation for this proposal.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal does not meet Section 10-10 of "NFPA
Regulations Governing Committee Projects."
Proposal is nonspecific in regards to which definitions the
proposal references.
Standard test conditions could vary with various testing
agencies.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
SEELBACH: I have voted in support of the motion to reject as
the proposal does not conform to Section 10-10. I do not agree
with the statement in the Panel Comment that - "Standard test
conditions could vary with various testing agencies." They should
not.
Log # 626
1- 28 - (Article lO0-Ampacity): Reject
SUBMITTER: R. P. O'Riley, Dallas Joint Electrical Apprenticeship
and Training Committee
RECOMMENDATION: Add new definition.
Ampacity-As Applied to Electrical Conductors:
.The ampacity of an electrical conductor is the listed ampacity
iven in the Code ampacity Tables 310-16 through 310-19.
UBSTANTIATION: There is considerable confusion concerning the
use of the terms "ampacity" and "load current" as applied to
electrical conductors. Therefore, there is need for a definition
for clarification of these two terms.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: A definition cannot include the term being
defined. See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-26. Referred
to CMP's 2, 4, and 6 for comment.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
~
q
Log # 1657
1- 29 - (Article lO0-Ampacity): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y , Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition of Ampacity. "The a b i l i t y of a
conductor to carry current where no load limiting factors apply."
SUBSTANTIATION: The Code throughout uses the term ampacity.
However, what does ampacity mean. Table 310-16 through 310-19 are
conductor ampacities but the load on conductors are limited by
continuous loads, Note 8, and ambient temperature factors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Ioad-limlting factors do apply to the ampacity
of conductors. See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-26.
Referred to CMP's 2, 4 and 6 for comment.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1703
I - 25 - (Article lO0-Accessible): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity, Inc.
RECOI~MENDATION: Delete definition of Accessible and incorporate
i t with Readily Accessible.
5
This proposal introduces a mandatory requirement which is an
improper use of the definitions.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 416
1- 30 - (Article lO0-Appliance): Reject
SUBMII-TER: Southwestern Section IAEI
~ATION:
Add to appliance definition the following:
"and requires no more than one approved exterior cord to supply
po~r, with no other exposed cords or unprotected wiring to
complete its function, u
SUBSTANTIATION: The deletion of appliances fixed, appliances
portable and appliances stationary, in the 1981NEC, l e f t a hole
in the Code which has initiated considerable controversy. Someof
the more enterprising marketeers, especially in the ranks of solar
'and wind power promoters, are attempting to assemble and
cord-connect their equipment in the field and then call the entire
assembly an appliance.
The TSC expected that other Code Committees involved in
appliances would refine their sections to include specific
definitions. With the exception of Article 550 we cannot find
that scrupulous attention to this detail that the Committee hoped
for. Either the suggested addition should be accepted or
anticipated refinements in other sections of the NEC should be
initiated.
Excerpt from 1980 NFPAReport of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
Committee
Log # 360
1- 31 - (Article lO0-Appliance, Fixed-(New)): Reject
SUBMI1-TER: Steven J. Vitzthum, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Appliance, Fixed - An appliance securely placed
or fastened and not l i k e l y to be moved.
SUBSTANTIATION: Fixed appliance is referred to in the NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODEmore than three times, therefore should be defined
in Article 100.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Ad Hoc Subcommittee had recommended that this
term be deleted on appliances.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
"Article lO0-Appliance (HOD 1978 NEC): Accept
CMP 1
SUBMITTER: Technical Subcommittee on Definitions of
Stationary Appliances
PROPOSAL: 13 Delete the following terms and definitions:
Appliances fixed, appliances portable, appliances stationary.
SUBSTANTIATION: Although the TSC is considering these three
terms as a group, i t did conclude as a result of its study
that there is nothing unique about the term "stationary
appliance."
In recognition of the possibility that not all of the
recommendations will be adopted for the 1978 NEC, the terms
under consideration may continue to appear in certain NEC
requirements. Therefore, the deletion of the terms and
definitions neednot be taken as a f i r s t step. With the
acceptance of the TSC approach, the terms and definitions
should f a l l into disuse and found to be unnecessary for future
editions of the NEC.
Note: The "Findings" section of the TSC report, as follows,
is intended to provide general supporting comment.
Findings
The Technical Subcommittee found that some requirements for
fixed appliances, portable appliances, and stationary
appliances were based on different meanings of the terms.
These differences arise from the intent of the authors of the
requirements at the time the text is adopted. In some cases
the requirements are based on the means of electrical
connection of the appliance to the supply c i r c u i t . In other
instances the requirements involve the physical location of
the appliance. The TSC noted some requirements that appeared
to involve both meanings and s t i l l others where i t was not
clear from the wording what the concerned Code-Making Panel
intended.
The Technical Subcommittee suggests that the requirements
pertaining to appliances differentiate between those that are
necessitated by virtue of the method of the electrical
connection and those that relate to the physical location of
the appliance. With regards to the electrical connections, i t
is suggested that this be accomplished either by the use of a
cord and plug or by a permanent connection, that is, without
the use of a cord and plug. Requirements pertinent to
appliance location involve physically fastening the appliance
in place by means other than the electrical connection or
locating the appliance in dedicated space. These appliances
may be movable within the space. The result of either
approach is to place the appliance on a specific circuit.
The Technical Subcommittee believes that i f these
delineations were scrupulously observed and universally
applied throughout the Code, both in the drafting of new
requirements pertaining to appliances and revising current
appliance requirements, the confusion surrounding the
interpretation and application of the three terms under review
would disappear. Moreover, the TSC believes that adherence to
this understanding ~)uld obviate the need for the three terms.
As an aid to clarifying the intent of the requirements, the
TSC suggests that, as required, the following terms or phrases
be employed:
Permanently connected; cord- and plug-connected; fastened in
place; or located to be on a specific circuit. I
There are requirements where in the opinion of the TSC the
deleting of the terms "fixed," "I~rtable," or "stationary"
will in no way affect the requirements. In such cases, i t is
necessary to substitute any of the foregoing.
PANEL RECOMMENDATION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: Accept and so advise other Panels.
VOTE ON PANEL RECOMMENDATION: UnanimouslyAffirmative."
•
Log # 2090
1- 32 - (Article lO0-Autotransformer): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate the sentence, "An autotransformer is a
~ransformer in which a part of the winding is common to both
primary and secondary circuits." from 210-9 and move i t to Article
100.
SUBSTANTIATION: Definition for autotransformers should be
included under Article 100 where most would look for a
definition. All definitions should be in Article 100 except where
i t would conflict with other Code sections.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The word "autotransformer" is not peculiar to and
essential to the proper use of this Code as stated in the Scope of
Article 100.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 357
1- 33 - (Article lO0-Bathroom-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-TER: Mark Meyer, Sheldon, I A
RECOMMENDATION: Bathroom: A bathroom is an area including a
basin with one or more of the following: a tub, a t o i l e t , or a
shower.
SUBSTANTIATION: This would prevent any confusion on what consists
in a bathroom.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMJ~ENT: Definition is intended only for the purpose of
clarifying the requirements of Section 210-8.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 81
1- 34 - (Article 100-Building):
Accept
SUBMI~ER: Joseph C. Roohan, International Conference of Building
~FTT~
RECOb~MENDATION: Building: A structure which stands alone or
which is cut off from adjoining structures by fire-resistance
rated walls, partitions, floors, or ceilings and with all openings
therein protected by approved fire-resistance rated doors or other
approved methods.
SUBSTANTIATION: The definition of "building" in Article 100 of
the 1981NEC appears obsolete, and the use of the term " f i r e wall"
seems to be the result of an unintended oversight in the NEC that
occurred when Article 300-21 was changed.
In the 1965 NEC the term " f i r e wall" appeared both in Article
100, definition of "building" and in Article 300-21. In the 1971
NEC some modification was made in Article 300-21 and in the 1975
NEC the term was completely dropped from Article 300-21, to be
replaced by the phrase, " . . . f i r e rated, f i r e resistant, or fire
stopped walls..." which was continued in the 1978 NEC. The
wording was further changed in the 1981NEC using the phrase,
" . . . f i r e resistance rated." However, the use of " f i r e wall" in
Article 100, definition of "building" has remained unchanged.
The absence of " f i r e wall" in the Uniform Building Code and
similar codes in preference to phrases like " f i r e rated" and "fire
resistive," and the use of " f i r e wall" in the definition of
"building" in Article 100 should have also been changed and is no~
obsolete.
This proI~)sal attempts to correct this oversight.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
i - 35 - (Article lO0-Communication Circuit): Accept
SUBMII-FER: CMP 1
~ATION:
Delete the following:
"Communication Circuit: See Section 800-1."
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I f accepted as written a user of the Code could
infer that you don't have an appliance unless i t is connected with
an exterior cord.
B
SUBSTANTIATION: Just a reminder as to how a covered conductor
should be hand]ed.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal is an attempt to put requirements in
the definitions and this is not proper.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimeusly Affirmative.
SUBSTANTIATION: The Panel considers a definition for
"communication c i r c u i t " unnecessary to the Code. The scopes of
the various articles contain descriptions of the systems intended
to be covered. The Panel Proposal responds to the confusion
expressed in Proposal 1-36.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1977
1- 39 - (Article lO0-Conduit Body): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to C~ 9 for action.
SUBMITTER: F. K. Kitzantides, NEMA
RECOMMENDATION: Change the second paragraph of the definition of
Conduit Body to read:
Boxes, such as FS, FD or larger cast metal sheet metal,
nonmetallic boxes, as well as capped elbows and service-entrance
elbows, are not classified as conduit bodies.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present definition of conduit bodies is too
broad and unintentionally covers some products which f i t the
definition, but they are not conduit bodies under the typical and
normal use of the term in the trade. This has created a situation
where the UL listing of conduit bodies is being applied to
products which do not f i t the conduit body requirements in
Sections 370-6(c) and 370-18.
Nonmetallic boxes f i t the present definition of conduit body in
Article 100 and just about everyone knows that they really are not
conduit bodies. The proposed change will pinpoint more accurately
the definition of conduit bodies so that unintended products will
not be included.
Under the present definition capped elbows and service-entrance
elbows are about to be delisted because they are within the broad
definition of conduit bodies but do not serve the same function
and therefore do not meet the requirements of the conduit bodies
such as twice the cross-sectional area of the largest conduit
attached or the 6 and 8 times rule as noted in Sections 370-6(c)
and 370-18. Neither of these products contain splices and they
are primarily used in the termination of a conduit run especially
in the case of service-entrance elbows. They are angle f i t t i n g s
rather than junction points or f i t t i n g s used as junction boxes.
Capped elbows and service-entrance elbows have been in the
electrical trade for well over 30 years and have served the
industry well. They have an exemplary record to trouble-free
performance in the f i e l d , and i t would be a grave injustice to
rule them out of the industry due to a technicality such as the
definition of conduit body being too broad.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: This proposal is w r i t i n g rules f o r the Code
through the use of d e f i n i t i o n s .
Referred to CMP 9 f o r action.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Sleesman.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SLEESMAN: The e x i s t i n g d e f i n i t i o n in the NEC was a NEMA
proposal that was never intended to include e i t h e r service o r
capped elbows.
The proposed revision was intended to c l a r i f y that these
products (service elbows and capped elbows.) are used f o r specific
applications such as machine tool i n s t a l l a t i o n s .
Normally, they
are installed with f l e x i b l e conductors.
There is a proposal in CMP 8 f o r Section 300-18 which w i l l
permit wires to be i n s t a l l e d in the conduit under certain
conditions similar to the method generally applicable to the use
of service entrance and capped elbows.
Log # 1925
1- 36 - (Article lO0-Communication Circuit): Reject
SUBMITTER: William C. Bible, OMNI Professional Services
~ o n
RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition of:
Communication Circuit. The conductors devices, and equipment,
including related operating and signaling power supplies,
comprising a system of interconnected parts used solely to encode,
decode and transmit coherent information or intelligence between
two or more locations; to annunicate the presence or a v a i l a b i l i t y
of such information or intelligence; or to activate a program of
predetermined events or actions.
SUBSTANTIATION: The term "communication c i r c u i t " is not defined
~,, th= presenL Code. The definition (?) for "communication
circuit" simply says "See Section 800-1." The Code user who
follows this advice does not find a meaningful definition in
Section 800-1 but instead is further referred to Article 760 where
again - no definition! Communication circuits are an integral
part of the systems and equipment covered by many of the articles
in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8. Therefore, i t seems most appropriate
that the Code move away from the historical myth that
communication circuits can only be so designated i f they are
so-called "central station" systems or "telephone systems using
similar equipment." The proposed definition will provide Code
guidance based on function and will be broad enough to include all
of the so-called central station systems as well as other
developed and developing technologies of information
transmission. More importantly, i t will cover the circuits of
other communication systems such as data communication, telemetry,
electronic mail, and similar systems used for communication
between two or more points either on the same premises or on
different premises. The definition is compatible with the use of
the term "communication circuit" throughout the Code. I t will not
create any conflicts in interpretation of the various Code
sections as now written, but will add needed clarification in
their application, particularly in those areas relating to wiring
methods and limitations of these systems and other parts of the
premises wiring system.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel considers the proposed definition
unnecessary to the Code. The scopes of the various articles
contain descriptions of the systems intended to be covered. See
Panel Proposal 1-35 to delete the term.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 618
1- 37 - (Article lO0-Conductor): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: Earl W. Roberts, General Electric Co.
RECOMMENDATION: Add to definition of "Conductor" as follows:
Conductor: A substance or body that allows a current of
e l e c t r i c i t y to pass continuously along i t .
SUBSTANTIATION: There is no Code definition for "Conductor," even
though the word is listed. The definition addresses only specific
conductors, namely "Bare," "Covered," and "Insulated." There is a
misunderstanding among some who believe that "Conductor" applies
only to wire and cable rather than to busway, terminals, and all
current-carrying parts.
The proposed definition is identical to that in the IEEE
Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic Terms, ANSI/IEEE
Std. 100.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels the present wording is consistent
with the use of the term throughout the Code. The proposal adds
nothing to the present c l a r i t y of the Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTIOn:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Sleesman.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SLEESMAN: "Conductor" is not presently defined in Article 100.
There are other sections of the NEC, such as Section 384-10 and
Section 610-21, where "conductor" is used to mean something other
than wire or cable.
Log # 1063
1- 40 - (Article 100-conduit Body): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to CMP 9 for action.
SUBMITTER: F. K. Kitzantides, NEMA
RECOMMENDATION: Changethe second paragraph of the definition of
Conduit Body to read:
Cast, sheet metal, nonmetallic, and other boxes such as FS, FD
and larger boxes and f i t t i n g s such as capped elbows and service
entrance elbows are not classified as conduit bodies.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present definition of conduit bodies is too
broad and unintentionally covers some products which f i t the
definition, but they are not conduit bodies under the typical and
normal use of the term in the trade. This has created a situation
where the UL listing of conduit bodies is being applied to
roducts which do not f i t the conduit body requirements in
ections 370-6(c) and 370-18.
Nonmetallic boxes f i t the present defintion of Conduit Body in
Article 100 and just about everyone knows that they really are not
conduit bodies. The proposed change will pinpoint more accurately
the definition of conduit bodies so that unintended products will
not be included.
Under the present definition capped elbows and service entrance
elbows are about to be delisted because they are within the broad
definition of conduit bodies but do not serve the same function
and therefore do not meet the requirements of conduit bodies such
as twice the cross sectional area of the largest conduit attached
or the 6 and 8 times rule as noted ill Sections 370-6(c) and
370-18. Neither of these products contains splices and they are
primarily used in the termination of a conduit run especially in
~
Log # 262
1- 38 - (Article lO0-Conductor, Covered): Reject
SUBMITTER: C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN
~ATION:
Conductor, Covered: Add: A covered conductor
shall be considered a bare conductor for working clearances, etc.
7
the case of service entrance elbows. They are angle f i t t i n g s
rather than junction points or f i t t i n g s used as Junction boxes.
Capped elbows and service entrance elbows have been in the
electrical trade for well over 30 years and have served the
industry well. They have an exemplary record to trouble-free
performance in the f i e l d , and i t would be a grave injustice to
rule them out of the industry due to a technicality such as the
definition of conduit body being too broad.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-39,
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Sleesman.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SLEESMAN: The existing definition in the NEC was a NEMA
proposal that was never Intended to include either service or
capped elbows.
The proposed revision was intended to c l a r i f y that these
products (service elbows and capped elbows) are used for specific
applications such as machine tool installations. Normally, they
are installed with flexible conductors.
There is a proposal in CMP 8 for Section 300-18 which will
permit wires to be installed in the conduit under certain
conditions similar to the method generally applicable to the use
of service'entrance and capped elbows.
to review all sections of Code that use the term ampacity and see
i f that is what the intent is. Or is i t the conductor's
current-carrying capacity. For example, 220-10(b), 430-22,
430-24, 430-25, etc.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-27.
Referred to CMP's 2, 4 and 6 for comment.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1345
1- 44 - (Article lO0-Damage, Extensive-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Paul P. Gubany, Bussmann Division, McGraw-Edison Co.
RECOMMENDATION: After the definition of "cutout box" insert the
definition for extensive damage as used in 110-10.
Damage, Extensive: The type of damage that requires the removal
and replacement of the electrical system's component(s).
FPN: This is not to be interpreted to apply to fuses or other
protective devices that are designed to be replaced after they
perform their protective function.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present Code is not clear on what extensive
damage is.
The Code addresses protection in 240-1 and 240-2. Eachof these
sections requires "protection not" destruction. Section 90-1
addresses safeguarding of persons and property from hazards
arising from the use of e l e c t r i c i t y .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: This is a subjective term that requires Judgement
of Indi¢idual products and cannot be defined in Article 100.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1926
1- 41 - (Article lO0-Continuous Load): Reject
SUBMITTER: Joseph C. Roohan, Whittier, CA
~ATION:
Delete a11 reference to "Continuous Load."
SUBSTANTIATION: The inclusion of "Continuous Load" and the
accompanying derating rules in the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODEsome
time ago was a well intended, but unnecessary refinement in the
practical application of the Code.
The consideration of "Continuous Load" clearly belongs in
electrical handbooks and other designers' guides but not in a
safety code. In Section 90-1(c) i t is stated that "This is not
intended as a design specification..." I t is ludicrous to
consider an installation safe where i t carries current for
slightly less than three hours and unsafe where this time is
exceeded. I t is just as ridiculous to consider an installation
safe where i t is carrying continuous current and is momentarily
interrupted every three hours. The ampacity ratings for
conductors in Article 310 are continuous ratings and the derating
factors for continuous loads are design considerations to reduce
nuisance tripping current breakers that are not temperature
compensated where enclosed in panelboards. Nuisance tripping is
not generally considered a safety hazard.
By deleting the references to "Continuous Load" in the National
Electrical Code an important step toward practicality will be
achieved allowing inspectors, plan reviewers, and others whose
duties consist of evaluating an installation to concern themselves
with the safety provided by conductor size, material, insulation,
and overcurrent protection. The time element of an in
installation is an impractical, unenforceable and unrelated
element of safety within the referenced sections.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The term is used extensively throughout the Code
and the definition is necessary to understand the application of
Code rules.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 378
i - 45 - (Article lO0-Electric-Discharge Lighting-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Dennis Schmit, Hospers, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Electric-Discharge Lighting: All lighting that
Involves the use of ballasts.
SUBSTANTIATION: There is no place in the Code that defines i t and
i t is talked about frequently.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal does not add any c l a r i t y to the use
of the Code.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 256
I - 46 - (Article lO0-Enclosed, Raceway): Reject
SUBMITTER: C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the term "enclosed" and include cable
trays as a type of raceway.
SUBSTANTIATION: This makes the term more inclusive. There seems
to be no place throughout the Code that a cable tray would not be
permitted where the term "raceway" has been used. After a l l ,
cable trays under specified conditions are permitted in hazardous
areas.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COF~MENT: Cable trays are not a raceway. They are
adequately defined in Section 318-I.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1766
1- 47 - (Article lO0-Fire Resistant): Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Fire Resistant: (as applies to Article 450), see
Sectlon 450-2.
SUBSTANTIATION: A reference is needed to pin-point the definition
much the same as "dust-ignition-proof" or "branch-circult
selection current" as they appear in Article 100.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Similar terms are used throughout the Code.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 658
i - 42 - (Article lO0-Controller): Reject
SUBMITTER: George C. Gingher, Association of Iron and Steel
RECOMMENDATION: Changedefinition to read: "A device or group of
devices that serves to govern, in some predetermined may ", the
electric power delivered "directly" to the apparatus tL
.ch i t
is connected."
SUBSTANTIATION: The addition of the word "directly" in the
definition makes i t clear that pilot devices, often remote
n~unted, such as limit switches, push-button stations, master
switches, etc. are "not" a controller. This would c l a r i f y
application of this definition such as Section 430-102, where only
the Handbook now makes i t clear that a master switch is not the
location for a disconnecting means.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The devices mentioned in the supporting comment
could be considered controllers on specific installations as
covered in Section 430-81(a).
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 314
I - 48 - (Article lO0-Ground, Grounding): Reject
SUBMITTER: TomeyW. Long, TWL, Inc. dba Commercial Electric
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the word "ground" and replace i t with the
word " n e u t r a l . "
Delete the word "grounding" and replace i t with the word "bond."
SUBSTANTIATION: There is constant confusion between the words
"ground" and "grounding" by customers, wiremen, inspectors,
architects, engineers and contractors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal is technically inconsistent with
present Code rules and definitions. The submitter does not
identify where the changes should be made.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1660
1- 43 - (Article lO0-Current-Carrying Capacity): Reject
SUBMIl-rER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity, Inc.
~ATION:
Revise definition of Current-Carrying Capacity to
read: "The maximum load that a conductor can carry after all load
limiting factors have applied."
SUBSTANTIATION: The Code uses the term ampacity but in reality
they mean current-carrylng capacity. A committee ~hould be set up
B
Log # 1764
1- 52 - (Article lO0-Ground-FauIt Protection of Equipment-(New)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Ground-Fault Protection of Equipment: A system
intended to provide protection of equipment from damaging
line-to-ground arcing fault currents by operating to cause a
disconnecting means to open all ungrounded conductors of the
faulted circuit. This protection is provided at current levels
less than that required to protect conductors from damage through
the operation of a supply c i r c u i t overcurrent device.
SUBSTANTIATION: The definition is as provided for the 1981NEC
and i t is believed that CMP 1 should take another look at i t for
revision or acceptance.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Delete the word "arcing."
PANEL COMMENT: Low level ground faults are not necessarily arcing
faults. Referred to CV~'s 4 and 11 for information.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 7
NEGATIVE: Hart, Moser.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
HART: I believe that this proposal should be rejected for the
same reasons that i t was rejected for the 1981 Code. There is a
considerable amount of confusion regarding ground-fault protection
of equipment and ground-fault protection of personnel. There even
seems to be some confusion in the Panel as evidenced by the
discussion during the recent Panel meeting.
As I stated last time, this definition is not any different from
the ordinary dictionary definition and in fact i t is also a good
description of ground-fault protection of personnel as well as a
ground-fault circuit-interrupter. I do agree that there is need
to differentiate between the two systems, but I do not believe
that i t can be done through definitions, especially the one now
being proposed. I t would only add to the confusion already
existing.
MOSER: Proposal 1-52 should be rejected because the definition
does not clarly mention the use of an alarm only for those systems
designed to have a very low level of ground-fault current. A fine
print note stating, " I t is recognized that systems designed to
have a very low level of ground-fault current are sometimes
provided with an alarm only to indicate the presence of a ground
fault" would make the proposal acceptable.
Log # 261
1- 49 - (Article lO0-Grounded Conductor, Grounding Conductor):
Reject
SUBMITTER: C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN
~ATION:
Grounded Conductor: Add: A grounded conductor
is intended to carry current during normal operation.
Grounding Conductor: Add: A grounding conductor is intended to
carry current only during abnormal conditions.
SUBSTANTIATION: Better differentiates the electrical purpose.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The purpose of these conductors is adequately
covered in Article 250 and should not be included in the
definitions.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
SUMMERS: I agree with the Panel Action but the Panel Comment is
so bland that readers of the Preprint (Technical Committee Report)
could conclude that CMP I was in agreement with the submitter's
proposed definitions. Both definitions are technically incomplete.
A grounded conductor also carries f a u l t currents back to the
source of the system during abnormal conditions in addition to
carrying current during normal operation.
The term "grounding conductor" is a generic term that applies to
several specifically defined conductors; one of these defined
conductors is the "grounding electrode conductor." The grounding
electrode conductor, because i t is connected to the grounded
conductor at the service, provides an alternate path through the
earth to the source of the system during normal conditions.
Log # 418, 503, 1234
I - 50 - (Article lO0-Grounding Electrode-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to CMP 5 for action.
SUBMITTERS: Southwestern Section IAEI (418)
Ernest E. Cannon, Tempe, AZ (503)
IAEI (1234)
RECOMMENDATION: Add a definition of grounding electrode, such as:
GROUNDING ELECTRODE. A provision made to allow a conductive
path to the earth or to a conducting body that serves in place of
the earth.
SUBSTANTIATION: The term "groundin 9 electrode" is used many
places, including Sections 250-24(b), 250-24(b), Exception,
2B0-26(c), 250-80(a) and (b), 250-81 and 250-83. In all places i t
assumed that there is f u l l knowledge of exactly what the
"grounding electrode" actually is. Perhaps a part of the inherent
confusion on grounding is caused by lack of a precise and
understandable definition,
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels the proposal is not within the
jurisdiction of CMP i and refers i t to CMP 5 for action.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEC~ATIVE: Summers.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SUMMERS: Although I concur with the Panel Comment, the term
should be defined.
Log # 934
1- 53 - (Article lO0-Ground-Fault Protector): Reject ,
SUBMITTER: C. D. Hansell, GTE Service Corporation
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new definition for the device or system
described in Section 230-95:
Ground-Fault Protector: A device or system of devices intended to
limit damage to conductors and equipment in the event of an arcing
round fault on the load s l d e o f the service disconnecting means.
UBSTANTIATION: The definition should be added following and to
differentiate from Ground-Fault Circuit Interruptor. The term is
used in at least two Sections, 517-14 and 701-17.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-52.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
~
Log #935
1- 51 - (Article lO0-Grounded, Effectively): Reject
SUBMITTER: C. D. Hansell, GTE Service Corporation
RECOMMENDATION: Part B Over 600 Volts, Nominal.
Change the definition, Grounded, Effectively, to the identical
text used in the fine print note following Section 800-2(c)(1)d:
Grounded, Effectively: Effectively grounded means intentionally
connected to earth through a ground connection or connections of
s u f f i c i e n t l y low impedance and having sufficient current carrying capacity to prevent the buildup of voltages which may
result in undue hazard to connected equip~lent or to persons.
SUBSTANTIATION: The two definitions should be identical. The
major difference is that the proposed text says "to prevent the
buildup of voltages which may result in undue hazard to connected
equipment or to persons," in place of "that ground-fault current
which may occur cannot build up to voltages dangerous to
personnel."
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Article 100 presently has a note to refer to
Section 800-2(c)(1). The inclusion of such a definition without
the cross reference would lead to an incorrect use of the term.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
SUMMERS: The Panel should have referred this to CMP 5 for
action. The Panel Comment is in error because the proposal is
directed to the definition in Part B Over 600 Volts, Nominal and
not the cross reference in Part A. I am not convinced that the
proposal is even sound. Low voltage and high voltage systems are
not usually grounded by the same methods nor do they achieve the
same end result. The use of the term "effectively grounded" as
used in the NEC has a t o t a l l y different connotation applied to the
term in the IEEE Green Book ANSI/IEEE C114.1. This recommended
practice for grounding of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems
uses the term "effectively grounded" to describe grounding
accomplished by the use of surge arresters.
I - 54 - (Article lO0-1nterrupting Rating): Accept
SUBMINER: CMP I
RECOMMENDATION: Rev~rd the present definition by replacing the
word "specified" with "standard."
SUBSTANTIATION: Specified test conditions should be given in the
form of a Fine Print Note where possible.
In this instance i t is
impossible to do so; therefore, the substitution of "standard" is
appropriate:
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOlE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1449
i - 55 - (Article lO0-1nterrupting Rating): Reject
SUBMITTERS: Leo, Witz, Continental Elec. Co.
J-Jlm-Meehan, New'Haven, CT
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Leo Nagel, North Dakota
Les Rinder, Chicago,-IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
B i l l Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Hogan, Chicago, IL
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: AmendArticle 100 so that the definition of
"Interrupting Rating" reads as follows:
"Interrupting Rating. The highest current at rated voltage that
an overcurrent protective device has proven that i t can interrupt,
under standard test conditions, without unacceptable damage to
i t s e l f or its related equipment.
9
RECOMMENDATION: Add a definition for "MADEELECTRODES" such as:
A "made grounding electrode" is a grounding electrode made by
electrical installation specifically for the purpose of serving as
a grounding electrode.
SUBSTANTIATION: There is a reasonable confusion concerning Just
what the intent of NEC is in Sections 250-83 and 250-84 when the
term is used. In fact, grounding electrodes formerly listed under
83 section have been moved to Section 250-81, specifically
"concrete-encased electrode. ~ This serves to further confuse the
issue. Certainly, made electrodes in contrast to nonmade
electrodes is in order. Perhaps those grounding electrodes which
exist because of structure construction and/or f a c i l i t y
installation such as metallic water piping, effectively grounded
steel frames, other metallic piping systems or underground tanks
are in the class of nonmade and the made electrodes for grounding
do consist of those which are intentionally installed for the
purpose and/or of electrical materials.
Clarification is in order.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL CO~b4ENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-50.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Summers.
COMMENTON VOTE:
SEELBACH: The Panel Comment should mention a referenceto CMP 5
for action, instead of learning this after reviewing Proposal 1-50.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SUMMERS: Although I concur with the Panel Comment, the term
should be defined.
Equipment intended to break current at other than fault
conditions may have their interrupting ratings expressed in other
than levels of current, such as horsepower."
SUBSTANTIATION: The use of the words, "is intended to interrupt
under specified test conditions," means l i t t l e or nothing to the
inspector and far less in law. I f the NEC is to become a legal
document i t is necessary to eliminate as many loopholes through
which many less than honest people crawl in their attempt to evade
the intention of the Code as is possible. As i t is presently
written, the sentence contains two indeterminate provisions. The
f i r s t is that, "the overcurrent protective device IS INTENDEDto
i n t e r r u p t . . . " Now, we might design and manufacture an overcurrent
protective device with the very best of INTENTIONS and make some
very explicit claims about what that OCP is INTENDEDto do. I t is
historically possible, probable and likely that certain
manufacturers will continue to do just exactly that when they know
and we can prove that the OCP will not and cannot perform as
intended. Secondly, we might SPECIFY a very complex and
meaningless set of TEST CONDITIONS under which the device is to be
tested. Having done these two things, we would be in conformance
with the provisions of the present wording of the Code. However,
we all know that the road to hell is paved with good INTENTIONS
and that sets of specifications drawn up by manufacturers to prove
the acceptability of one of their products are really not INTENDED
to prove that products unacceptability, but rather its
acceptability. No one writes a set of specifications that will be
detrimental to ones own product. In recent history we have had
clear and unrefutable evidence of overcurrent devices that have
been given interruping ratings at which they are INTENDEDto
perform under SPECIFIED TEST CONDITIONS that have failed miserably
in the f i e l d .
I t is our opinion that the insertion of the words, "has proven"
will make i t mandatory that manufacturers will have to provide
tangible evidence that their products have been tested and have
passed such tests. The words, "standard test conditions," will
make i t mandatory that all similar products are tested to the same
standard and that such a standard has some r e l a t i v i t y to the real
world.
To our knowledge there is no place in the code where, "specified
test conditions" is defined, explained or even alluded to except
in these definitions in Article 100. As such the term is
meaningless.
For further substantiation see our proposal for the definitions
that include the term, "specified test conditions. ~
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel believes the proposed revision would not
accomplish the purpose intended by the proposer's substantiation.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1668
1- 59 - (Article 100-Neutral Conductor): Accept
SUBMINER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity, Inc.
~ T I O N :
Delete the definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: Neutral is referred to as the grounded
conductor. Most sections of the NEC refer to the neutral as the
grounded conductor, also the word common is used. Why not just
call i t the grounded conductor and be done with i t . By omitting
this meaningless definition, and using the grounded conductor as
the reference, the Code will provide some consistency with its
terminology. Have all sections of NEC reviewed and make changes
to the term grounded conductor.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel accepts the proposal as i t realizes that
no proper definition presently appears in Article 100. However,
the Panel disagrees with the proposer's substantiation as some
grounded conductors are not neutral conductors.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 954
I - 56 - (Article 100-Load Current-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: R. P. O'Riley, Dallas Joint Electrical Apprenticeship
and~ing
Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: Add new definition:
Load Current - As Applied to Electrical Conductors - The
ampacity of an electrical conductor after one or more of the
correction factors are applied to the listed ampacity as given in
the Code ampacity Tables 310-16 thru 310-19.
SUBSTANTIATION: There is considerable confusion concerning the
use of the terms "ampacity" and "load current" as applied to
electrical conductors. Therefore, there is need for a definition
for clarification of these two terms.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel is in sympathy with the substantiation
proposed. See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-26.
Referred to CMP's 2, 4 and 6 for comment.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 100
1- 60 - (Article 100-Neutral Conductor): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to CMP 5 for action.
SUBMITTER: Robert G. MacManus, Pawtucket, RI
~DATION:
Replace the existing words with the following:
Neutral Conductor: The conductor of single-phase three-wire and
three-phase four-wire wye systems which is common to a11 phases
and having an equal potential difference between i t and each of
the phases. In the case of the three-wlre system derived from the
"red leg" delta system, i t is the midpoint of the two phases
used. See applicable sections of Article 250 for grounding.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present definition is not a definition at
a l l . I t refers to Note 10 to Tables 310-16 through 310-19 which
determines i f the neutral conductor shallbe counted when applying
the provisions of Note 8.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PA%4ELCOMMENT: The proposal is not all inclusive. The Pane]
agrees with the proposer's substantiation. See Panel Action and
Comment on Proposal 1-59. Referred to CI~° 5 for action.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 373
1- 57 - (Article lO0-Location: Commercial Location-(New);
Industrial Location-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: RandyHeikes, Ellsworth, MN
~ATION:
Commercial location: A place that is engaged in
the selling of goods or services, with the intent of making a
profit.
Industrial location: A company or place that is engaged in
industrial production of goods or services.
Residential location: A place made up of one or more dwelling
units.
SUBSTANTIATION: The definitions do not very clearly define the
locations above.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COf~MENT: Proposed definitions would cause a conflict with
the various building codes.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1398
I - 61 - Article lO0-Noncombustible Materia1-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this
proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for
comment.
SUBMII'TER: C. W. Beile, Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following definition:
Noncombustible Material: A material which, in the form in which
i t is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite,
burn, support combustion or release flammable vapors when
subjected to f i r e or heat. Materials reported as noncombustible,
when tested in accordance with ASTME136, Standard Method of
Testing for Noncombustibility of Elementary Materials, shall be
considered noncombustible materials.
SUBSTANTIATION: This term is found in at least two places in the
NEC and is proposed for addition to Sections 300-22 (b) and (c),
347-2 and 384-7.
Proposals to the 1978 and 1981 NEC were rejected because the
Code Panel professed lack of knowledge of what this term meant.
This definition is extracted word for word from NFPA90A and 220.
I t is especially apropos to the NEC at this time considering the
Standards Council action toward 90A responsibility system for
ducts and plenums.
Log # 419, 502, 1235
1- 58 - (Article lO0-Made Electrodes-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to C~ 5 for action.
SUBMITTERS: Southwestern Section IAEI (419)
Ernest E. Cannon, Tempe, AZ (502)
IAEI (1235)
10
SUBSTANTIATION: This wording is used in the NEC Sections 300-21
and 800-3(c) meeting the requirements of having i t defined in
Article 100. The publicity that has been given to products that
will combust in recent fires involving the electrical industry in
the controversy of toxic fumes is damaging to the industry. Vital
insulations of conductors can be challenged as well as raceways
and other plastic equipment. There is a proposal like the above
worded definition that uses "toxic fumes" instead of just the word
"fumes." We should stay clear of the word "toxic" until we know
more about t o x i c i t y and what products of combustion produce toxic
fumes. There is a definite need for the definition at this time.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-64.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Summers.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SUMMERS: Samecomment as Proposal 1-64.
As evidenced by pages 15 and 16 of the attached "Survey for the
Collection of Professional Opinion on Selected Fire Protection
Engineering Topics" present non-combustible definitions are not
even adequate. However, i t seems the NEC would need to agree with
NFPA 90A until needed changes take place there.
Note: (A copy of the attachments is available from NFPAon
request.)
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COI~MENT: The submitter's substantiation (NBS Technical Note
861) indicates the lack of adequacy of present definitions. In
view of this shortcoming the proposed definition would be
inappropriate for the NEC. The pending action alluded to in the
last sentence of the substantiation is compelling reason to refer
the proposal to NFPA for action by the appropriate committee.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 12
1- 62 - (Article lO0-Overcurrent): Reject
SUBMI1-FER: Russell A. Pasco, San Diego, CA
~ATION:
In OVERCURRENT definition change " I t may result
from overload (see definition) short circuit or ground f a u l t . " to
" I t may result from overload (see definition) or short c i r c u i t . "
SUBSTANTIATION: The definition of Ground-Fault
Circuit-lnterrupter indicates that a ground fault is "less than
that required to operate the overcurrent protective device" and
therefore is NOT an overcurrent.
The change will eliminate this apparent contradiction.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposer's substantiation is not correct.
There is no contradiction between the two definitions.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 417
1- 66 - (Article lO0-Products of Combustion-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this
proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for
comment.
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
~ATION:
Amend Article 100 by adding the following
definition:
"Products of Combustion. Smoke, gases or toxic fumes resulting
from the exposure of materials or equipment to temperatures in
excess of their ratings or f i r e . "
SUBSTANTIATION: There is a very definite need for a specific
definition of this nature since the term is used in more than one
section of the Code.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL CO~aMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-64.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Summers.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SUMMERS: Samecomment as Proposal 1-64.
Log # 2017
1- 63 ~ (Article 100, Physical Damage-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Idaho Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following definition to Article 100:
Physical Damage: A term used to describe the material
impairment, to various degrees, of the usefulness of installed
electrical equipment and materials.
SUBSTANTIATION: This wording is used in the NEC in many
locations, thus i t meets the requirements of having i t defined in
Article 100. Manytimes the question has been asked, "What is
physical damage?"
This has been discussed at NFPA technical committee meetings and
there is indeed a need for the definition. The above proposed
definition coincides with Webster's definition of the words
physical and damage.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The definition is not peculiar to and essential to
the proper use of this Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1368
i - 67 - (Article lO0-Products of Combustion-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this
proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for
comment.
SUBMITTER: M. H. Lounsbury, Albany, NY
RECOMMENDATION: AmendArticle 100 by adding the following
definition:
"Products of Combustion. Heat and smoke consisting of toxic and
corrosive products, carbon particles, carbon dioxide in large
amounts and water vapors generated as a result of combustion in a
flaming or non-flaming f i r e . "
SUBSTANTIATION: There is a very definite need for a specific
definition of this nature, since the term is used in more than one
Section of the Code (300-21, 800-3(c), 760-4(a), 725-2(a),
820-14(a)).
Along with a definition for non-combustible, Products of
Combustion must be defined and a guideline for evaluation of
combustible products established.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-64.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Summers.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SUMMERS: Samecomment as Proposal 1-64
Log # 1233
1- 64 - (Article lO0-Products of Combustion-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this
proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for
comment.
SUBMITTER: IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: AmendArticle 100 by adding the following
definition:
"Products of Combustion. Smoke, gases or toxic fumes resulting
from the exposure of materials or equipment to temperatures in
excess of their ratings or f i r e . "
SUBSTANTIATION: There is a very definite need for a specific
definition of this nature since the term is used in more than one
section of the Code. Sections 300-21, 725-2(a), 760-4(a),
800-3(c), 820-14(a).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Pending release of the NFPA report on t o x i c i t y ,
the Pane] refers this proposal to NFPA for action by the
appropriate committee.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Summers.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SUMMERS: Although I agree with the Panel Comment, the term
should be defined.
Log # 652
1- 68 - (Article lO0-Raceway): Reject
SUBMITTER: Nils Jonsson, RELOCDivision of Lithonia Lighting
RECOMMENDATION: Raceway
Last line - delete the word "and" after wireways but before
busways and add after the word busways the following "and
manufactured wiring systems."
SUBSTANTIATION: Article 604, Manufactured Wiring Systems, has now
been accepted as a "Branch Wiring Method." Subsequently, i t
should take its rightful place under "Raceway" Article 100.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The substantiation is in error as manufactured
wiring systems are not raceways. Wiring methods are covered in
Chapter 3.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
L o g # 2018
1- 65 - (Article 100, Products of Combustion-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this
proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for
comment.
SUBMITTER: Idaho Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following definition to Article 100:
Products of combustion. Smoke, gases or fumes resulting from the
exposure of materials or equipment to temperatures in excess of
their ratings or f i r e .
Log # 1765
I - 69 - (Article lO0-Readily Accessible): Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the voting.
11
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
~ATION:
Relocate Readily Accessible to follow "Accessible
(as applied to equipment)" as follows:
Accessible, Readily: (Readily Accessible) Capable of being
reached quickly . . . .
SUBSTANTIATION: The attempt is to group the definitions u t i l i z i n g
the word "accessible" so that users of the NEC can distinguish at
a glance the differences in their applications.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise the proposal by adding a third sentence as follows:
Add "Readily Accessible: (See "Accessible.")" in alphabetical
order under the letter "R."
PANEL COfC~4ENT: To assist the reader in finding the relocated
definition.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
SEELBACH: My notes indicate that in addition to the Action
shown, we also planned to retain "Readily Accessible - See
Accessible" as i t now appears in Article 100.
SUMMERS: The Panel Action is confusing but my notes reflect the
following: Accept the proposal and in the present location in
Article 100 of "Readily Accessible" add the following cross
reference: Read!ly Accessible: (See Accessible).
SUBSTANTIATION: The definitions should be consistently found in
Article 100, Or i f they conflict with other sections, should be
located at the front of each section where they are applicable.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal is contrary to the Scope of Article 100
as the definition is not used in two or more articles.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 837
1- 74 - (Article lO0-Smoke (New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this
proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for
comment.
SUBMITTER: Robert E. Taylor, Smoke Control Association
RECOMMENDATION: Add (New) Definition:
SMOKE: The airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases
evolved when a material undergoes pyrolosis or combustion.
SUBSTANTIATION: Reference to word occurs in at least two sections.
To make code interpretation more precise and accurate, an
accepted "scientific" definition of smoke should be in the NEC,
the ASTMdefinition.
Smoke appears in articles: 725-2(b)760_4(d)Exception
tOException
to l~I
800-3(d) Exception to (d)
The term "products of combustion" likewise should be deleted
wherever i t is used in Standard No. 70 and replaced with the word
"smoke." Companion proposals will so recommend, since "products
of combustion" is not an ASTMor enforceable definition.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-64.
Referred to C~'s 3, 16 and 17 for information.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanin~ouslyAffirmative.
Log # 211
1- 70 - (Article lO0-Service): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
]TE'T~OI~I;{E~-DATION: Revise definition of service as follows:
Service: The conductors and equipment for delivering energy
from the e l e c t r i c i t y supply system of the serving u t i l i t y , or
energy-generating plant providin~ the sole source of energy, to
the wiring system(s) of the premlses served.
SUBSTANTIATION: While the present wording does not exclude such a
generating plant~ i t couid also be construed as including
conductors and equipment supplied from a premises wiring system
transformer, (standby or emergency) generator, battery, etc. This
proposal attempts to provide a more definitive description of what
"System" is involved. A generating plant providing the sole
source of electrical energy to a premises wiring system should
warrant the same requirements of Article 230 as a supply system
from a serving u t i l i t y .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The service may not be the sole service of energy
to the wiring system of the premises served.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1753
I - 71 - (Article lO0-Service Conductors): Reject
SUBMII~FER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electr.icity, Inc.
~ATION:
Omit this definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: This definition does not provide any more
information than service entrance conductors (overhead,
underground) service drop, service lateral.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The definition applies to all the definitions
mentioned in the substantiation and therefore is a generic term
necessary to properly apply the existing Code rules.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 911
1- 75 - (Article lO0-Solar Photovoltaic System): Accept
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Solar Photovoltaics
RECOMMENDATION: Add new definition as follows:
Solar Photovoltaic System: The total components and subsystems
which in combination convert solar energy into electrical energy
suitable for connection to a u t i l i z a t i o n load.
SUBSTANTIATION: The term may be defined in Article 690 and i f
accepted may appear in more than two articles of the Code.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel Action is conditional upon the
acceptance of Article 690 by CMP 3. Referred to CMP 3.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1419
1- 76 - (Article lO0-Switch Loop-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Karl F. Steinhauer, Des Plaines, IL
RECOMMENDATION: Switch Loop: In a configuration where supply
raceway goes directly to the outlet, the off-side wiring to/from a
controlling switch (and lacking the grounded identified conductor)
is a "switch loop."
SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y that Section 200-7 Exception No. 2:
a) applies for BX as well as for Romex, and
b) is not a contradiction of Section 380-2(a).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposed definition is a trade term and does
not meet the Scope of Article 100 as i t is not used in more than
one article.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 200
1- 72 - (Article 100-Service Equipment): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~ATION:
Revise definition of Service Equipment as follows:
Service Equipment: The necessary equipment, usually consisting
of a circuit breaker or switch and fuses, and their accessories~
located near the point of entrance of service conductors to a
building or other structure, or an otherwise defined area, and
intended to constitute the main control and means of disconnection
of the service conductors.
SUBSTANTIATION: As presently worded, without specifying what
constitutes "supply" conductors, this section could be interpreted
to define the disconnect means required in Section 230-84 as
service equipment, particularly since such equipment shall be
suitable (listed) for such, Formal Interpretation 70-78-7
apparently dealt with a problem arising from an installation where
i t was necessary to define service equipment and/or service
conductors. The definition of Service Conductors define
particular supply conductors, and Sections 230-71~a) and 230-72(c)
maintain consistency by specifying requirements of service
equipment in relationship to certain specified supply conductors.
The use of the word, "service" in lieu of "supply" would encompass
Service Entrance Conductors-Overhead System, Service Entrance
Conductors-Underground System, and Service lateral.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposed definition does not add to the
additional understanding of what constitutes service equipment.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log ~ 973
1- 77 - (Article lO0-Switches, Motor-Circuit Switch): Accept
SUBMITTER: R. W. Seelbach, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Motor-Circuit Switch: A switch capable of
Tnterrupting the maximom operating overload current (including
locked-rotor) of a motor.
SUBSTANTIATION: This revision deletes "rated in horsepower" on
the basis that this is an unnecessary specification. Some
switches suitable for motor circuit uses are essentially
circuit-breakers with the tripping element either blocked or
removed. These are known by various names, such as "nonautomatic
c i r c u i t interrupters" and "molded case switches." These switches
do not require marked horsepower ratings since, like circuit
breakers, the information included in the listing or labeling
indicates that they are tested at 6 times the marked ampere rating
and therefore are suitable for interrupting the maximum operating
overload current (including locked-rotor) of any motor for which
the voltage and ampere ratings are adequate. The marking of
horsepower ratings would unnecessarily limit the use of these
switches since the individual units do not have sufficient room on
their face, where the marking weuld be visible, for a table of the
applicable horsepower ratings considering the various voltage both
single and three phase, involved. A proposal to delete "rated in
horsepower" is also being made for Section 430-109.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
Log # 1687
1- 73 - (Article 100-Service Point): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt~ Concepts in Electricity Inc.
ITL-CI)I~E~ZI~IIATION: Removedefinitlon from Section 230-200 and place
i t in Artlcle 10(3.
12
Log # 2086
1- 81 - (Article 110): Reject
SUBMITTER: Richard Reddy, Reddy Electric Company, Inc.
O
R~ A T I O N :
Eliminate reducing washers.
SUBSTANTIATION: Instead use a reducing bushing threaded inside
and out that could be secured in the hole with a locknut and the
pipe size f i t t i n g screwed into the bushing. This would require
the manufacture of reducing bushings with a shoulder on one side
similar to those used by the plumbing industry, instead of the
ones currently being used in the electrical industry where the
thread is straight all the way across the bushing.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-80.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel Action is conditional upon acceptance of
this proposa! by CMP 11.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Sleesman.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SLEESMAN: CMP I accepted this proposal contingent upon CMP 11
acceptance of a proposal to delete "rated in HP" from Section
430-109. That proposal was NOT accepted by CMP 11.
Log # 506
I - 78 - (Article lO0-Tap, Service, Feeder, Branch Circuit-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Joseph E. McCann, City of Coral Springs, FL
~ATION:
Article lO0-Tap, Service, Feeder, Branch
Circuit-(New)
SUBSTANTIATION: A clear cut definition or explanation of a tap,
separating i t from a junction point or splice point.
Does a tap necessarily mean a change in wire size from a point
protected by a larger size O.C.P?
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal does not contain any proposed language.
This is in violation of Section 10-10 of NFPARegulations
Governing Committee Projects.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 477
I - 82 - (110-xx): Reject
SUBMITTER: David J. Snitzer, City of Los Angeles, CA
RECOMMENDATION: 110-xx Tests. All wiring shall be .free from
short-circuits and grounds and shall be tested for these defects
prior to being connected to the circuit.
SUBSTANTIATION: The provision for wiring to be free from
short-circuits and grounds should be a general provision which
would include wiring for appliances, motors, etc., and not be
limited to Article 410, which applies only to lighting fixtures,
l ampholders, lamps, receptacles, and rosettes.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Already covered by Section 110-7.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
SUMMERS: Although the concept is covered by Section 110-7, the
mandatory aspect of testing is not. In spite of the recognized
desirability of testing prior to connection, the legal l i a b i l i t y
to authorities enforcing the Code should not be overlooked.
Log # 685
I - 79 - (Article lO0-Volatile Flammable Liquid): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to CMP 14 for comment.
SUBMITTER: Dr. R. Y. Levine, Technical Committee on Electrical
Equipment in Chemical Atmospheres
RECOMMENDATION: Delete: Existing definition for 'Volatile
Flammable Liquid.'
Replace With: 'Flammable Gas: A gas which will burn either
alone or when mixed in any proportion with air, oxygen, or other
oxidizer.'
'Flammable Liquid: A liquid having a flash point of less than
lO0°F (37.8°C), a vapor pressure not exceeding (276 kPa) ~0
psia at 38°C (lO0OF), and is defined as a Class I flammable
liquid by NFPA No. 321, Standard on the Basic Classification of
Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 19xx; or Class I I or Class I l l
combustible liquids as defined in NFPA No. 321 and heated above
the liquids flash point.
SUBSTANTIATION: Although the change made in the 1980 Code
i~Droved previous definitions, the present definition does not
agree with many other widely used NFPA Standards (e.g., Flammable
and Combustible Liquids Code). The above wording provides proper
and consistent definitions for the terms used in Chapter 5 of the
Code. This improved consistency will f a c i l i t a t e interpretation of
other NFPA Standards which rely on the NEC for electrical
installation requirements (e.g., NFPANos. 30, 58, etc.). The
proposed wording also corrects the present definition and
recognizes flammable gases and Class I l l liquids directly. In
particular, Class I I - 8 liquids are specifically excluded from the
Code.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The change in definition mandates a change in Code
requirements under the jurisdiction of CMP 14. Therefore, the
proposal is referred to CMP 14 with the suggestion that i t be
correlated with NFPA 30.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Summers.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SLUMMERS: The Panel Action should have been "Accept" and refer
to CMP 14 for comment.
Log # 305
I - 83 - (110-3(a)(4)): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. C. Taylor, Rio Rancho, NM
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: Electrical insulation, of what
ever type, when used for conductor insulation, whether single or
multiple assembled shall be nontoxic.
The effective date of this requirement shall be January 1st,
1990 or earlier i f possible.
SUBSTANTIATION: With the on-set of plastics taking place of the
older type of insulations and their ease and workability of
application, no realization of the t o x i c i t y of these materials
seemingly was apparent. Several fires and lives later this truth
is now evident.
I t now seems some definitive action should be initiated to
correct this situation as early as possible.
A suggested date is indicated to give sufficient lead time for
the development of a chemical neutralizer to our present plastics,
or the development of new insulation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Almost all insulations are toxic to some degree.
Contrary to what the substantiation indicates even older
insulations could be a source of toxic conditions.
Under instructions of the NFPA Board of Directors, a study on
t o x i c i t y is presently being carried out. Therefore, neither the
Panel nor the proposer are in a position at the present time to
make a judgement.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1451
I - 84 - (110-3(a)(8)): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this
proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for
comment.
SUBMITTERS: Leo Witz, Continental Electrical Co.
Hogan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT.
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 110-3(a)(8) so as to read as
follows:
"(8). All other factors which may contribute or can be expected
to contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using,
contacting or exposed to such equipment or the results of heating
or overheating of said equipment under normal or abnormal
conditions."ISUBSTANTIATION: Section 90-1 indicates that the sole
purpose of the NEC is the practical safeguarding of persons or
property from the hazards arising from.the use of e l e c t r i c i t y .
Section 110-3 l i s t s the characteristics of electrical equipment
that are to be evaulated in order to assure the practical
safeguarding of the people and the property for whom we are
ARTICLE 110 -- REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS
Log # 2085
I - 80 - (Article 110): Reject
SUBMITTER: Richard Reddy, Reddy Electric Company, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: The complete elimination of all concentric
knockouts in panels, pull boxes, gutters and motor junction boxes
or any other electrical enclosure.
SUBSTANTIATION: Seven-eighths inch knockouts could be spaced in
all enclosures to allow for punching the required size hole. With
the ease that holes can be punched today this should present no
problem on any construction job.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal is not directed to any specific Code
section and therefore does not meet Section 10-10 of the NFPA
Regulations Governing Committee Projects. There is no
substantiation provided for such elimination.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
13
Log # 2086
1- 81 - (Article 110): Reject
SUBMITTER: Richard Reddy, Reddy Electric Company, Inc.
O
R~ A T I O N :
Eliminate reducing washers.
SUBSTANTIATION: Instead use a reducing bushing threaded inside
and out that could be secured in the hole with a locknut and the
pipe size f i t t i n g screwed into the bushing. This would require
the manufacture of reducing bushings with a shoulder on one side
similar to those used by the plumbing industry, instead of the
ones currently being used in the electrical industry where the
thread is straight all the way across the bushing.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-80.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel Action is conditional upon acceptance of
this proposa! by CMP 11.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Sleesman.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SLEESMAN: CMP I accepted this proposal contingent upon CMP 11
acceptance of a proposal to delete "rated in HP" from Section
430-109. That proposal was NOT accepted by CMP 11.
Log # 506
I - 78 - (Article lO0-Tap, Service, Feeder, Branch Circuit-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Joseph E. McCann, City of Coral Springs, FL
~ATION:
Article lO0-Tap, Service, Feeder, Branch
Circuit-(New)
SUBSTANTIATION: A clear cut definition or explanation of a tap,
separating i t from a junction point or splice point.
Does a tap necessarily mean a change in wire size from a point
protected by a larger size O.C.P?
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal does not contain any proposed language.
This is in violation of Section 10-10 of NFPARegulations
Governing Committee Projects.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 477
I - 82 - (110-xx): Reject
SUBMITTER: David J. Snitzer, City of Los Angeles, CA
RECOMMENDATION: 110-xx Tests. All wiring shall be .free from
short-circuits and grounds and shall be tested for these defects
prior to being connected to the circuit.
SUBSTANTIATION: The provision for wiring to be free from
short-circuits and grounds should be a general provision which
would include wiring for appliances, motors, etc., and not be
limited to Article 410, which applies only to lighting fixtures,
l ampholders, lamps, receptacles, and rosettes.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Already covered by Section 110-7.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
SUMMERS: Although the concept is covered by Section 110-7, the
mandatory aspect of testing is not. In spite of the recognized
desirability of testing prior to connection, the legal l i a b i l i t y
to authorities enforcing the Code should not be overlooked.
Log # 685
I - 79 - (Article lO0-Volatile Flammable Liquid): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to CMP 14 for comment.
SUBMITTER: Dr. R. Y. Levine, Technical Committee on Electrical
Equipment in Chemical Atmospheres
RECOMMENDATION: Delete: Existing definition for 'Volatile
Flammable Liquid.'
Replace With: 'Flammable Gas: A gas which will burn either
alone or when mixed in any proportion with air, oxygen, or other
oxidizer.'
'Flammable Liquid: A liquid having a flash point of less than
lO0°F (37.8°C), a vapor pressure not exceeding (276 kPa) ~0
psia at 38°C (lO0OF), and is defined as a Class I flammable
liquid by NFPA No. 321, Standard on the Basic Classification of
Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 19xx; or Class I I or Class I l l
combustible liquids as defined in NFPA No. 321 and heated above
the liquids flash point.
SUBSTANTIATION: Although the change made in the 1980 Code
i~Droved previous definitions, the present definition does not
agree with many other widely used NFPA Standards (e.g., Flammable
and Combustible Liquids Code). The above wording provides proper
and consistent definitions for the terms used in Chapter 5 of the
Code. This improved consistency will f a c i l i t a t e interpretation of
other NFPA Standards which rely on the NEC for electrical
installation requirements (e.g., NFPANos. 30, 58, etc.). The
proposed wording also corrects the present definition and
recognizes flammable gases and Class I l l liquids directly. In
particular, Class I I - 8 liquids are specifically excluded from the
Code.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The change in definition mandates a change in Code
requirements under the jurisdiction of CMP 14. Therefore, the
proposal is referred to CMP 14 with the suggestion that i t be
correlated with NFPA 30.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Summers.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SLUMMERS: The Panel Action should have been "Accept" and refer
to CMP 14 for comment.
Log # 305
I - 83 - (110-3(a)(4)): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. C. Taylor, Rio Rancho, NM
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: Electrical insulation, of what
ever type, when used for conductor insulation, whether single or
multiple assembled shall be nontoxic.
The effective date of this requirement shall be January 1st,
1990 or earlier i f possible.
SUBSTANTIATION: With the on-set of plastics taking place of the
older type of insulations and their ease and workability of
application, no realization of the t o x i c i t y of these materials
seemingly was apparent. Several fires and lives later this truth
is now evident.
I t now seems some definitive action should be initiated to
correct this situation as early as possible.
A suggested date is indicated to give sufficient lead time for
the development of a chemical neutralizer to our present plastics,
or the development of new insulation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Almost all insulations are toxic to some degree.
Contrary to what the substantiation indicates even older
insulations could be a source of toxic conditions.
Under instructions of the NFPA Board of Directors, a study on
t o x i c i t y is presently being carried out. Therefore, neither the
Panel nor the proposer are in a position at the present time to
make a judgement.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1451
I - 84 - (110-3(a)(8)): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this
proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for
comment.
SUBMITTERS: Leo Witz, Continental Electrical Co.
Hogan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT.
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 110-3(a)(8) so as to read as
follows:
"(8). All other factors which may contribute or can be expected
to contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using,
contacting or exposed to such equipment or the results of heating
or overheating of said equipment under normal or abnormal
conditions."ISUBSTANTIATION: Section 90-1 indicates that the sole
purpose of the NEC is the practical safeguarding of persons or
property from the hazards arising from.the use of e l e c t r i c i t y .
Section 110-3 l i s t s the characteristics of electrical equipment
that are to be evaulated in order to assure the practical
safeguarding of the people and the property for whom we are
ARTICLE 110 -- REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS
Log # 2085
I - 80 - (Article 110): Reject
SUBMITTER: Richard Reddy, Reddy Electric Company, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: The complete elimination of all concentric
knockouts in panels, pull boxes, gutters and motor junction boxes
or any other electrical enclosure.
SUBSTANTIATION: Seven-eighths inch knockouts could be spaced in
all enclosures to allow for punching the required size hole. With
the ease that holes can be punched today this should present no
problem on any construction job.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal is not directed to any specific Code
section and therefore does not meet Section 10-10 of the NFPA
Regulations Governing Committee Projects. There is no
substantiation provided for such elimination.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
13
responsible. In view of the serious questions that have been
raised, and which have not been answered, concerning materials
that are con~nonly used in many different types of electrical
equipment, i t is only reasonable that we respond to these
questions in some positive manner. The inspector in the field
cannot make these determinations! They must be made by the
manufacturer and a qualified testing laboratory. We cannot answer
the questions by dodging the issues! We the standards making
people are morally and legally responsible to assure to the best
of our a b i l i t y and knowledge that the standards we write and
accept; the materials we accept or permit; are not in themselves
creating a hazard for the people who use, contact or are exposed
to them.
Additional substantiation for proposals made by William P. Hogan
et. al. on Sections: 110-3(a)(8), 230-43, 300-22(b), 300-22(c),
338-2, 338-3, 340-5, 344-2, 347-2, 351-2, 352-21 and 370-23.
I t should be obvious that the thrust of all these proposals is
the limitation or actual elimination of the use of those
MATERIALS, which when exposed either to the environment,
temperatures in excess of their ratings, whether from normal or
abnormal causes, or flame emit toxic ~ases, fumes or harmful
chemicals. For years the electrical industry has not only
permitted but also has encouraged the use of materials that f a l l
into this category. These materials do emit toxic gases and do
result in harmful chemicals when exposed to the varying
atmospheres experienced in everyday living. For instance, i t is
not an unco~on phenomenon to observe hydrochloric acid dripping
out of a rigid steel conduit in which PVC conductors have been
exposed to temperatures higher than their ratings or flame and
water has been used to control the source of that heat or flame.
There are documented experiences of this reaction where the acid
was eating through the switch enclosure. When the inspector
attempted to catch the acid in a tin can so that he could have i t
analyzed, i t ate right thru the can. What is startling about this
phenomenon is the fact that we are told that the plastic people
have known about i t for years and have never f e l t that this
information should be publicized because the incidence weuld be so
rare that i t was not worth alerting the electrical industry. In
spite of their lack of concern many people in the industry and out
of i t are aware of this possibility and t~e other ramifications of
the decomposition of PVC and are deeply concerned.
We are told over and over again that the amount of plastics and
polyvinyl chlorides that are introduced in any building by the
electrical installation is infinitesimal when compared with the
total of all the other furnishings and building finishes. There
are two errors in such statements. The f i r s t is corrected by the
reports printed in Modern Plastics based upon the monthly
Sales/Production report issued by SPI's Committee on Resin
Statistics. According to their figures, published in January of
1981 there were 3,581,000 tons of resins converted into building
materials in 1979. Of that 1,114,000 tons were PVC Conduit. Is
that to be considered infinitesimal? The figures for 1980 are
Just as revealing; 3,078,000 tons total, 938,000 tons in PVC
Conduit. In addition to that there were 841,000 tons of resins
converted into electrical/electronic plastics in 1979 of which
195,000 tons were PVC. Likewise, in 1980 out of a total of
736.000 tons, there were 177,000 tons of PVC. These are NOT
infinitesimal fractions!
The second error is the attempt by the people, who spew forth
this falacious claptrap~ to hide the fact that we, who are
responsible for formulating the National Electrical Code, have one
prlme responsibility, the safety of the people. We are completely
and solely responsible for the electrical installation. We and
only we must bear the responsibility for what is in the NEC. We
are not in any, shape or form responsible for the furnishings nor
the building finishes. Regardless of what others may introduce
into the building, we are s t i l l responsible for those things that
we permit or require in the electrical installation. We can never
loose sight of the prime purpose of the NEC, " . . . t h e practical
safeguarding of persons and properly from the hazards arising from
the use of e l e c t r i c i t y . "
For many years a great number of knowledgeable and highly
respected people in the scientific world have been aware of the
fact that the use of certain materials and wiring methods, which
by the very nature of their chemical composition, are certain to
add significantly to the toxic gases and harmful chemicals in any
f i r e situation. I t has been and s t i l l is their contention that
the use of these materials should be curtailed or prohibited. We
can no longer afford the luxury of sitting back waiting for
someone else to take the f i r s t step. We cannot hide behind a
disclaimer saying we know nothing about t o x i c i t y . I f we don't
know, i t is because we haven't taken the time to read what is
available on the subject or listen to what is being said from
every direction. The numbers of people being killed in recent
fires is staggering. The ratio of f i r e deaths to f i r e damage is
astounding. I t is completely out of line with historical f i r e
data. The number of people died 20 stories away from the closest
flame in the MGM is unforgiveable. The number of people who died
in that building after the f i r e was out, but while the hallways
and stairwells were f u l l of toxic gases and smoke will never be
known, but the fact that many did is additional reason for us to
act. We cannot wait until other standards~writing bodies take the
lead. We cannot wait until slow moving committees bring in the
BODYCOUNTS!
We can no longer ignore the warnings that have been made public
in the form of test results from widely divergent groups,
government, industry, scholastic and testing f a c i l i t i e s . Here is
what just a few highly regarded scientists have to say about this
matter:
A report compiled by the Uniformed Firefighters Association in
1980 five years after the telephone company f i r e shows that of the
194 firefighters who received medical treatment at the time of the
f i r e 71 reported permanent respiratory ailments. The unprotected
cables that burned in that f i r e produced "billowing clouds of
hydrogen chloride smoke." (American Lung Association Bulletin,
(81)).
"Large amounts of hydrogen chloride gas (HCL) are released by
either HEATING or BURNINGPVC".*
"In the case of a rapid electrical overload in PVC insulated
wire, smoke which is usually the f i r s t indication of f i r e , is only
noticeable AFTER significant quantities of HCL have been
released." *
"Calculations show that for 100 pounds of PVC pyrolyzed
(chemically decomposed by heat) in an apartment 8 feet X 25 feet X
50 feet (10,000 cubic feet) a concentration of HCL as high as
57,385 ppm could be reached, about 57 times the concentration that
will cause lung edema on very short exposure.W*
Referring to the MGMf i r e deaths the Clark County
Coroner-Medical Examiner reports, "The fact that the concentration
of carboxyhe~w)globin in most of the victims was not high enough to
have caused death indicates that other toxic gases or smoke
particles MUSTalso have been involved." * (carboxyhemeglobin is
the result of carbon monoxide in the blood).
• A Literature Study of the Combustion Hazards of PVC and ABS.
Judith E. Hall and Eric L. Tolefson, University of Calgary.
In a discussion concerning the Beverly Hills Supper Club Fire,
Deborah Wall ace, who is a Toxicologist and the President of Public
Interest Scientific Consulting Service states the following about
the causes of death at that f i r e , " - - - , the carboxyhemoglobin
levels found during the autopsies showed that all assayed victims
but one had concentrations well below lethal levels. Manywere as
low as 10%." Yet they all died of something that they inhaled.
There was a tremendous amount of PVC in that building!
Jay A. Young, Ph.D., a Chemical Consultant has this to say,
"Structural disintegration of PVC Conduit in a f i r e situation.
Such disintegration allows the release of hydrogen chloride or
phosgene, or both, formed from the decomposition of PVC insulation
on the wiring inside, the conduit and confined inside the conduit
until the conduit disintegrates." "The thermal decomposition of
PVC has been observed at temperatures below 100 degrees C,
although most studies show that the evolution of HCL in
significant amounts requires temperatures of about
200-300 degrees C. That is, long before the PVC has reached the
temperature at which i t will burn, well in advance of the time
when any combustible structural components near PVC conduit weuld
be likely to be burning in a f i r e situation."
Dr. Young further states, "Hydrogen Chloride is an i r r i t a t i n g
gas At concentrations in air as low as 5ppm, i t causes choking
in most people."
Dr. Young continues, "Concentrations of 100ppm are rated as,
"Immediately dangerous to l i f e and health" by OSHAand the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Unless
removed immediately from an atmosphere containing a concentration
of 100ppm death by suffocation will follow."
There are no less than 132 books, papers and articles available
to you on this subject. You can rest assured that each will point
out the t o x i c i t y of the products of combustion of PVC and of the
t o x i c i t y of HCL which is produced simply by heating PVC Conduit or
insulation. You may be able to ignore this information, but we
can not. As far as we are concerned, the facts are in front of
you and you must act. We have, - with these proposals.
The problem is not going to go away by i t s e l f . Nor is i t going
to lessen in intensity. You can be absolutely sure that i t and
you will be in the public eye and in every form of mass news media
as long as people are killed in fires. I t will make headlines and
bring more and more court cases, which will further highlight the
shortcomings of the Code. I t seems to be a foolish course of
action, or is i t INACTION, to wait until public furor forces us
change. I f we in NFPAthrough the NEC i n i t i t a t e the act, we at
least retain the respect and confidence of the people we serve.
I f we do not, you can be assured that those same people will have
no respect for this organization or us.
I t is f u t i l e to deny, or attempt to minimize, the presence of
the harmful chemicals in the materials used to manufacture
insulations and raceways that not only can, but do, emit toxic
gases in amounts sufficient to cause instantaneous paralysis when
exposed to temperatures in excess of their ratings, or f i r e . The
peaceful attitudes of so many of their victims is grim testimony
to the speed of these k i l l e r s and the fact that the victims were
t o t a l l y unaware of their impending fate.
Our proposals are intended to minimize or eliminate the exposure
of human beings to this peril.
Note: I t is most important to understand that this proposal is
not intended to do away with a l l , nor any, nonmetallic wiring
method. This proposal and all others like i t that we have
submitted for the 1984 edition of the NEC are intended to
eliminate the MATERIALSwhich emit toxic fumes or gases under
various conditions of use. I t is our opinion that the
manufacturers of this equipment or these MATERIALSmust prove that
their products do NOT emit toxic gases or harmful chemicals under
the conditions specified. I t should not be the responsibility of
the NFPA nor any Code-Making Panel to perform the tests or make
the investigations that are needed to prove the presence of the
toxic gases, fumes or harmful chemicals.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
14
Log # 227
i - 86 - (110-9): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Amend 110-9 to read: Interrupting Rating:
Switches, circuit breakers and fuse assemblies intended to break
current at fault levels shall have closing, momentary and/or
interrupting ratings sufficient for system voltage and the current
which is available at the line terminals of the equipment.
Switches, circuit breakers and fuse assemblies intended to break
current other than at f a u l t levels shall have an interrupting
rating at system voltage sufficient for the current that must be
interrupted.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording does not cover closing and
momentary ratings as covered in Section 710-21. These ratings
should be required on low as well as high-voltage equipment in
order to assure safe operation of the equipment.
Low voltage switches and breakers can and have blown up when
closing into high current faults.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Not all devices that have interrupting ratings
need closing ratings. Fuses are one example. The proposed
section gives two additional alternatives that could result in
equipment without adequate interrupting ratings.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Hart.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
HART: I do not believe that this Panel Action and Panel Comment
are responsive to the proposer as stated in his substantiation. I
would suggest that the Panel review the second paragraph of the
substantiation and reconsider this action.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal adds no new material to the Code, but
only combines paragraphs (5) and (8) under Section 110-3. The
issue of t o x i c i t y as discussed in the substantiation is being
studied by NFPA and the Panel is awaiting the results of that
study.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
PALKO: I vote for rejection, but I do not concur with the
Panel's reason given for rejection. This proposal should be
rejected because i t conflicts with the opening sentence of the
Code, and because of invalid substantiation.
Section 90-I(a) states "The purpose of this Code is the
PP~ACTICAL safeguarding of persons and property arising from the
USE OF ELECTRICITY. Substantiation submitted with the proposal
indicates that the intent of the proposal is to outlaw the use of
all materials in all electrical equipment that have not been
proven to not emit toxic fumes when subjected to heat or flame
from any cause--whether electrical or nonelectrical. The
substantiation does not corroborate that any of the cases cited
resulted from the USE OF ELECTRICITY, and is therefore ~ot
pertinent to the proposal.
The proposal further conflicts with Section 90-I(a) in that i t
is not PPJ&CTICAL; its adoption and subsequent enforcement would be
tantamount to shutting down the country. I f this proposal were
adopted--and its intent as indicated in the substantiation were
achieved--every electrical product currently available would have
to undergo testing before its installation were permitted.
A few products such as steel and aluminum conduit and bare bus
bar would pass the test; possibly 99 percent of the products now
in use would not. Substitute products could not be introduced
until after they passed the "ordeal by f i r e . "
The proposal is further impractical in .that i t suggests no
alternative materials to those now in common use. Are we to
revert to only paper and varnished cambric conductor insulation?
What assurance have we that these materials will not be considered
to be toxic, inasmuch as t o x i c i t y is undefined in the proposal?
What materials will replace the materials now used for bus
insulation and in relays, motor starters, and common wall switches
and receptacles?
Who defines t o x i c i t y for NEC purposes? What are the constituent
elements or chemical compounds present in toxic fumes? Who
prescribes how much heat a material must be able to withstand
without emitting toxic fumes? I f a definition of toxocity existed
for NEC purposes, who defines acceptable levels? I f acceptable
levels were defined, who prescribes acceptable quantities? Would
the fumes emitted by a single burning wall receptacle be
acceptable? What about 10 receptacles in the same room? What i f
the size of the room were quadrupled?
To cite that the proposal is already covered in paragraphs (5)
and (87 of Section 110-3 begs the issue; the proposer apparently
feels that i t is not. The outcome of a t o x i c i t y study is also not
needed to determine that this proposal is not within the purview
of the NEC. Its admirable intent should be pursued via other
codes.
Log # 1354
i - 87 - (110-9, FPN-(New)7: Reject
SUBMII-TER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Add a Fine Print Note:
See 230-98 for service equipment.
SUBSTANTIATION: Manytimes the interrupting rating requirement is
treated as an isolated incident and there is a lack of awareness
of the fact that fault levels and short-circuit current references
concern themselves with the same problem.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Section 110-9 applies to equipment that is
intended to interrupt current at fault levels and those that
interrupt current at other than fault levels. Section 230-98 only
applies to fault current levels for service equipment and a
cross-reference would be misleading.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1504
1- 88 - (110-9, FPN-(New~): Reject
SUBMI~ER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Add Fine Print Note ~fter the f i r s t paragraph:
See Section 240-60(b) for use of current limiting fuses.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is proposed in order to assure that
equipment prohibiting insertion of noncurrent-limiting fuses will
be used when i t is necessary to make use of their characteristics
to protect downstream equipment.
Many installations are completed with current-limiting devices
installed and upon replacement there is nothing to prevent
incorrect substitution.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: There is no logical connection between
interrupting ratings and the requirements of Section 240-60(b)
that prohibits the insertion of noncurrent-limiting fuseholders.
Equipment with high interrupting ratings are not necessarily
current-limiting.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1583
1- 85 - (110-5): Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter Pollak, The Aluminum Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: "Conductors normally used to carry current shall
be of copper or aluminum unless otherwise provided in this Code."
(Remainder of Section unchanged.)
SUBSTANTIATION: Questions have arisen in the field from
Inspection authorities and the contracting trade regarding the
specific recognition of aluminum conductors by the National
Electrical Code. There is need for clarification concerning the
recognition of aluminum conductors throughout the code.
Individual panels changed the following sections of the 1981
Code to c l a r i f y the proper use of aluminum conductors:
210-19b
250-155
215-2A
250-22
215-2B
310-21b )
225-6(a)
318-2(b7(i)
250-23b
318-8
250-60b
318-9
250-92a
339-i(a)
250-93c
250-94 Exception - Nos. 1 & 2
This proposal would effectively not change any section of the
Code but instead would help Code readers to determine the proper
use of aluminum conductors where already permitted throughout the
Code. Finally i t should be noted that the second sentence of
Section 110-5: "Where the conductor material is not specified,
the sizes given in this Code shall apply to copper conductors"
will remain unchanged.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The substantiation indicates that the Code-Making
Panels made changes where Section 110-5 did not apply and for this
reason no further change is necessary.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log m 323
1- 89 - (110-117: Reject
SUBMII-TER: RaymondT. Vasoli, Vasoli Electric Co. Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: All outdoor equipment rated at 440 volts or more
mall be constructed to be rodent-proof.
SUBSTANTIATION: Rodents entering high voltage gear and causing
power outages.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposed revision is an inappropriate design
consideration for outdoor equipment over 440 volts.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 372
1- go - (110-12): Reject
SUBMII-TER: Bruce A. Weaver, Sioux City, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Additional paragraph: "All flush mounted, snap
switch and receptacle faceplates to be installed so as to
completely cover the wall openings and seat against the wall
surface-in compliance with Sections 380-9 and 410-56(c7."
15
option of lower construction cost with increased f i r e risk. 2.
insisting that aluminum be made as safe as copper and giving the
appearance of a pro-copper sentiment.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Other suitable alternatives are available. The
submitter's substantiat~oh is both confusing and lacking in any
data to warrant acceptance of the proposal.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
SUBSTANTIATION: Since faceplates are often installed in violation
ot "a neat and workmanlike manner" I propose this addition to the
Code while leaving the other two sections untouched. The item of
faceplates can be d i f f i c u l t to find, especially to newcomers in
the Code.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COM~NT: Already covered in appropriate sections of the
Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1782
1- 96 - (110-14): Reject
SUBMITFER: Leo F. Martin, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: In the last sentence, delete the word
"installation" and replace with "conductor insulation."
Text will then read, ....adversely effect the conductors,
conductor insulation, or equipment.
SUBSTANTIATION: "Insulation" appears to have been intended. The
present word "installation" is vague and is redundant to the word
"equipment."
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The present text already covers the insulation
within the use of the term "conductor."
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
HART: Although I have voted on the affirmative on Proposal
1-96, I have done some research and found that the f i r s t printing
of this section, which was in the "Preprint" of the Proposed
Amendments for the 1965 NEC, used the word "installation" and not
"insulation." There is, of course, the possibility that the Panel
had 4ntended to say "insulation" but I would doubt i t . The
chairman of the Panel at that time was Howard Michener, who made
very few, i f any, errors of this type. I also noted that in the
Walter Stone editorial revision, there was no recommendation.for a
change in this section.
Log # 346
I - 91 - (110-12): Reject
SUBMITTER: DougWarner, Sheldon, IA
~ATION:
Delete the section as follows:
Unused openings in boxes, raceways, auxiliary gutters, cabinets,
equipment cases or housings shall be effectively closed to afford
rotection substantially equivalent to the wall of the equipment.
UBSTANTIATION: I believe that this part added to Section 110-12
detracts from its meaning and is relatively unassociated with the
idea the section is trying to convey.
Also much of the s~ction is stated in other sections such as
unused openings in boxes and f i t t i n g s , Section 370-8, and unused
openings in cabinets or cutout boxes, Section 373-4.
The whole Code is based on Section 110-12 so I think i t should
be as clear and clean cut as possible.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The present wording of Section 110-12 does relate
~o tee mechanical execution of work and Sections 370-8 and 373-4
do not cover all of the necessary equipment.
VOTE ON PA~NELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
~
Log # 354
1- 92 - (110-12): Reject
SUBMITTER: Michael Weeks, Sheldon, IA
RECOMENDATION: Omit-Unused openings in boxes, raceways,
auxiliary gutters, cabinets, equipment cases or housings shall be
effectively closed to afford protection substantially equivalent
to the wall of the equipment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This has nothing to do with electrical work being
installed in a neat and workmanshiplike manner.
-PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-91.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1783
1- 97 - (110-14): Reject
SUBMITTER: Leo F. Martin, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph as follows:
Inhibitor, and application thereof, identified for the purpose
shall be used on all aluminum conductors of sizes No. 8 AWG and
larger, at all points of termination and on all splices regardless
of the type of termination used.
SUBSTANTIATION: Listed inhibitors will provide for a better
termination of aluminum conductors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COI~MENT: No supporting information has been supplied to
show that inhibitors are necessary in every case nor that i t is an
improvement for all devices and connections.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # i67
1- 93 - (110-12): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dave Williams, Sheldon, IA
ITE'L~Q~IT~ATION: Last paragraph of Section 110-12 be deleted.
SUBSTANTIATION: The last paragraph of Section 110-12 doesn't
belong under 3ection 110-12. Unused opening is clearly defined in
Section 370-8. The f i r s t sentence of Section 110-12 should stand
as is and no other statement need be required.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-91.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 95
1- 98 - (110-14): Reject
SUBMITTER: Joseph S. Pangborn, F. N. Zaino & Associates
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to the end of the f i r s t
paragraph: ". . . . . , or equipment."
"An OXIDE INHIBITER, and application thereof, approved for the
purpose shall be used on all aluminum conductors of sizes number 8
AWG and larger at all points of termination and on all splices
regardless of the type of termination used."
Add the following sub-paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) after
sub-paragraph (b):
(b) Splices. Conductors. . . . . . . . . . . . purpose.
(c) Terminations. Terminal lugs and supply connectors used
with aluminum conductors for circuits with connected loads of 35
amps and larger shall be all aluminum bodied and UL listed AL/CU
or CO/ALR. Retaining screws in aluminum mechanical connectors
indirect contact with the conductor shall be aluminum or brass.
Setscrews of mechanical connectors shall entrap all the strands
of the conductor by means of a saddle or similar device.
(d) Conductor Connections. Aluminum conductor connections to
equipment terminals not marked AL/CU or CO/ALR shall be made with
a special adapter approved for that purpose or by pigtailing to a
short length of copper conductor with an approved compression
connector.
(e) Lug Connections. Aluminum lugs shall be connected to
aluminum bus with aluminum bolts, and heavy f l a t washers, or with
steel bolts, heavy f l a t washers and belleville spring washers.
Connections of aluminum terminal lugs to copper bus shall be made
with cadmium plated steel bolts, heavy f l a t washers and Belleville
washers. Aluminum lug connections to equip~!~ent pads having copper
studs shall employ f l a t washers and Bellev111e washers.
SUBSTANTIATION: By inserting these sections, i t will define the
requirement for properly terminating aluminum conductors which i f
improperly terminated, are the major causes of electrical fires.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal contains no substantiation to show
that oxide inhibitors are necessary or even desirable for every
type of termination device. The proposal also contains extensive
specification-type information that is in conflict with Section
90-1(c).
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1499
1- 94 - (110-12): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Ra)nnond P. Pelletier, Auburn, ME
~ATION:
Add 3rd paragraph to read:
When using nonmetallic wiring methods, care should be taken not
to cause injury by f r i c t i o n .
SUBSTANTIATION: On one installation comprising of 43 four room
apartments 12 damaged cables were found and replaced.
See enclosed photos.
i . One 14-3 NM cable with ground. CATV lead wire in the same
hole in the 2 X 4 inch stud.
2. CATVwire removed showing damaged NM cable cover.
3. 14-3 NM removed for closer observation.
4. Shows the extent of the damage. Friction damaged the cover
and insulation down to the copper conductor.
NOTE: (Copy of the enclosed photos are available from NFPAon
request.)
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: This proposal only points out one of many
unworkmanlike practices.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 208
1- 95 - (110-14): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Alexander M. Stevens, A. M. Stevens & Assoc.
RECOMMENDATION: That the termination of all aluminum conductors
be required in high press type connections specifically approved
for the purpose intended and that the construction job is
performed according to the manufacturer's instructions.
SUBSTANTIATION: The problem with high resistance connections with
aluminum wires is nothing new. The problem, however, is not very
well addressed in the 1981 Code. The question boils down to which
of the following alternatives is preferable:
1. giving the
IB
Wire Size
18-16 AWG
14-8
6-4
3-I
0-2/0
3/0 AWG-200 MCM
250-350
400
500
600-750
800-1,000
1,250-2,000
Log # 1835
i - 99 - (llO-14(a)): Reject
SU~MII-FER: Paul E. Phelan, Trade Education Inc. and New Hampshire
~
l
Contractors Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Add, either as part of Section 110-14(a) or
create a Section 110-14(c) to advise that certain terminations are
suitable only for 60°C loading of conductors and olhers suitable
only for the 75°C loading of conductors.
SUBSTANTIATION: I don't believe that more than one person in 100.
is aware of this restriction on termination temperatures,
including authors of several texts.
I realize that Section 110-3(b) should lead one to the UL Green
Book, but i t just doesn't happen.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COF~MENT: Material not suitable for inclusion in Section
110-14. The proposal does not contain the specific text and
therefore does not comply with Section 10-10 of NFPARegulations
Governing Committee Projects.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Driver Bolt
1.67
6.25
1.67
6.25
3
12.5
4.2
21
4.2
29
37.5
50
62.5
62.5
75
83.25
83.25
Other
4.2
6.25
8.0
10.4
12.5
17
21
21
25
25
33
42
Screws
Screw Size
Inches Across
Hex Flats
1/8
5/32
3/16
7/32
1/4
Log # 183
1- 100 - (110-14(a) and (b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Archie W. Brown, Phoenix, AZ
~ATION:
(a) Terminals. Connections of conductors to
terminal parts shall insure a thoroughly good connection without
damaging the conductors. Copper conductors shall be terminated by
means of pressure connectors (including set-screw type), solder
lugs, or splices to flexible leads. Aluminum and copper clad
aluminum conductors shall terminate in compression lugs or shall
be spliced to copper pigtails with compression connectors.
Exception: Connection of copper conductors by means of wire
binding screws or studs and nuts having upturned lugs or
equivalent shall be permitted for No. 10 or smaller conductors.
Terminals for more than one conductor and terminal lugs used to
connect aluminum conductors to studs and nuts shall be of a type
approved for the purpose.
(b) Splices. Copper conductors shall be spliced or joined with
splicing devices suitable for the use or by brazing, welding, or
soldering with a fusible metal or alloy. Soldered splices shall
f i r s t be so spliced or joined as to be mechanically and
electrically secure without solder and then soldered. Aluminum
conductors shall be spliced by means of compression connectors.
All splices and joints and the free ends of conductors shall be
covered with an insulation equivalent to that of the conductors or
with an insulating device suitable for the purpose.
SUBSTANTIATION: Aluminum wire and cable have a hi~her coefficient
of expansion than copper. As i t heats up due to I:R loss i t
expands or flattens i f confined by mechanical connectors. When i t
cools i t contracts resulting in less pressure of contact.
Aluminum wire when cleaned and l e f t exposed to the atmosphere
quickly develops a non-conducting oxide film. Expansion and
contraction and the oxide film can result in increased terminal or
j o i n t electrical resistance and heating. Increased contact
resistance can result in electric arcing and burning of insulation.
Compression connectors and compression lugs of the proper size,
design and material for use with aluminum and/or copper conductors
and applied with tools approved for the purpose, provide solid
joints which do not deteriorate due to expansion, contraction or
the development of oxide film.
Copper pigtails joined to aluminum conductors which have been
freshly cleaned of oxide film, provide a termination much less
prone to develop increasing resistance and overheating than
aluminum conductors terminated at wire-binding screw posts, studs
and nuts, set screw connectors or screw-on connectors for splicing
to flexible leads.
The merits of terminating aluminum conductors with copper
pigtails and compatible compression connectors have been
recognized and recommended by aluminum wire manufacturer Kaiser
Aluminum and by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is not the intent of the Panel to rule out the
use of properly designed connectors identified for use with copper
and/or aluminum conductors.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Torque
Pound-Feet
4.2
8.3
15
23.25
42
Bolts
Size Duronze
Nonlubricated
3/8
20
1/2
40
5/8
70
3/4
100
Standard
Steel
Aluminum
High Strength
Steel
15
25
50
90
16
40
70
100
16
35
50
70
Lubricated
3/8
15
10
13
13
1/2
30
20
25
30
5/8
50
40
40
50
3/4
85
70
60
80
SUBSTANTIATION: We have all experienced electrical failures
because of poor mechanical connections. All t e s t i n g , and
especially that testing done with aluminum wire in the 12-10 AWG
sizes, indicates that torqued connections are b e t t e r .
Enforcing would not be as hard as enforcing interrupting
r a t i n g . A f t e r a l l , the amount of torque can be checked.
We must do everything possible to make better mechanical
connections. This w i l l c e r t a i n l y help by making sure the device
i n s t a l l e r s torque those connections.
These are the values which seem to be used by all equipment and
device manufacturers. They are even providing f o r torquing,
especially f o r bus-ducts. These are the values used by UL f o r
testing lugs, etc.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal is adequately covered in Section
110-3(b).
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Seelbach.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SEELBACH: Although the proposal has technical problems (see
Proposal 1-125), I am voting against the action to reject to point
out the need for the Code to specifically address this important
matter. While the requirement is in fact covered by Section
110-3(b), tightening torques marked on equipment or terminations
are new and attention needs to be directed to this change. Even a
FPN stating "Many terminations and equipment are marked with a
tightening torque" would help.
Log # 1784
1- 102 - (110-14(c)-(New)): Reject
SUBMIi-FER: Leo F. Martin, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph as follows:
(c) Terminal Lugs and Connectors. Terminal lugs and connectors
directly connected to aluminum conductors shall be listed and
marked AL/CU.
Exception: As provided by Sections 380-14(c) and 410-56(g).
SUBSTANTIATION: Field conditions show that aluminum conductors
are being connected to equipment with improper lugs and connectors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: This type of information is suitable for listing
and labeling agencies and is not necessary in the Code. The
markings referenced in the proposal should be permitted to be
located on the equipment in which the terminal is used.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 253
1- 101 - (110-14(c)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN
~ATION:
Mechanical connections in circuits IOOA and
larger shall be torqued to the values given in Table 110-14(c).
I t is suggested that all other mechanical connections be torqued.
Table 110-14(c)
Torquing Connections
The following table shall be used as a guide for all electrical
connections of No. 8 AWG wire size and larger, and all bolted or
Allen screwed connections.
Torquing Values-Copper Connections
Wiring Connections
Tightening Torque
In Pound-Feet
Screw Split
Log # 1734
1- 103 - (110-16): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOM~NDATION: 110-16. "Standing" Working Space About Electric
Equipment (600 volts, nominal, or less). "Sufficient access and
standing working space shall be provided..."
110-16(a). "Except as elsewhere required or permitted in this
Code, the dimension of the "standing" working space...considered
as grounded."
II
"In addition to the dimensions shown in Table 110-16(a), the
standing work space shall not be less than 30 inches (762 mm) wide
in front of the electric equipment."
Table 110-16(a). "~tanding" Working Clearances
1. "Exposed live parts on one side and no live or grounded
parts on the other side of the "standing" working space, or
exposed live p a r t s . . . "
3. Exposed live parts on both sides of the "standing" work
space (not guarded as provided in Condition 1) with the operator
between.
SUBSTANTIATION: Manypeople are installing disconnecting means
(for example) over air conditioners, pool pumps and equipment and
since there is sufficient working space in front of the equipment,
with nothing blocking him, he feels he is working in compliance
with this Code section. However, the intent of this section is to
insure 30 inches of clear working space, where one can stand up,
and not have to reach over equipment to install the disconnecting
means.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Such a change could be interpreted to permit other
obstructions in the workspace provided standing space was
available. I t is intended that the entire working space be clear.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1735
1- 104 - (110-16): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 110-16. Working Space About Electric Equipment
(600 volts, nominal, or less). Sufficient access and working
space shall be provided and maintained about all electric
equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance of
such equipment. "This working space shall be a minimum of 6 1/4
feet from the f l o o r . "
SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifying the working space to be from the floor
to a minimum of 6 1/4 feet would eliminate the possibility of
workmen sitting on a compressor or other equipment to perform
their service.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal adds nothing to the understanding of
the Code and may even add confusion. See Panel Action and Comment
on Proposal 1-103.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1275
I - 107 - (110-16(a)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: IAEI
RECOFtMENDATION: Delete words "while alive."
Replace with "while normally energized."
SUBSTANTIATION: Use of the words "while alive" is unenforceable
as all electrical equipment has some disconnecting means somewhere.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
~ o r d
"normally" from the proposal.
PANEL COMMENT: The intent of the rule is to provide an
electrically safe working environment during the period of time
the equipment is being serviced.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1059
i- 108 - (110-16(a), Exception No. 1): Reject
SUBMI1-FER: HeydonZ. Lewis, Thermo-Scan Engineering, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Delete or reword Exception No. 1 to paragraph (a).
Add a paragraph (g) as follows:
(g) Access for inspection under load. All equipment of 30
ampere or greater capacity single-phase and all 3-phase equipment
shall be installed to permit inspection in operating configuration
under load. This shall include bypassable door interlocks and
access to all splices, terminations, finger joints, etc. which may
occur in the rear of cabinets.
SUBSTANTIATION: A major advantage of thermal imaging inspection
is the a b i l i t y to perform nondestructive, non-contact inspection
under full-load, normal operating conditions.
Doors which cannot
be opened without deactivating a c i r c u i t defeats the purpose. The
bus bar-finger contact point on plug-in control centers is a
common problem area, particularly in corrosive environments.
Installation of cabinets with no rear access prevents inspection
of these points.
PANEL ~CTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal would result in costly redesign which
could be detrimental to safety by encouraging access by
unauthorized persons.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
m
m
Log # 1236
I-- 109 " (110--16(C)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: 110-16(c). Revise to read:
At least one entrance 24 inches wide by 6 foot 6 inches high
shall be provided to give access to the working space about
electric equipment. For switchboards, panelboards, and control
panels are rated 1200 amperes or more and are over 6 feet wide,
the working space required by Section 110-16(c) shall be doubled
or access shall be provided so that egress from the working area
can be made in two different directions.
SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording is based on "practicality," a
vague term and often unenforceable. The intent of two means of
egress for "people safety" is accomplished clearly by the revised
wording and an alternate of two means of egress is provided.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Retain present wording of Section 110-16(c) in the Code but delete
the words "where reasonably practicable" and add the following two
Exceptions:
"Exception No. i: Where the work space configuration permits an
escape route.
Exception No. 2: Where the workspace required bY Section
110-16(a) is doubled.=
PANEL COMM~NT: Exception No. i is to correct an oversight in the
proposal wherein workspace configurations could permit a ready
escape route without the necessity of providing two doors or
doubling the workspace. "Sufficient area" was retained as there
is no substantiation for changing to specific dimensions.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Palko.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
PALKO: Exception No. 1 is meaningless, in that i t is as much
subject to differing interpretations as the present wording "where
reasonably practicable."
Where there is a means of ingress, there is always a means of
egress. Whether such egress constitutes an "escape route" must
s t i l l be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
A person in an equipment room having a maximum dimension of 12
feet is no further from an exit than a person in a room 100 feet
long with an exit at each end. Exemption No. i should be
amplified to cite a maximum distance to an exit that shall, in all
cases, be considered to constitute an escape route.
Log # 105
1- 105 - (110-16(a) and Exception): Reject
SUBMI1-FER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~ATION:
Add the following to paragraph (a): For service
equipment, panelboards, switchboards, and control centers the
working space shall extend from-the floor or staoding surface to
the top of such equipment, and to a minimum of 6-i/4 feet above
such surfaces.
Exception: See Section 110-16(f) Exception.
SUBSTANTIATION: Work space not clearly defined. Present wording
does not clearly indicate that space below equipment that is
elevated above floor or ground level is included in the required
clearances. Such equipment installed above piping, motors,
benches, or counters, etc, can present a hazard because of
grounded surfaces or the necessity to lean over to reach the
equipment. Section 550-4(a) contains a similar requirement for
panelboards in mobile homes, and i t seems reasonable to clearly
provide the same safety requirement in other occupancies.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Already covered by Section 110-16(a). See Panel
Action and Comment on Proposal 1-103.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 57
1- 106 - (110-16(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
ITE'L~QfE'I~II~ATION: Delete the f i r s t word "exposed" in conditions
1, 2, and 3.
SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording is confusing and contradictory.
The f i r s t paragraph of (a) clearly states that distances shall be
measured from live parts i f exposed OR the enclosures therefor.
The word "exposed" in conditions i, 2, and 3 confuse the
conditions to be app!ied, as the definition of exposed means
capable of being inadvertently touched, while the definition o f
enclosure is a case or housing to prevent contact with energized
live) parts. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 do not appear to apply to
ive parts which are enclosed (not exposed).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
HANLL COMMENT: The proposal is already covered in the second
sentence of Section 110-16(a) and the deletion of the words
"exposed" would change the meaning of the requirements of that
sentence.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
l
Log # 275
1- 110 - (110-16(c)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: W. Creighton Schwan, Hayward, CA
RECOM~NDATION: In line 5, place a period after "end" add delete
"where reasonably practicable."
18
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-109.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Palko.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
PALKO: I vote negative for the same reason given for Proposal
1-109.
SUBSTANTIATION: There are far too many cases of electricians
belng trapped in a dead-end corridor between rows of switchgear
with the only escape route leading past arching, burning, or
exploding equipment. The phrase "where reasonably practicable"
renders the requirement for an alternate escape route
unenforceable, and slmuld be deleted.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-109.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Palko.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
PALKO: I vote negative for the same reason given for Proposal
1-109. I also feel that the substantiation is deficient. The
substantiation states as fact that there are far too many cases of
electricians being trapped...but cites no cases where injuries
have occurred that could have been prevented by redundant exits.
Log # 421
1- 114 - (110-16(c)):
Reject
SUBMII-TER: Southwestern Section IAEI
RECOM~LENDATION: Add, 2nd paragraph Permanent ladders on stairways shall be provided to give safe
access to the working space around electric equipment installed on
platforms, balconies, mezzanine f]oors, or in attic or roof rooms
or spaces.
SUBSTANTIATION: Access to electrical equipment under 60() volts is
just as important as the access in Section 110-33(b) for over 60(]
volts.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The sweeping nature of this proposal could provide
ready access for unauthorized persons to spaces that require
security. The substantiation does not j u s t i f y such a change for
• equipment under 600 volts.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 299, 302
1- 111 - (110-16(c)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTERS: Joseph Marcelino, NECACodes and Standards (299)
Jack Smith, East Bay Uniform Electrical Code Committee (302)
RECOMMENDATION: In the second sentence, delete the last three
words: "where reasonably practicable."
SUBSTANTIATION: The term "where reasonably practicable" makes the
requirement vague and therefore d i f f i c u l t to enforce. The need
for a workman to have two ways out from the working space in front
of a wide assembly of switchgear is too important to be
compromised by vague language in the Code.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-109.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Palko.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
PALKO: I vote negative for the same reason given for Proposal
1-109.
Log # 123
1- 115 - (110-17(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Joseph L. Yosafat, General Electric Co.
Sectetary's Note: This comment (No. 70-49, CMP i) on Proposal
106 was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See
NEC-TCD-1980 Annual Meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Change 50 volts to read 42.4 volts.
SUBSTANTIATION: For conformance with UL 478 and the standards of
the IEC. Voluntary conformance and standardization must be
practiced diligently i f the voluntary standards and codes industry
of this country is to survive the attempted efforts of federal
mandatory requirements of the FTC.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: CMP 1 has no information to confirm the
substantiation of the proposal. Referred to CMP 16 for
information.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 420, 501
1- 112 - (110-16(c)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI (420)
~ E .
Cannon, Tempe, AZ (501)
RECOMMENDATION: 110-16(c) Revise to read: "At least one entrance
24-inches wide by 6-foot high shall be provided to give access to
the working space about electrical equipment. For switchboards,
panelboards, and control panels are rated 1200 amperes or more and
are over 6-feet wide, the working space required by Section
110-16(c) shall be doubled or access shall be provided so that
egress from the working area can be made in two different
directions."
SUBSTANTIATION: Recent wording is based on "practicality"; a
vague term and often unenforcible. The intent of two means of
egress for "people safety" is accomplished clearly by the revised
wording and an alternate to two means of egress is provided.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 1-109.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Palko.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
PALKO: I vote negative for the same reason given for Proposal
1-109.
Log # 393, 1894
1- 116 - (110-17(a), FPN-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Kenneth L. Gebert, City of Minneapolis, MN {393)
B. Auger/H. B. Love, Michigan Chapter IAJ~I (1894)
RECOMMENDATION: Add a Fine Print Note to Section 110-17(a) as
follows:
As used herein, approved enclosures shall mean, for other than
dead front devices, the l~)x cover and switch operating means shall
be n~chanically interlocked so that the main cover of the cabinet
(1) is normally prevented from being opened when the switch
contacts are in a closed position and (2) the switch contacts are
normally prevented from being closed when the cover of the switch
cabinet is open.
SUBSTANTIATION: Mechanical interlocking systems have been in use
for many years on all types of disconnect switches. Even the 115
volt, two-fuse service disconnect switch associated with the turn
of the century knob and tube systems had an interlock which
precluded opening the fuse plug access door while the current was
on.
A present day manufacturer insists that interlocking is not
required even though the equipment is subject to ready access by
the public and of a moderate ampacity {600 amperes) and fault
current potential (15000+ amperes).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal is too all-encompassing which makes
its application impracticable and, furthermore, mandatory
requirements cannot be put in a fine print note.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 422
i - 113 - (110-16(c)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
~ATION:
Revise Section 110-16(c). Access and Entrance to
Working Space. Access and entrances to working spaces shall be at
least 24-inches wide by 6-feet 6-inches high. At least one
entrance to the equipment room shall be provided to give access to
the working space about electric equipment. For switchboards and
control panels rated 1200 amperes or more and over 6-feet wide,
the working space shall be twice that required by Section
110-16(a) or a second equipment room entrance shall be provided so
that egress from the working space can be in different directions
with no common path of travel.
SUBSTANTIATION: i . Complete rewrite. Use local Code wording.
2. Where reasonably practicable, is too vague. Phrases such as
"except by special permission" do not contribute to uniformity in
Code compliance. Section 90-4 is available for any unusual
conditions i f the authority enforcing the Code chooses to waive
specific requirements.
The design of the building sometimes makes a second door
requirement a major problem. Above proposal permits an
alternative and yet provides the workman with a greater degree of
safety of movement in emergency conditions.
Security of tenant spaces has been one of the reasons mentioned
by builders for not wanting a second door. First door opens to a
corridor, end walls of the room are suite division walls and
outside wall is not adaptable for a door due to terrain.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Log # 1065, 1386
i- 117 - (110-17(c)):
Reject
SUBMII-FER: Frank K. Kitzantides, NEMA(1065)
---~i~--~qale, Baltimore, MD (1386)
RECOMMENDATION: In second line, replace "warning" with
"precautionary."
Add Fine Print Note:
FPN: See Section 110-23.
SUBSTANTIATION: See Section 110-23-(New).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: "Precautionary" is not strong enough language
where safety is concerned. See Panel Action and Comment on
Proposal 1-120.
19
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Sleesman.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SLEESMAN: The NEMAvote is contingent upon the a v a i l a b i l i t y of
the adopted ANSI Z535 standards in time for the next meeting of
the CMP.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
VANbL CUMMENI: The Panel considers that the standards referenced
in the proposal are insufficient to replace the present wording in
the Code. The Panel feels i t cannot reference a standard which
does not exist.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Sleesman.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SLEESMAN: The NEMAvote is contingent upon the a v a i l a b i l i t y of
the adopted ANSI Z535 standards in time for the next meeting of
the CMP.
Log # 1220
1- 118 - (110-21): Reject
SUBMITTER: Aaron Goldsmith, Safety Engineering Laboratories
~ATION:
All equipment capable of causing a f i r e or
electrical shock or other hazardous condition should have a
permanent, fireproof identification tag so that the equipment can
be traced back to its source and date of manufacture.
SUBSTANTIATION: Fires are often caused by products that can not
be identified as to source and date of manufacture because such
identification has been destroyed in the resulting f i r e . I f
permanent, fireproof ID tags were required on such items, both the
manufacturer and other agencies concerned with f i r e and shock
hazards could determine what equipment is unsafe and then analyze
the subject equipment so that changes can be made to eliminate or
reduce the particular hazard.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels the proposal is impracticable and
unenforceable. Fireproof tags are beyond technology known to the
Panel.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
_
_
i - 121 - (110-33(a)): Accept
SUBMII-TER: CMP i
RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 110-33(a) by changing "48 inches
(1.22 m)" to "6 feet (1.83 m)" and delete the words "where
reasonably practicable" in the second sentence. Add the following
two Exceptions to follow the second sentence:
Exception No. 1: Where the workspace configuration permits an
escape route.
Exception No. 2: Where the workspace required in Section
110-34(a) is doubled.
SUBSTANTIATION: To achieve correlation in the requirements
accepted in Proposal 1-109.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PAN'EL COMMENT: The Panel recognizes that total correlation has
not been achieved. A public comment will be generated to correct
any deficiencies.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Palko.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
PALKO: I vote negative because I do not agree with the premise
on which this proposal is made; I do not feel that Proposal 1-109
should have been accepted with Exception No. 1 limited to the
wording adopted by the Panel.
m
Log # 423
I - 119 - (110-22): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
]R-E~-O-~--E-N-DATION: Revise Section 110-22. Identification of
Disconnecting Means. Each disconnecting means required by this
Code for motors and appliances, and each service, feeder, or
branch circuit at the point where i t originates shall be legibly
marked to indicate its purpose unless located and arranged so the
purpose is evident. The marking shall be of sufficient durability
to withstand the environment involved. All service equipment
shall bear a sign showing the rated ampacity of the
service-entrance conductors or service equipment, whichever is
smaller. Label shall be of engraved plastic, stamped metal or
other approved material with minimum i/4-inch high letters.
SUBSTANTIATION: Many400 ampere disconnects are wired and fused
at 225 amperes, giving the impression to owner that 400 amperes is
available. This holds true for many reduced overcurrent protected
devices, with conductor ampacity reduced accordingly.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
, PANELCOMMENT: The proposal is too all-encompassing and would not
overcome the problem inferred in the substantiation. Service
equipment is under the jurisdiction of CMP 4 to which i t is
referred.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 56
I - 122 - (110-34(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the f i r s t word "exposed" in conditions
1, 2, and 3.
SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording is confusing and contradictory.
The last sentence of the f i r s t paragraph (a) clearly states that
distances shall be measured from live parts i f exposed, OR the
enclosures therefor. The word "exposed" in conditions i , 2, and 3
confuse the conditions to be applied, as the definition of exposed
means capable of being inadvertently touched, while the definition
of enclosure is a case or housing to prevent contact with
energized (live) parts. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 do not appear to
#~b~ to live parts which are enclosed (not exposed).
ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal is already covered in the second
sentence of Section 110-34(a) and the deletion of the words
"exposed" would change the meaning of the requirements of that
sentence.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1064, 1385
1- 120 - (110-23-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: Frank K. Kitzantides, NEMA(1064)
~ l e ,
Baltimore, MD (1385)
RECOMMENDATION: "P~eoautionary Labeling"
When i t is considered necessary, appropriate precautionary
labeling shall be required on equipment and in locations.
FPN: Per further information see "Safety Code for Marking
Physical Hazards," ANSI Z53.1-1979 and "Specifications for
Accident Prevention Signs," ANSI Z35.1-1972."
SUBSTANTIATION: The use of standard precautionary signs, symbols
~ cplors, js becoming increasingly important to advise workers
~ne public OT zne presence OT various hazards which may be
involved. Adopted and proposed national standards take into
account such factors as recognition, acceptance, v i s i b i l i t y , etc.,
as well as harmonization with international standards developed
for the same purpose.
ANSI Committee Z535 was recentl~ formed as a combination of
former ANSI Committees Z53 (Color) and Z35 (Signs). The new Z535
Committee has four Subcommittees including Z535.1 (Color), Z535.2
(Signs), Z535.3 (Symbols), and Z535.4 (Product Alerting). These
Subcommittees are working to produce new safety standards relating
to color, signs, symbols, and product alerting. Until the new
standards are available, existing standards ANSI Z35.1-1972 and
ANSI Z53.1-1979 will continue in use.
A number of NEC sections require specific labels or signs.
There is inconsistency among the requirements and a lack of
agreement with existing national standards. I t is believed that
elimination of specific requirements from the NEC with reference
to the national standards will enhance the objective of the
various NEC sections by supporting a national approach to safety
signs, codes and symbols.
The addition of Section 110-23 involves proposals for
correlation purposes for Sections 110-17(c), 110-34(c), 230-203,
410-91, 424-86(5), 450-7(d), 516-i, 710-21(c), 710-24(o)(2),
710-43, and 710-45.
Log # 1066, 1387
i- 123 - (110-34(c)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Frank K. Kitzantides, NEMA(1066)
W. N. Hale, Baltimore, MD (1387)
RECOI~MENDATION: Revise third paragraph as follows:
In line 7 (following conspicuous), replace the word "warning'
with "precautionary."
Replace the comma following "provided" with a period and delete
"reading" through "out".
Add a Fine Print Note:
FPN: See Section 110-23.
SUBSTANTIATION: See Section 110-23-(New).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposed new Section 110-23 gives no clue as to
the intended type of sign. See Panel Action and Comment on
Proposal 1-117.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Sleesman.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SLEESMAN: The NEMAvote is contingent upon the a v a i l a b i l i t y of
the adopted ANSI Z535 standards in time for the next meeting of
the CMP.
Log # 1452
1- 124 - (110-34(c)):
Reject
SUBMITTERS: Bill Hogan, Chicago, IL
Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
20
Log # 1959
5- 3 - (200-4-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Saul Rosenbaum, East Meadow, NY
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Section 200-4 as follows:
200-4. Grounded Conductor Required at Switch Enclosures. All
enclosures f o r snap switches rated 20 amperes or less shall
contain a grounded conductor.
See companion Proposal 200-7, Exception No. 2.
SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement would prevent the hazardous
practice of using the "grounding" conductor f o r a grounded
conductor. This s i t u a t i o n occurs very frequently under the
f o l l o w i n g circumstances:
a. When attempting to replace a single-pole switch with a
combination switch and receptacle.
b. When attempting to replace a single-pole switch with a
combination switch and p i l o t l i g h t .
c. In today's environment, many people are i n s t a l l i n g time
clocks to turn switch controlled l i g h t s on and o f f f o r security
purposes. All of these motor-driven time clocks require the
a v a i l a b i l i t y of a grounded conductor,
d. Very often when an additional receptacle needs to be
i n s t a l l e d , i t is very convenient to run a cable up to the switch
box. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of a grounded conductor, here again, would
preclude the general practice of using the grounding conductor f o r
a grounded conductor.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel f e e l s that the Code cannot make
mandatory provisions f o r a l l f u t u r e modifications.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
B i l l Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Leo Nagel, North Dakota
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 110-34(c) by deleting from the
third paragraph thereof the words, "reading substantially as
follows;" and amend Section 110-34(c) further by inserting in lieu
thereof the following, "containing the words, "WARNING - HIGH
VOLTAGE - KEEP OUT." Said words shall be in block printing no
less than 2 inches high and at least I/2 inch wide strokes."
SUBSTANTIATION: In 50 percent of the IAEI Chapter meetings since
September of 1980 the question was raised concerning the word,
"substantially." There has been no definite answer given and as a
matter of fact there is no real answer to the question.
We o f f e r this wording in lieu of the consternation that
prevails. There can be no question concerning the need f o r the
sign and there is no reason why the Code should not prescribe the
wording.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal leaves no latitude f o r other suitable
language.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
ARTICLE 200 - - USE AND IDENTIFICATION
OF GROUNDEDCONDUCTORS
Log # 2095
5- 4 - (200-7): Reject
SUBMITTER: Karl F. Steinhauer, Des Plaines, IL
RECOMMENDATION: In Section 200-7, at about the 35th word-group, I
suggest that at "the supply" either omit "the" or change i t to "a
supply."
SUBSTANTIATION: To accomodate 4-way switches.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The intent of the present wording is clear.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1633
5- 0 - ( A r t i c l e s 200, 250, 280): Reject
SUBMITTER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los Angeles, CA
ITE'-C'~PL'-~(DATION: Delete the word "approved" when used to mean the
use of alternate method(s) or materials.
SUBSTANTIATION: The NEC is incorporated in most construction
contract documents by reference. Therefore, the authority having
j u r i s d i c t i o n - the owner or the owner's representative, w i l l not
be the t h i r d party q u a l i f i e d person comtemplated by the
Code-Making Panel. Section 90-4 covers the case f o r governmental
bodies exercising legal j u r i s d i c t i o n .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: No specific proposal has been submitted. Any
review would be subjective on the part of the Panel to determine
proposer's intent.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 45
5- 5 - (200-7, Exception No. 1): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
]TL~C~O-~IBI~N-DATION: Revise Exception No. i as follows: insert the
words "that is part of a cable assemble" after the word " f i n i s h . "
SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording permits all conductors of a
wlrlng system to be installed with factory-colored white
insulation. This Exception permits white-colored conductor
i n s t a l l a t i o n in a raceway system where the p o s s i b i l i t y of improper
or ineffective f i e l d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (especially when many
conductors are installed and v i s i b l e at many openings) permits an
unwarranted potential safety hazard. There appears no real need
f o r this Exception as written, as conductors of all sizes are
generally readily available with other than white insulation.
This Exception also appears to be in c o n f l i c t with Section
310-12(c) which has no comparable Exception to permit f i e l d
identification.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The present Exception No. 1 provides the intended
safety.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 2054
5- 1 - (Articles 200, 250,280): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee feels that this
proposal is e d i t o r i a l in nature and that i t is unnecessary to
repeat information already in the Code.
SUBMITTER: Ivan P. Nordstrand, Consumers Power Company
RECOMMENDATION: Propose each a r t i c l e have the Panel designation
thus:
A r t i c l e 90 - Introduction
(Panel No. 1)
A r t i c l e 100 - Definitions
(Panel No. 1)
A r t i c l e 110 - Requirements f o r E l e c t r i c I n s t a l l a t i o n s
(Panel No. i )
A r t i c l e 200 - Use and I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Grounded Conductors
(Panel No. 5)
A r t i c l e 210 - Branch Circuits
(Panel No. 2)
Etc.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present format of the published Code book
makes i t d i f f i c u l t and time consuming to determine the appropriate
Panel responsible f o r the a r t i c l e in which a problem is
developing. The addition of one line in parentheses under the
a r t i c l e number giving the Panel designation w i l l quickly provide
the proper source.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: This change is e d i t o r i a l and the Panel leaves i t
to the discretion of the Correlating Committee and NFPA to include
or exclude this information in the Table of Contents in the
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
I
Log ~ 384
5- 6 - (200-7, Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Jon Nelson, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: A cable containing an insulating conductor with
white or natural gray outer f i n i s h shall be permitted f o r a
single-pole, 3-way or 4-way, where the white or natural gray
conductor is used f o r the supply to the switch, but not as a
• return conductor from the switch to the switched outlet. The
white wire cannot be used as a traveler for 3-way or 4-way
switches unless they are permanently reidentified.
SUBSTANTIATION: At least one of the travelers on a 3-way or 4-way
switch are hot a l l the time. I f the traveler is reidentified
black i t w i l l not be confused with the neutral or the feeder wire
in the c i r c u i t .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
RANLL COMMENT: Identification of the grounded conductor is f o r
convenience. With switches i t is understood that none of the
wires connected to the switch are grounded and no r e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
is necessary.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 919
5- 2 - (200-2, Exception): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Solar Photovoltaics
ITE'CI)I~'I~I~ATION: Revise Section 200-2 Exceptio~ to delete "and" in
second line, and add "and 690-41 Exception" at end of sentence.
SUBSTANTIATION: For correlation with proposed A r t i c l e 690.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: Accept based upon acceptance of proposal f o r
~roposed new A r t i c l e 690.
OTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 362
5- 7 - (200-7, Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: David C. Winterfeld, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: A cable containing an insulated conductor with a
white or natural gray outer f i n i s h shall be permitted f o r
single-pole, 3-way or 4-way switch loops where the white or
• 21
Log # 1959
5- 3 - (200-4-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Saul Rosenbaum, East Meadow, NY
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Section 200-4 as follows:
200-4. Grounded Conductor Required at Switch Enclosures. All
enclosures f o r snap switches rated 20 amperes or less shall
contain a grounded conductor.
See companion Proposal 200-7, Exception No. 2.
SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement would prevent the hazardous
practice of using the "grounding" conductor f o r a grounded
conductor. This s i t u a t i o n occurs very frequently under the
f o l l o w i n g circumstances:
a. When attempting to replace a single-pole switch with a
combination switch and receptacle.
b. When attempting to replace a single-pole switch with a
combination switch and p i l o t l i g h t .
c. In today's environment, many people are i n s t a l l i n g time
clocks to turn switch controlled l i g h t s on and o f f f o r security
purposes. All of these motor-driven time clocks require the
a v a i l a b i l i t y of a grounded conductor,
d. Very often when an additional receptacle needs to be
i n s t a l l e d , i t is very convenient to run a cable up to the switch
box. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of a grounded conductor, here again, would
preclude the general practice of using the grounding conductor f o r
a grounded conductor.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel f e e l s that the Code cannot make
mandatory provisions f o r a l l f u t u r e modifications.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
B i l l Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Leo Nagel, North Dakota
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 110-34(c) by deleting from the
third paragraph thereof the words, "reading substantially as
follows;" and amend Section 110-34(c) further by inserting in lieu
thereof the following, "containing the words, "WARNING - HIGH
VOLTAGE - KEEP OUT." Said words shall be in block printing no
less than 2 inches high and at least I/2 inch wide strokes."
SUBSTANTIATION: In 50 percent of the IAEI Chapter meetings since
September of 1980 the question was raised concerning the word,
"substantially." There has been no definite answer given and as a
matter of fact there is no real answer to the question.
We o f f e r this wording in lieu of the consternation that
prevails. There can be no question concerning the need f o r the
sign and there is no reason why the Code should not prescribe the
wording.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal leaves no latitude f o r other suitable
language.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
ARTICLE 200 - - USE AND IDENTIFICATION
OF GROUNDEDCONDUCTORS
Log # 2095
5- 4 - (200-7): Reject
SUBMITTER: Karl F. Steinhauer, Des Plaines, IL
RECOMMENDATION: In Section 200-7, at about the 35th word-group, I
suggest that at "the supply" either omit "the" or change i t to "a
supply."
SUBSTANTIATION: To accomodate 4-way switches.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The intent of the present wording is clear.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1633
5- 0 - ( A r t i c l e s 200, 250, 280): Reject
SUBMITTER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los Angeles, CA
ITE'-C'~PL'-~(DATION: Delete the word "approved" when used to mean the
use of alternate method(s) or materials.
SUBSTANTIATION: The NEC is incorporated in most construction
contract documents by reference. Therefore, the authority having
j u r i s d i c t i o n - the owner or the owner's representative, w i l l not
be the t h i r d party q u a l i f i e d person comtemplated by the
Code-Making Panel. Section 90-4 covers the case f o r governmental
bodies exercising legal j u r i s d i c t i o n .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: No specific proposal has been submitted. Any
review would be subjective on the part of the Panel to determine
proposer's intent.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 45
5- 5 - (200-7, Exception No. 1): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
]TL~C~O-~IBI~N-DATION: Revise Exception No. i as follows: insert the
words "that is part of a cable assemble" after the word " f i n i s h . "
SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording permits all conductors of a
wlrlng system to be installed with factory-colored white
insulation. This Exception permits white-colored conductor
i n s t a l l a t i o n in a raceway system where the p o s s i b i l i t y of improper
or ineffective f i e l d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (especially when many
conductors are installed and v i s i b l e at many openings) permits an
unwarranted potential safety hazard. There appears no real need
f o r this Exception as written, as conductors of all sizes are
generally readily available with other than white insulation.
This Exception also appears to be in c o n f l i c t with Section
310-12(c) which has no comparable Exception to permit f i e l d
identification.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The present Exception No. 1 provides the intended
safety.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 2054
5- 1 - (Articles 200, 250,280): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee feels that this
proposal is e d i t o r i a l in nature and that i t is unnecessary to
repeat information already in the Code.
SUBMITTER: Ivan P. Nordstrand, Consumers Power Company
RECOMMENDATION: Propose each a r t i c l e have the Panel designation
thus:
A r t i c l e 90 - Introduction
(Panel No. 1)
A r t i c l e 100 - Definitions
(Panel No. 1)
A r t i c l e 110 - Requirements f o r E l e c t r i c I n s t a l l a t i o n s
(Panel No. i )
A r t i c l e 200 - Use and I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Grounded Conductors
(Panel No. 5)
A r t i c l e 210 - Branch Circuits
(Panel No. 2)
Etc.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present format of the published Code book
makes i t d i f f i c u l t and time consuming to determine the appropriate
Panel responsible f o r the a r t i c l e in which a problem is
developing. The addition of one line in parentheses under the
a r t i c l e number giving the Panel designation w i l l quickly provide
the proper source.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: This change is e d i t o r i a l and the Panel leaves i t
to the discretion of the Correlating Committee and NFPA to include
or exclude this information in the Table of Contents in the
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
I
Log ~ 384
5- 6 - (200-7, Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Jon Nelson, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: A cable containing an insulating conductor with
white or natural gray outer f i n i s h shall be permitted f o r a
single-pole, 3-way or 4-way, where the white or natural gray
conductor is used f o r the supply to the switch, but not as a
• return conductor from the switch to the switched outlet. The
white wire cannot be used as a traveler for 3-way or 4-way
switches unless they are permanently reidentified.
SUBSTANTIATION: At least one of the travelers on a 3-way or 4-way
switch are hot a l l the time. I f the traveler is reidentified
black i t w i l l not be confused with the neutral or the feeder wire
in the c i r c u i t .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
RANLL COMMENT: Identification of the grounded conductor is f o r
convenience. With switches i t is understood that none of the
wires connected to the switch are grounded and no r e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
is necessary.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 919
5- 2 - (200-2, Exception): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Solar Photovoltaics
ITE'CI)I~'I~I~ATION: Revise Section 200-2 Exceptio~ to delete "and" in
second line, and add "and 690-41 Exception" at end of sentence.
SUBSTANTIATION: For correlation with proposed A r t i c l e 690.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: Accept based upon acceptance of proposal f o r
~roposed new A r t i c l e 690.
OTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 362
5- 7 - (200-7, Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: David C. Winterfeld, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: A cable containing an insulated conductor with a
white or natural gray outer f i n i s h shall be permitted f o r
single-pole, 3-way or 4-way switch loops where the white or
• 21
natural gray conductor is used f o r the supply to the switch, but
not as a return conductor from the switch to the switched outlet.
In these applications, r e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the white or natural
gray conductor shall not be required. Where a white or natural
gray conductor is used as traveler between switches i t shall be
reidentified.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t should be c l a r i f i e d that when the grounded
conductor is used as a traveler between switches i t shall be
reidentified so i t concurs with Section 200-7 in i t s entirety.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-6.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1960
5- 12 - (200-7, Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Saul Rosenbaum, East Meadow, NY
RECOMMENDATION: Delete from the second line "single-pole."
SUBSTANTIATION: See companion proposal for new Section 200-4.' To
comply with proposed Section 200-4, the (white) conductor would be
used as a grounded conductor. Single-pole switch legs would now
require 3 conductors, i . e . , black and red (armored cable or
nonmetallic cable) conductors would be used f o r the single-pole
switch leg and the white conductor would then be the required
grounded conductor for use with timers, energy saving devices or
f o r extension of the c i r c u i t to an added receptacle, or
combination device.
PANEL ACTION: Reject'.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 5-3.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 379
5- 8 - (200-7, Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Jeff Vanderhoff, Sheldon, IA
~ATION:
A cable containing an insulated conductor with a
white or natural gray outer finish shall be permitted f o r
single-pole, 3-way, or 4-way switch loops where the white or
natural gray is used to supply the switch, or as a traveler
between 4-way switching, but not as a return conductor from the
switch to the switched o u t l e t . In these applications the
reidentification of the white or natural gray conductor shall not
be required.
SUBSTANTIATION: When using the white or natural gray conductor as
a traveler between 4-ways, there are fewer wires in a box, thus a
smaller box can be used. The white or natural gray conductor w i l l
be feeding one or more of the 4-ways.
PANEL ACTION: Reject,
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-6.
VOTE ON PANEL"ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 348
5- 13 - (200-7, Exception No. 5-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Joel Weigand, Rockford, IA
R~ATION:
Exception No. 5: Unless permanently reidentified
at all openings the white or natural gray conductor w i l l not be
used as a traveler.
SUBSTANTIATION: In same openings and enclosures the white or
natural gray conductor may be used as the grounded conductor when
i t is the switch leg f o r a 3-way or 4-way switch loop.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-6.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 411
5- 14 - (200-I0(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Nabil L. Mina, Appleton Electric Company
~ATION:
~Identification shall be by a metal coating
substantially white in color, the word "WHITE" "or the l e t t e r W"
- - - etc.
(a) Exception: Terminal identification shall not be required
for:
2-wire nonpolarized attachment plugs.
(b) Where conditions of maintenance and supervision assure that
only qualified persons w i l l service the i n s t a l l a t i o n , terminals
f o r grounded conductors shall be permitted to be permanently
identified at the time of i n s t a l l a t i o n , by a d i s t i n c t i v e white
marking or other equally effective means.
SUBSTANTIATION: Limited space on the plug and receptacle terminal
blocks f o r marking the word "WHITE," the l e t t e r "W" is equally
effective i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .
Pin and sleeve plugs, receptacles and connectors are used in
d i f f e r e n t applications, and voltage ratings configurations. A
selection and application of the proper device should be done only
by competent engineering personnel and backed up by a planned
professional.
See Guide pin and sleeve plugs, receptacle and connectors
PR3-1980. Under code and safety requirements PR3-4.01.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: We feel that the positive identification is
necessary and there are already several acceptable methods
provided. Proposed new paragraph (b) is redundant and is already
covered in Section 200-9, Exception.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 382
5- 9 - (200-7, Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: David Nase, Orange City, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Proposed Wording: A cable containing an
insulated conductor with a white or natural gray outer Kinish
shall be permitted f o r single-pole, 3-way, or 4-way switch loops
where white or natural gray conductor is used f o r the supply to
the switch, but not as a return conductor from the switch to the
switched o u t l e t , "or as a traveler between switches." In these
applications, r e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the white or natural gray
conductor shall not be required.
SUBSTANTIATION: I f a white or natural gray conductor is used as a
traveler i t should be r e i d e n t i f i e d , because they are sometimes
carrying current and i f run across in a box where i t is i t may be
mistaken as a neutral i f not reidentified.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
ISABEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-6.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 371
5- i0 - (200-7, Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Larry Schmit, Hospers, IA
~ATION:
A cable containing an insulated conductor with a
white or natural gray f i n i s h shall be permitted f o r single-pole,
3-way or 4-way switch loops where used as supply or as a
traveler. In these applications, r e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n shall not be
required.
SUBSTANTIATION: I do not think that the r e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the
above situations should be required. I f the supply to the switch
is allowed to be white then the travelers of the switch should
also be allowed. Since all cables have a white conductor i t is
impossible to run a 3- or 4-way without the white conductor so I
believe i t should be allowed f o r what I have written above.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-6.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log ~ 608
5- 15 - (200-10 (b), Second Paragraph): Reject
SUBMITTER: Leon Rabin, Rabin E l e c t r i c Service
REC~ATION:
Change to read:
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n shall be by a metal or metal coating
s u b s t a n t i a l l y white in color f o r those devices intended f o r use
with copper or copper clad wire or by the word "white" located
adjacent to the i d e n t i f i e d terminal.
SUBSTANTIATION: Receptacles are being produced with the screws
a l l white or a l l brass in color. The word white is in raised
l e t t e r s made of the same material of which the body of the device
is made. The word white is not c l e a r l y v i s i b l e , in fact i n v i s i b l e
in bad lighting conditions. The mechanic picks up a receptacle,
sees a white screw, and connects the identified wire to i t .
(Substitute "brass" and "hot" in the reverse case). The training
of years has ingrained the habit of looking f o r the white screw
and connecting the white wire. To permit current procedure is to
ask f o r accidents. The wording of the proposed change w i l l allow
manufacturers t o proceed with whatever they need f o r aluminum wire
devices. The Code must be practical in i t s regulations, and not
introduce changes that cause trouble.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that the present methods are
adequate and were considered in depth in t h e i r adoption in the
1981 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE and are substantiated in the TCR and
TCD for the 1981 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 369
5- 11 - (200-7, Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Joe Downing, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: A cable containing an insulated conductor with a
white or natural gray outer f i n i s h shall be permitted f o r
single-pole, 3-way or 4-way switch loops where the white or
natural gray conductor is used f o r supply to the switch shall be
reidentified.
SUBSTANTIATION: Because I think that i f a switch is fed with a
whi'te wire, i t should be reidentified so you won't get i t mixed up
with a grounded conductor.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-6.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
22
SUBSTANTIATION: The present format of the published Code book
makes i t d i f f i c u l t and time consuming to determine the appropriate
Panel responsible for the a r t i c l e in which a problem is
developing. The addition of one line in parenthesis under the
a r t i c l e number giving the panel designation w i l l quickly provide
the proper source.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The information is already covered in the front of
the Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
ARTICLE 210 -- BRANCH CIRCUITS
Log # 461
2- 1 - (2XX-Supply Mains-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 2 that
a r t i c l e scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating
Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel
Action.
SUBMITTER: Donald H. Mclntosh, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
~ATION:
Article 2XX-Supply Mains.
2XX-I Scope - The provisions of this article apply to the
installation of electrical conductors and equipment that serve as
supply mains installed in premises wiring systems.
2XX-2 Definition - For the purpose of this a r t i c l e :
Main - Any supply c i r c u i t to which other energy-consuming
circuits (submains, branches, or services) are connected through
automatic overcurrent devices (fuses or circuit breakers) at
different points along i t s length and which is of the same size
conductor for its entire length and which has no overcurrent
devices in series with i t for its entire length.
(FPN)- Where a main is supplied by a feeder, the main frequently
has smaller conductors than the feeder which serves i t . An
energy-utilizing device is never connected directly to a main,
overcurrent devices being interposed between the energy-utilizing
device and the main.
Submain - A subsidiary main, fed through an overcurrent device
from a main or from another submain, to which branch circuits or
services are connected through overcurrent devices.
(FPN) - A submain conductor is usually a smaller conductor than
the main or other submain which serves i t .
2XX-3 Application of Other Articles - All requirements of this
Code shall apply except as specifically amended in this a r t i c l e .
For branch circuits, feeders, services, and overcurrent
protection, refer to Articles 210, 215, 230 and 240 respectively.
SUBSTANTIATION: For years the NEC has ignored one significant
electrical distribution system element which has led to
bastardizing the meaning of the word "feeder." Scores upon scores
of so-called "feeders" are in r e a l i t y , supply mains.
The only specific recognition of the term "main" appearing in
the 1981 NEC is in the definition of "service conductors" with use
of the words "street main." I have included Figure i and 2
extracted from the American Electricians Handbook to help
i l l u s t r a t e a "main" and a "submain."
Of course, the tap rules of 240-21 describing the location of
overcurrent devices apply equally well to mains and submains for
protection of conductors.
The use of mains and submains inside manufactured equipment,
such as motor control centers, without general recognition of
these terms, has been going on for years, but the addition of
these terms w~uld enhance proper application of electric
conductors and equipment both inside manufactured equipment and in
premises wiring (distribution systems).
This proposal adds a new article to cover Code requirements for
safe application of supply mains and submains.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: In the Panel's opinion the subject is adequately
covered with the present Code terminology.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
2- 4 - (210-3): Accept
Secretary's Note: In accordance with the NFPA Manual of Style,
the Correlating Committee suggests that this proposal be an
exception.
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
~ATION:
Add a new second paragraph to read as follows:
Multioutlet branch circuits greater than 50 amperes shall be
permitted on industrial premises where maintenance and supervision
indicate that qualified persons w i l l service equipment.
SUBSTANTIATION See CMP 2 Proposal 2-54.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1010
2- 5 - (210-4): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. H. Richards, Finksburg, MD
RECOMMENDATION: In last paragraph following Exception No. 2
delete "IN DWELLING UNITS." The paragraph would then read "A
multiwire branch circuit supplying more than one receptacle on the
same yoke shall be provided with means to disconnect
simultaneously all ungrounded conductors at the panelboard where
the branch c i r c u i t orlginated.
SUBSTANTIATION: By deleting the words "IN DWELLING UNITS" the
requirement to disconnect all ungrounded conductors of multiwire
circuits feeding multioutlet receptacles on a single yoke
simultaneously w i l l apply to any occupancy. Maintenance personnel
on systems in schools, churches, industrial and commercial
occupancies are not always f u l l y competent electricians and added
protection is due them as well as the homeowners. This ruling
only applies where the s p l i t wired receptacles are used on a
single yoke and should not prove a hardship nor increase costs to
a prohibitive extent.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: No substantiation is provided to indicate that a
hazard exists in other than dwelling units.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1009
2- 6 - (210-4): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: J. H. Richards, Finksburg, MD
~ATION:
Add to f i r s t paragraph.
"3 wire multiwire circuits shall be considered as 2 circuits, 4
wire circuits shall be considered as 3 c i r c u i t s . "
SUBSTANTIATION: A note stipulating that multiwire circuits were
equal to two or three single two wire circuits was removed from a
former code. Due to the ruling that when run through end to end
fixture assemblies multiwire circuits can be considered as a
single c i r c u i t , some authorities do not 3 wire circuits of 20
ampere ampacity running to the kitchen meeting the requirement of
the two required circuits.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise Section 210-4 to read as follows:
Branch circuits recognized by this article shall be permitted as
multiwire circuits. A multiwire branch circuit shall be permitted
to be considered as multiple circuits. All conductors shall
originate from the same panelboard.
In dwelling units a multiwire branch circuit supplying more than
one device on the same yoke shall be provided with a means to
disconnect simultaneously a l l ungrounded conductors at the
panel board where the branch c i r c u i t originated.
Multiwire branch circuits shall supply only line to neutral load.
Insert Exceptions No. 1 and No. 2 at the end of Section 210-4.
PANEL COMMENT: The revised wording more accurately reflects the
Panel's intent.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1630
2- 2 - (Articles 210, 215, 220)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los Angeles, CA
~ATION:
Delete the word "approved" when used to mean the
use of alternate method(s) or materials.
SUBSTANTIATION: The NEC is incorporated in most construction
contract documents by reference. Therefore, the authority having
jurisdiction - ~he owner or the owner's representative, w i l l not
be the third party qualified person contemplated by the
Code-Making Panel. Section 90-4 covers the case for governmental
bodies exercising legal jurisdiction.
PANEL ACTION: Reject
PANEL COMMENT: Reject. No use of "approved" in Articles 210,
215, and 220.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 2057
2- 3 - (Articles, 210, 2151 220): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee feels that this
proposal is editorial i n nature and that i t is unnecessary to
repeat information already in the Code.
SUBMITTER: Ivan P. Nordstrand, Consumers Power Company
RECOMMENDATION: Proposeeach a r t i c l e have the panel designation
thus:
Article 90 - Introduction
(Panel No. 1)
Article 100 - Definitions
(Panel No. 1)
Article 110 - Requirements f o r Electric Installations
(Panel No. 1)
Article 200 - Use and, ldentification of Grounded Conductors
(Panel No. 5)
Article 210 - Branch Circuits
(Panel No. 2)
Etc.
Log # 1785
2- 7 - (210-4): Accept
SUBMITTER: Leo F. Martin, Hyde Park, ~
.
RECOMMENDATION: In the third paragraph delete the word
"receptacle" and replace with "device."
SUBSTANTIATION: As written, ~ext applies to a receptacle only.
The use of the term "device" would include switches or
switch/receptacle combinations, etc.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
23
The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of ungrounded conductors of a multiwire
branch c i r c u i t permits the electrician to i n s t a l l devices in a
manner that w i l l result in a balancing of the phase loadings and
neutral load. Detection of improper phasing of a multiwire
c i r c u i t by the inspecting authority is extremely d i f f i c u l t without
conductor i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and v i r t u a l l y impossible when making a
f i n a l inspection of work that is not energized as is often the
case. The proposal, as written, would o f f e r a simple means f o r
both the e l e c t r i c i a n , inspector, and subsequent electricians to
determine and maintain correct c i r c u i t .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 2-14.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NECV~TIVE: Schuck.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SCHUCK: Same as comment as on Proposal 2-14.
Log # 1876
2- 8 - (210-5(a)): Reject
SUBMI1-FER: Leonard F. Devine, J r . , West Palm Beach, FL
~ATION:
Add the following to Section 210-5(a) at the end
of paragraph.
,
Multiwire branch c i r c u i t s shall conform to the following color
code. Three wire c i r c u i t s one black, one white, one red, four
wire c i r c u i t s one black, one white, one red, one blue; f i v e wire
c i r c u i t s one black, one white, one red, one blue, one yellow.
After the f i r s t set of multiwire branch c i r c u i t s are installed in
the same raceway, other combinations may be used. All c i r c u i t
conductors of the same color shall be connected to the same
ungrounded conductors throughout the c i r c u i t .
SUBSTANTIATION: The problem is that there is no uniformity in the
colors used f o r branch c i r c u i t s and the fact that a c i r c u i t may
change color throughout the c i r c u i t . By not having some standard
to go by i t becomes at times d i f f i c u l t to troubleshoot, repair and
change c i r c u i t r y because you don't know what the other person has
done, or was thinking of doing. Many times mistakes are made on
the i n i t i a l i n s t a l l a t i o n also.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See P~nel Comment f o r Proposal 2-14.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: g
NEGATIVE: Schuck.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SCHUCK: Same comment as on Proposal 2-14.
Log # 59
2- 11 - (210-5(c)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~ECOM~ZNDATION: Add paragraph (c) as follows:
(c) Ungrounded Conductors. When a color has been established
f o r an insulated conductor of a c i r c u i t , that color shall be
maintained throughout the total length of the c i r c u i t .
Exception No. 1 Cable-type wiring systems.
Exception No. 2 Additions or extensions to existing c i r c u i t s .
Exception No. 3 Conductors on the load side of switching
devices.
SUBSTANTIATION: No requirement f o r maintaining a color code, once
established. The present lack of Code requirements f o r
color-coding permits any number of d i f f e r e n t colored conductors to
be spliced or otherwise connected together throughout a c i r c u i t .
This permits an unwarranted potential safety hazard when using
color-coding to ascertain proper c i r c u i t connections. As the Code
requires color-coding of certain other conductors, i t appears
reasonable to provide minimum requirements f o r ungrounded
conductors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 2-14.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Schuck.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SCHUCK: Sameas comment on Proposal 2-14.
Log # 1121
2- 9 - (210-5(c)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Jack B. Smith, East Bay Uniform Electrical Code
RECOMMENDATION: Add new subsection (c) as follows:
(cl Ungrounded Conductors of Multiwire Branch Circuits.
Ungrounded conductors of a multiwire branch c i r c u i t shall each be
of a color or distinguishment to identify the feeder by which i t
is supplied and each conductor of the same i d e n t i f i c a t i o n shall be
connected to the same feeder.
SUBSTANTIATION: Many neutral conductors of multiwire branch
c i r c u i t s are overloaded due to improper phasing of conductors,
splices and connection of devices. Color coding of the ungrounded
conductors of a multiwire branch c i r c u i t is a safety, as well as a
design consideration f o r safe and proper wiring. Much e l e c t r i c a l
work is installed with the N.E.C., minimum requirements, as the
only design c r i t e r i a . Failure to connect the proper conductor to
loads supplied by multiwire branch c i r c u i t s can result in
overloading of the unprotected neutral conductor to as much as
three times i t s allowable ampacity or in the case of two, four
wire c i r c u i t s , to as much as six times i t s allowable ampacity.
The resultant overheating of a neutral wire is no less a hazard
than of an ungrounded conductor.
The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of ungrounded conductors of a multiwire
branch c i r c u i t permits the e l e c t r i c i a l to i n s t a l l devices in a '
manner that w i l l result in a balancing of the phase loadings and
neutral load. Detection of improper phasing of a multiwire
c i r c u i t by the inspecting authority is extremely d i f f i c u l t without
conductor i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and v i r t u a l l y impossible when making a
f i n a l inspection of work that is not energized as is often the
case. The proposal, as written, would o f f e r a simple means f o r
both the e l e c t r i c i a n , inspector, and subsequent electricians to
determine and maintain correct c i r c u i t .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 2-14.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Schuck.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SCHUCK: Same as on Proposal 2-14.
Log # 293
2- 12 - (210-5(c)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. H. (Jim) Richards, Maryland E l e c t r i c a l Inspectors
X~Tr~
RECOMMENDATION: Add to Section 210-5 the f o l l o w i n g :
210-5(c) Multiwire branch c i r c u i t s shall be i n s t a l l e d using
color coded conductors in order to f a c i l i t a t e proper connections.
Circuits of d i f f e r e n t voltages shall be wired with a d i f f e r e n t
set of colored conductors.
I t is suggested that f o r 120/208 systems one white (N) one
black, one red and one blue conductor be used. This was standard
f o r many years.
For 277/480 v o l t systems i t is suggested one grey (N) one brown,
one orange and one yellow conductor be used.
SUBSTANTIATION: With enclosures containing a number of conductors
of multiwire branch c i r c u i t s i t is very d i f f i c u l t to assure that
ungrounded c i r c u i t conductors are connected so that they have a
potential differenceJbetween them. I f improperly connected the
grounded neutral conductor is stressed by having amperages imposed
• on i t by as much as two or three times i t s ampacity. Conditions
in branch c i r c u i t panels when using a l l black conductors on the
ungrounded portions of multiwire branch c i r c u i t s make proper
connections d i f f i c u l t and doubtful. Color coding is badly
needed. Many local areas have refused to adopt the Code without
making special rules on this matter and we do not feel that this
is conducive to establishment of a good NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 2-14.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE~ Schuck.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SCHUCK: Sameas comment on Proposal 2-14.
Log # 1120
2- 10 - (210-5(c)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Joe Marcelino, East Bay Codes and Standards
RECOMMENDATION: Add new subsection (c) as follows:
(c} Unground Conductors o f Multiwire Branch Circuits.
Ungrounded conductors of a multiwire branch c i r c u i t shall each be
of a color or distinguishment to i d e n t i f y the feeder by which i t
is supplied and each conductor of the same i d e n t i f i c a t i o n shall be
connected to the same feeder.
SUBSTANTIATION: Many neutral conductors of multiwire branch
c i r c u i t s are overloaded due to improper phasing of conductors,
splices and connection of devices. Color coding of the ungrounded
conductors of a multiwire branch c i r c u i t is a safety, as well as a
design consideration f o r safe and proper wiring. Much e l e c t r i c a l
work is installed with the NEC, minimum requirements, as the only
design c r i t e r i a . Failure to connect the proper conductor to loads
supplied by multiwire branch c i r c u i t s can result in overloading of
the unprotected neutral conductor to as much as three times i t s
allowable ampacity or in the case of two, four wire c i r c u i t s , to
as much as six times its allowable ampacity. The resultant
overheating of a neutral wire is no less a hazard than of an
ungrounded conductor.
Log # 625
2- 13 - (210-5(c)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Henry Garrett, Southern Nevada Chapter of ICBO
RECOMMENDATION: Wheremultiwire branch c i r c u i t s comprising
voltages of 480/277-208/120 are installed in the same building(s)
the following color code shall be observed throughout the system:
24
208/120 Systems
480/277 Systems
A Phase Black
B Phase Red
C Phase Blue
D Phase White
A Phase Brown
B Phase Orange
C Phase Yellow
D Phase Gray
480V phase voltage, and the balance of conductors f o r lower
voltage c o n t r o l ; (3) some conductors at 240V phase voltage with
other conductors at 120V, etc. As you can see, each one of these
cables would require a d i f f e r e n t color coding and y e t , as
discussed above, with no requirement f o r consistency i t would not
contribute anything to personnel safety.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
A~'~IRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Schuck.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SCHUCK: The submitter proposes that i d e n t i f i c a t i o n be by "color
or distinguishment." The Panel Comment addresses the possible
l i m i t a t i o n s of a "color code," but ignores the provision of the
proposal which permits the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the ungrounded
conductors by other means.
With the increased use of several d i f f e r e n t voltage systems
within the same building, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the conductors is more
important than ever. I t would provide an additionalmeasure of
safety f o r the personnel who w i l l be maintaining and a l t e r i n g
these i n s t a l l a t i o n s in the f u t u r e .
I t would also be in the best i n t e r e s t of the customer to be
assured t h a t in buildings with various voltages, the conductors
would be r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d so as to avoid costly errors, safety
hazards or inadvertant overloads.
The preponderance of proposals on t h i s subject at every Code
revision c e r t a i n l y indicates the need f o r such a provision.
(1) Conductors smaller than No. 8 AWG shall be i d e n t i f i e d by
the outer covering of the conductor.
(2) Conductors No. 8 and larger shall be s u i t a b l y i d e n t i f i e d at
t h e i r point of termination with a l i s t e d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n marker.
SUBSTANTIATION: With increasing numbers of i n s t i t u t i o n a l ,
educational and commercial f a c i l i t i e s using the above mentioned
voltages, some guidelines should be established on a national
basis.
In the past, Code Panel No. 2 has rejected color coding on the
grounds that i t is a matter of design consideration. This may be
true to some extent, but we ask" you to consider the f o l l o w i n g :
(A) Safety--For the installer-maintenance personnel; and
consumer.
(B) Uniformity--For the ease of design, i n s t a l l a t i o n and
inspection.
(C) Consumer Satisfaction--To avoid future confusion and
hazardous errors in the expansion and maintenance of occupied
buildings.
We would also remind you t h a t : At present, we have both design
engineers, e l e c t r i c i a n s and inspectors in the f i e l d that are not
aware there ever was a color section in the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL
CODE.
Many of these people now belong to a highly mobile work force
and the r e s u l t has been increasing confusion as to what good
wiring practices are regarding the above color system. Without
some type of guideline to f o l l o w , t h i s condition can only become
more serious as time passes.
**THE ABOVE IS NOT INTENDED TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF MANUFACTURED
CABLE.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 2-14.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Schuck.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~
a
s
comment on Proposal 2-14.
I
Log # 645
2- 14 - (210-5(c)-(New)):
Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that f u r t h e r consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: Allen Sligh, Bureau of E l e c t r i c i t y , City of Alameda, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add as follows:
"(c) Ungrounded Conductors of
Multiwire Branch C i r c u i t .
Ungrounded conductors of a multiwire
branch c i r c u i t shall each be of a color or distinguishment to
i d e n t i f y the feeder by which i t is supplied and each conductor of
the same i d e n t i f i c a t i o n shall be connected to the same feeder."
SUBSTANTIATION: Many neutral conductors of multiwire branch
c i r c u i t s are overloaded due to improper phasing of conductors,
splices and connection of devices.
Color coding of the ungrounded conductors of a multiwire branch
c i r c u i t is a safety, as well as a design consideration f o r safe
and proper wiring. Much electrical work is installed with the
NEC, minimum requirements, as the only design c r i t e r i a . Failure
to connect the proper conductor to receptacles supplied by
multiwire branch circuits can result in overloading of the
unprotected neutral conductor to as much as three times its
allowable ampacity or in the case of two, four-wire circuits, to
as much as six times its allowable ampacity. The resultant
over-heating of a neutral wire is no less a hazard than that of an
ungrounded conductor.
The identification of ungrounded conductors of a multiwire
branch circuit permits the electrician to install devices in a
manner that will result in a balancing of the phase loadings and
neutral load. Detection of improper phasing of a multiwire
circuit by the inspecting authority is extremely d i f f i c u l t without
conductor identification and v i r t u a l l y impossible when making a
final inspection of work that is not energized, as is often the
case. The proposal, as written, would offer a simple means for
both the electrician, inspector, and subsequent electricians to
determine and maintain correct circuit phasing.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~
T
:
There are not enough colors to cover the
variations in systemsand voltages. Green, white and grey are
committed in Section 210-5. Orange and brown are committed in
Section 517-104(a)(5) for isolated c i r c u i t s . .
The diverse practices in existing installations would cause
incompatibility problems with the proposed color coding
requirements.
A false sense of security, leading to unsafe practices could
result. Everyconductor should be considered alive unless proven
otherwise.
The logistics and cost problems of manufacturing, shipping,
stocking and installing the many colors of conductors would be
unjustifiably severe.
When factory assembled cables are used, TC, ALS, CS, MC, NM,
SNM, etc., i t becomes almost an "impossibility to comply with this
section. The cables can be ordered with specific color coding
provided a minimum manufacturing quantity is needed; however,
there will be a delivery delay and a higher cost for less than
normal manufacturing runs. For example, when a seven conductor,
600 volt cable is manufactured for stock, the manufacturer has no
way of knowing the ultimate application: (1) all conductors at
the samo voltage in a control c i r c u i t ; (2) some conductors at
25
2- 15 - (210-6(a), Exception No. 1): Accept
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs CMP 2 to
c o r r e l a t e the discrepancy between the Panel Actions on Proposals
2-15 and 2-16.
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
~DATION:
Change " i n i n d u s t r i a l establishments" in second
i i n ' ~ T o '~-w~t--h~n the confines of i n d u s t r i a l premises."
SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y t h a t i t is the Panel's i n t e n t that the
Exception includes i n d u s t r i a l areas outside of i n d u s t r i a l
buildings, such as parking l o t s , storage areas, and roadways.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
2- 16 - (210-6): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee t h a t f u r t h e r consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
ITEIjOI~'I~ATION:
Revise Section 210-6. Maximum Voltage to read as
follows:
210-6. Maximum Voltage.
(a) 150 Volts to Ground. Branch c i r c u i t s shall not exceed 150
v o l t s to ground when supplying medium-base screw-shell l ampholders
or 125-volt receptacles.
(b) 300 Volts to Ground. Branch c i r c u i t s shall not exceed 300
v o l t s to ground when supplying ( i ) mogul-base screw-shell
l ampholders or, (2) l ampholders of other types, applied within
t h e i r voltage or, (3) b a l l a s t of electric-discharge lamps.
Exception No. 1: For l ampholders of infrared i n d u s t r i a l heating
appliances as provided in Section 422-15(c).
Exception No. 2: The railway properties described in
Section 110-19.
Exception No. 3: Branch c i r c u i t s which supply only
electric-discharge l i g h t i n g provided all of the f o l l o w i n g
conditions are met:
(a) The voltage between conductors does not exceed 600 v o l t s .
(b) The b a l l a s t is i d e d t i f i e d f o r use on ungrounded c i r c u i t s .
(c) The f i x t u r e s are mounted outdoors on poles or similar
structures, not buildings, at not less than 22 feet (6.71 m) in
height or in tunnels at not less than 18 feet (5.49 m) in height.
(c) Exceeding 300 Volts to Ground. Branch-circuits exceeding
300 v o l t s to ground which do not exceed 600 v o l t s between
conductors, shall only be permitted to supply b a l l a s t of
electric-discharge lamps in permanently i n s t a l l e d f i x t u r e s mounted
as follows:
( i ) Mounted outdoors not less than a height of 22 f e e t
(6.71 m) on poles or similar structures (not b u i l d i n g s ) .
(2) In tunnels not less than a height of 18 f e e t (5.49 m).
FPN: See Section 410-78.
SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y that the 22 f e e t and 18 f e e t minimum
mounting heights apply only where the voltage exceeds 300 volts
betwoen conductors.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Yerke.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
YERKE: The proposal would permit the i n s t a l l a t i o n of the
presently limited-use equipment to be accessible to the general
public in dwelling units and in commercial and i n d u s t r i a l
establishments.
There are risks associated with the equipment presently
specified in these exceptions that their use should not be
expanded without the existing safeguards.
The changes 9o beyond the substantiation since such aspects such
as establishment exception, supervision, height, integral switch,
permanently installed features have not been addressed.
Log # 860
2- 20 - (210-8-(New)): Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA
~ T I O N :
All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere
receptacles installed in basements shall have ground-fault
circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.
Exception: Single receptacle outlets permanently marked or
identified for supplying specific cord- and plug-connected
appliances.
SUBSTANTIATION: a. Basements have the same degree of shock
hazard potential as bathrooms and garages, and should therefore be
provided with ground-fault protected receptacle circuits for
portable tool and appliance use.
b. An Exception is needed for stationary or fixed appliances
such as freezers, washers and refrigerators. These appliances are
likely to have high leakage currents and to cause considerable
inconvenience i f de-energized.
c. During the period January i, 1975, through December 31,
1980, the UL Clipping Service recorded 14 deaths and 2 injuries
from electrical shock in basements of dwelling units. These
deaths and injuries would likely have been prevented had GFCI's
been installed. As the UL Clipping Service reports only a
fraction of the electrical accidents occurring in the United
States, the number must actually be much higher. A summary of the
accident data follows:
Injury
Death
1975
5
1976
2
1977
2
1978
2
2
1979
2
1980
1
Log # 80
2- 17 - (210-7(d) Exception): Reject
SUBMII-TER: Howard A. Miller, Parma, OH
ITET~R~J~[E'N-~ATION: None.
SUBSTANTIATION: In regard to the Exception, i t no doubt has been
inserted for valid reasons, but i t also can cause confusion. The
thousands of home owners who know nothing about grounding, bonding
or other terms are only interested in purchasing a receptacle and
installing i t , either a two prong or a three prong, as long as i t
is new, works and has a shiney wall plate.
When a two prong receptacle is replaced with another two prong
we are telling the manufacturer to continue making appliances with
different types of wiring, residential two-wire and commercial
three-wire, setting up two types of standards.
I f a home owner buys a three-prong cord o÷ piece of equipment i t
will not f i t in the two-prong receptacle so they use an illegal
adapter, do not use the grounding wire, which does nothing anyhow,
or else break off the grounding prong on the equipment, thus
making useless the grounding feature, i f used, in another
three-prong grounded receptacle.
Instead of gradually eliminating two-prong receptacles in older
homes, we are continuing the process and also continuing a more
dangerous situation.
People with newer homes and three-prong grounded receptacles are
s t i l l forced to use antiquated two-wire pieces of residential
equipment due to tw~ standards s t i l l in existence. Two-wire
equipment i f continued to be made can s t i l l be plugged, any
position, into older type two-wire receptacles, thus at times
making "Hot" lamps, radios, and some appliances. Possibly, what
could be done, would be to replace a two-wire receptacle with a
three-wire one and also labeling the receptacle as not grounded.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COM~NT: Could lead to a false sense of security and
discourage the installation of a properly installed equipment
grounding conductor.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
TOTAL
~2~
1-4-
The following are summarized from the UL Clipping Service and
describe the accidents in more d e t a i l .
In addition, a chart is
appended providing an overview of all data considered in preparing
this and other proposals. (See Chart on "Shock and Burn
Incidents-Basements" on next page.)
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part.
PANEL COF~ENT: See Panel Proposal 2-19.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Craig, Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
CRAIG: See comment on Proposal 2-19.
REIGN: See my comment on Proposal 2-19.
Log # 666
2- 18 - (210-7(d), Exception): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to C~ 5 for comment and
that the conflict with Section 210-7(b) be resolved.
SUBMITTER: Warren H. Cook, IEEE
~ATION:
Exception: Where a grounding means does not
exist in the receptacle enclosure either a nongrounding "or a
ground-fault circuit-interrupter" type of receptacle shall be
used. (Change in quotations)
SUBSTANTIATION: In older buildings where a ground is not
available in the receptacle enclosure, i t should be permissible to
provide some type of personnel protection. This is particularly
important in areas designated in Section 210-8(a).
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
2- 19 - (210-8(a)(4)-(New)):
Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
~ATION:
Add a new paragraph to read as follows:
"(4) At least one 125-volt, single-phase, 15- or 20-ampere
receptacle outlet installed in a basement shall have ground-fault
circuit-interrupter protection for personnel, and i t shall be so
identified."
SUBSTANTIATION: Manybasements have habitable rooms and dedicated
appliances. I t is the Panel's opinion that all receptacle outlets
in all basements do not require GFCI protection.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Craig, Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
CRAIG: Grounding type receptacles as required by Section 210-7
already recognized safe and effective means of protection. The
constant effort to employ the use of G.F.C.I. only adds to cost.
REIGN: Three-wire, 120-volt, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits
together with grounding-type receptacles required by the Code
provide an OSHArecognized safe and effective means of protecting
people from electric shock when using or touching 3-wire cord- and
plug-connected equipment. Rather than continue the practice of
expanding the requirements for GFCI's with each Code revision and
further adding to skyrocketing construction costs, our efforts
should be directed toward requiring all cord- and plug-connected
equipmeot to be furnished to take advantage of the safety already
afforded by 3-wire systems and grounding-type receptacles.
26
SHOCK A N D ~
January
INCIDENTS-BASFJ~E~LTS
thru December 19~U
Comments
Incident
Identification
Number
Electric
Product
Involved
Age
&
Sex
Inj.
or
Dead
Date of Incident
and
Location
1-75-34
Drill
50-M
Dead
3-14-75
Basement
Des Rlaines, IL
Electrocuted while using
a drill.
3-75-75
Drill
34-M
Dead
7-8-75
Basement
Watertown, NY
Electrocuted while using
an ungrounded electric
dri11.
3-75-15
Fan Cord
42-F
Dead
7-16-78
Basement
Reading, PA
Electrocuted by plugging
in a fan while standing in
water.
3-75-30
Lamp'
21-F
Dead
7-24-75
Basement
Newark, NJ
Electrocuted by plugging
in a lamp while standing
barefooted on a sewer
pipe.
3-75-72
Drill
50-M
Dead
8-21-75
Basement
Oxford, NC
Electrocuted while using
a small electric d r i l l .
1-76-3
Cord
20-F
Dead
2-11-76
Basement
Cincinnati, OH
Electrocuted when plugging
in an appliance while
standing barefooted on a
wet floor.
1-76-19
Cord
33-F
Dead
2-19-76
Basement
Springfield, IL
Electrocuted when checking
a cord connected pump in
6 inches of water.
3-77-82
Drill
28-M
Dead
7-i-77
Basement
Omaha, NE
Electrocuted while using
an electric d r i l l .
3-77-45
Lamp
78-F
Dead
8-26-77
Basement
Thetford, VT
Electrocuted while
plugging in a metal lamp
in a wet environment.
2-78-48
Toy Train
15-M
Dead
6-14-78
Basement
Pine Township, PA
Using electric train in
basement.
3-78-107
Drill
48-M
Inj.
7-1-78
Basement
Spirit Lake,IO
Shocked by an electric
d r i l l while standing barefooted on a wet floor.
3-78-90
Sander
16-M
Inj.
8-14-78
3-78-71
Sump Pump
16-M
Dead
8-3-78
Basement
Arthur, IL
2-79-27
Pump
33-M
Dead
4-12-79
Basement
Mt. Pulaski,
Shocked unconscious by a
sander while barefooted.
Taken to hospital.
Went barefoot into wet
basement to check sump
pump.
IL
Electrocuted when plugging
in a sump pump while
standing in water.
3-79-22
Clothes
Dryer or
Sump
Pump
32-F
Dead
9-14-79
Basement
Garretsville, OH
Attempted to turn o f f
dryer while standing in
basement in 2 f t . of
water. Had been
trying to pump basement
with new, non-submersible
electric pump.
1-80-17
Sewer
cleaning
machine
27-M
Dead
1-26-80
Basement
Ft. Dodge, IA
Standing in water in
basement of a home
attempting to open a
drain. Switched on
machine.
21
SHOCKAND BURN INCIDENTS
SUMMARY
1975 THROUGH1980
KIT
BATHROOMS
IN
HOTELS/MOTELS
YEAR INJ.
DEATHITOTAL
1
1975
COUNTER TOP
RECEPTACLES
INJ. DEATH TOTAL
1
1976
,1977 J
2
l
1
2
2
2
1978. ]
,1979 ] ,
AV/yj
SCHOOLS
OTHER
RECEPTACLES
INJ.
DEATHITOTAL
RECEPTACLES
6' FROM B A S I N
OTHER
RECEPTACLES
INJ. )EATH TOTAL
INJ. DEATH FOTAL
l
1
1
l
l
1
l
l
2
BASEMENTS
IN
DWELLING!
INJ.
3
3
.5
.5
0.2
DEAT TOTAL
l
l
2
5
5
1
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
1
1
14
16
2.3
2.6
l
l
2
1
I
,TOTALI
HENS
1
2
1
1
5
6
4
4
1
1
2
3
2
5
2
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.3
Review of the data did not reveal any accidents in the following areas:
Bathrooms in dormitories
Bathrooms in nursing homes
Bathrooms in shopping centers
Bathing rooms in R.V. parks
Laundry areas in R.V. parks
Bathrooms in service stations
Bathrooms in airports
Bathrooms in R.V. parks
Bathrooms in other locations
Vehicle repair areas in R.V. parks
Log # 96
2- 21 - (210-8(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Joseph S. Pangborn, F. N. Zaino & Associates
~ATION:
Change210-8(a) to read as follows:
210-8 Ground Fault Protection for Personnel.
(a) Dwelling Units, Industrial, Institutional and ~ommercial
Occupancies.
(1) All 120 volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles
installed in bathroom and garages of dwelling units shall have
ground-fault circuit interrupter.
(2) All 120 volt, single-phase 15- and 20-ampere receptacles
installed in bathrooms of commercial, institutional and industrial
occupancies shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection
for personnel.
(3) All 120 volt, single-phase 15- and 20-ampere receptacles
installed outdoors of dwelling units, industrial, institutional,
and commercial occupancies, shall have ground-fault
circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.
Exception: Whenthe sole purpose of an outdoor receptacle is to
provide for wheelchair l i f t a NEMA6-15 R receptacle may be
installed. That receptacle shall be in addition to those required
by in accordance with the provisions of Section 410-57.
(4) For the purposes of Article 210-8(a) dwelling units shall
also include hotel and motel. Guest rooms and public t o i l e t rooms.
(51 Provide ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for the
two (2) 20-ampere small appliance circuits required in kitchens of
all dwelling units.
"BATHROOM: A bathroom is an area including a basin with one or
more of the following: a t o i l e t , a tub, or a shower."
Such ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection may be provided
for other circuits, locations and occupancies, and where used,
will provide additional protection against line-to-ground shock
hazard.
FPN: See Section 215-9 for feeder protection.
SUBSTANTIATION: We feel that ground-fault receptacles should be
provided in bathrooms of all institutional, residential and
commercial occupancies (hotels and motels) as personnel are as
likely to use hair dryers, hair curlers, electric razors, etc. in
these f a c i l i t i e s as in dwelling units. Also, we feel that the two
20-ampere appliance circuits in the kitchen should be on
ground-fault due to the fact there are now numerous electrical
appliances for use in the kitchen which are furnished, "UL
approved" with two wire non-grounded cords. These appliances, in
most cases, are utilized in close proximity to the grounded sink
or range.
PANEL'ACTION:Reject.
PANEL COF~MENT: The Panel does not feel that there is
substantiation to support such a broad requirement.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 424, 1237
2- 22 - (210-8(a)(i)): Accept in Part
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee requests that CMP 2
clarify their action and the appropriateness of the location in
the Code.
SUBMITTERS: Southwestern Section IAEI (424)
~ 3 7 )
RECOMMENDATION: All 120-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere
receptacles installed in bathrooms and garages of dwelling units
and bathrooms of guest rooms in hotels, motels and similar
occupancies shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection
for personnel.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 210-25(c) requires that receptacles be
installed in guest rooms for hotels, motels, and similar
occupancies in accordance with 210-25(b), but since these rooms
are not considered dwelling units as pe~ definition in Article
100, the bathroom receptacle is not required to be on a
ground-fault circuit-interrupter.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part,
Revise as follows:
'All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles
installed in bathrooms of guest rooms in hotels and motels shall
have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection.
PANEL COM~NT: I t is not the intent of the Panel to extend the
GFCI protection to "similar occupancies" because of lack of
substantiating data.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRhV~TIVE: 9
NEDATIVE: Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
REIGN: See my comment on Proposal 2-19.
28
Log # 1119,1122
2- 23 - (210-8(a)(1)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Joe Marcelino, E l e c t r i c a l Contractors Trust of Alameda
County (1119)
Jack Smith, East Bay Uniform Electrical Code Committee (1122)
RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph and substitute the
following paragraph.
(1) all 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles
•installed in bathrooms within seven (7) feet of a bathtub, shower,
or basin shall be groundfault circuit-interrupter protection for
personnel.
SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording allows the installation in an
area of a bathtub or shower to have an outlet installed nearby
without ground-fault protection i f they are not in an "area" with
a basin. This unsafe practice would be eliminated with this
roposal.
ANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: No substantiation that the proposed requirement
would be safer than the present requirement.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 793
2- 28 - (210-8(a)(2)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Bob Raymer, California Building Industry Association
RECOMMENDATION: (Delete) "All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- or
20-ampere receptacles installed in garages shall have ground-fault
circuit-interrupter protection for personnel."
SUBSTANTIATION: The periodic surge in current associated with a
freezer unit kicking on is often enough to t r i p the ground-fault
circuit-interrupter which is currently required in garages. This
has resulted in the commonplace nuisance of food spoilage in the
garage freezer.
In response to t h i s problem a high number of
builders are providing a conventional o u t l e t in the garage as a
dedicated o u t l e t f o r a freezer in addition to the required GFCI.
A survey of builders is c u r r e n t l y underway which deals with the
GFCI problem. The r e s u l t s , once compiled, w i l l be promptly
forwarded to your o f f i c e .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Present Code provides exceptions to cover the
problems described.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 67
2- 24 - (210-8(a)(1), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: John E. Grant, Kittery, ME
E~FECO-MMENDATION: Exception: Receptacles for appliances occupying
dedicated space which are cord- and plug-connected in accordance
with Section 400-7(a)(6), (a)(7), or (a)(8).
SUBSTANTIATION: A similar Exception appears in Section
210-8(a)(2) for garages. The same reqdirement for bathrooms would
c l a r i f y that receptacles installed for clothes washers or clothes
dryers (120V) would not require GFCI protection for personnel.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COM~NT: There is a lack of substantiation for a proposal
which would decrease the safety requirements.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log ~ 426
2- 29 - (210-8(a)(2), Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: ChangeException to read: "Receptacles for
appliances when of the single type, located behind appliance space
and not more than 34 inches above floor or grade."
SUBSTANTIATION: This practice has been used for 3 years and has
eliminated the problem of dedicated space where appliance must be
in place prior to final inspection. The single receptacle does
away with hazard of receptacle being used for portable tool use.
By its location and height behind the appliance does not provide
for ready accessibility for use. The present wording of dedicated
space created a major problem for inspectors in getting final
inspections as appliances are not moved in until dwelling is
occupied. Also, as this is an extra cost, the owners do not have
receptacle installed i f they do not have freezer or other
appliances for use in this area.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal does not provide as much safety as
present wording.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: See comment regarding Proposal 2-31.
~
Log # 425
2- 25 - (210-8(a)(2)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
~ATION:
Revise Section 210-8(a)(2).
Where 12B-volt,
single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles are installed in
garages, at least "one of the receptacles shall have ground-fault
circuit-interrupter protection for personnel and shall be so
identified. This receptacle shall not be one of those dedicated
for the use of freezers, water softeners, clothes washers, door
openers, or other similar appliances.
SUBSTANTIATION: Due to confusion over present wording, the intent
can be obtained by above wording.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal would provide less protection than
the present requirements.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 861
2- 30 - (210-8(a)(2), Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA
RECOMMENDATION: Change text to: "Exception No. 2 Single receptacle outlets permanently marked or identified for
supplying specific cord- and plug-connected appliances."
SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording has been misinterpreted and
misunderstood. I t is d i f f i c u l t to enforce because appliances are
not present when inspection is made.
Also, the present v~rding allows use of a duplex receptacle for
the "appliance occupying dedicated space."
The second half of the unprotected duplex receptacle might be
used for other purposes, which might create a hazard.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal could encourage the use of wiring
methods which will provide a lesser degree of safety.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 84
2 - 26 - (210-8(a)(2)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Aron P. Larson, Bangor, ME
~ATION:
Require outside GFCI receptacles on all attached
~garages (located near point of entry to garage) and a l l
non-attached garages that are wired. Delete inside GFCI in
arages.
UBSTANTIATION: The GFCI protected receptacle located at entrance
to garage will serve to protect personnel using lawn equipment,
snowblowers, etc. I f receptacles within garages are to be GFCI'd,
there also should be receptacles in basements.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal would provide less protection than
the present requirements in the Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
~
Log # 1238
2- 31 - (210-8(a)(2), Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Change exception to read:
"A single receptacle located behind an appliance space and not
more than 34 inches above floor or grade."
SUBSTANTIATION: This practice has been used for 3 years and has
eliminated the problem of dedicated space where appliance must be
in place p r i o r to final inspection. The single receptacle does
away with hazard of receptacle being used for portable tool use.
By i t s location and height behind the appliance does not provide
for ready accessibility for use. The present wording of dedicated
space created a major problem for inspectors in getting final
inspections as appliances are not moved in until dwelling is
occupied. Also, as this is an extra cost, the owners do not have
receptacle installed i f they do not have freezer or other
appliances for use in this area.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-29.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
A~-FIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: This proposal would enhance enforcement in that i t
would eliminate the present requirements that appliances be in
place at time of inspection.
Log # 509
2- 27 ~ (210-8(a)(2)): Reject
SUBMIl-[ER: Tom Burnett, Sheldon, IA
~ATION:
I recommend that the ceiling receptacles in the
attached garage be stated as single.
SUBSTANTIATION: So as to prevent use other than garage door
opener. I f a duplex receptacle is to be installed in ceiling i t
should be on GFI for personal safety, so as to prevent potential
shock hazard.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Since the receptacle is not readily accessible the
Panel believes that a single receptacle is not necessary.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
29
Log # 83
2- 32 - (210-8(a)(3)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Richard Reeves, Reeves Electric Co.
RI~-C"OI~IREITDATION: Delete the words, "where there is direct grade
level access to the dwelling unit and to the receptacles."
SUBSTANTIATION: All outdoor receptacles at dwellings should have
GFCI protection for personnel.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Substantiation does not support the proposal.
VOTe'ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Craig, Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
CRXfG: See comment of Proposal 2-19.
REIGN: See my comment on Proposal 2-19.
Log # 374
2- 38 - (210-8(a)(4)-(New)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Lee Peterson, Sheldon, IA
~DATION:
All 125-volt single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere
receptacles installed in workshops in the basement shall shall
ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.
SUBSTANTIATION: Workshops are often located in the basement where
many hand-tools are operated. This area, is often a damp or wet
location. This requirement would protect personnel from
ground-fault currents.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COF~MENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-20.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Craig, Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
CRAIG: See comment of Proposal 2-19.
REIGN: See my comment on Proposal.2-19.
Log # 862
2- 33 - (210-8(a)(3)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA
~ATION:
Movedefinition of "Bathroom" to Article
100-Definitions.
SUBSTANTIATION: The term "Bathroom" appears also in Sections
551-7(c)(1), 550-4(a), 550-6(b), and 550-6(d).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The definition is unique to the requirements of
this Section.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1663
2- 34 - (210-8(a)(3)): Reject
SUBMIITER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity, Inc.
~ATION:
Removedefinition of Bathroom from 210-8(a)(3)
and move to Article 100.
SUBSTANTIATION: All definitions should be consistently found in
Article 100, or i f they conflict with other sections, should be
located at the front of each section where they are applicable.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEC COM~NT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-33.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 863
2- 39 - (210-8(a)(4)-(New)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA
RECOMMENDATION: All 125-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere
receptacles installed at counter tops as required by Section
210-52(b) shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection
for personnel.
SUBSTANTIATION: a. Metal frames of electrically heated
appliances operating at less than 150 volts to ground, such as
toasters and electric coffee makers, are not required to be, and
often are not, grounded (Ref. Section 422-16).
b. Certain appliances commonly found in kitchens may have live
parts necessarily exposed, such as toasters and g r i l l s (Ref.
Section 422-2).
c. Kitchens have large areas of grounded metal which, with a.
and b. above, offer a substantial opportunity for ground-fault
accidents involving personnel. These grounded devices include,
but are not limited to:
~I
tainless steel sinks and metal faucets
Electric ranges
3) Refrigerators and f[eezers
Log # 511
2- 35 - (210-8(a)-Bathroom): Reject
SUBMITTER: James Lofflin, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Should be included in Article
lO0-Definitions, also;
2. Bathroom: A bathroom is an area including a basin with one
or more of the following:. A t o i l e t , a tub, or a shower, without
separation by walls, partitions, or room dividers.
SUBSTANTIATION: In some cases the distance between the basin and
other porcelain fixtures is less than 8 feet horizontally yet
physically impossible to reach because of walls, partitions, or
permanent room dividers. Does this eliminate the need for GFCI or
does i t necessitate 2 GFCI's? Generally speaking the GFCI is
needed at the basin location i f i t ' s a bathroom or not.
PANELACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-33.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
d. This proposal does not have the effect of requiring
refrigerators, freezers, and other fixed and stationary kitchen
appliances to be protected by GFCI's.
e. During the period January 1, 1975, through December 31,
1980, the UL Clipping Service recorded 5 deaths and I injury from
electrical shock in kitchens of dwelling units that would likely
have been prevented had GFCI's been installed. As the UL Clipping
Service reports only a fraction of the electrical accidents
occurring in the United States, the number must actually be much
higher. A summary of the accident data follows:
Log # 361
2- 36 - (210-8(a)(4)-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Dale M. Konz, Alton, IA
RECOMMENDATION: 210-8(a)(4) Receptacles by kitchen sink which are
not intended for motorized equipment such as blenders and mixers
shall be GFCI.
SUBSTANTIATION: When washing dishes and sink is f u l l of water,
personnel could plug radio into outlet and be shocked.
PANELACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-37.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
TOTAL
Injury
Death
1
2
i
T
1
The following is summarized from the UL Clipping Service and
describes the accidents in more detail,
(See Chart on "Shock and Burns Incidents-Home Kitchens" on next
page.)
Log # 375
2- 37 - (210-8(a)(4)-(New)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Bryan Petersen, Marcus, IA
~ATION:
All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere
receptacles installed within 3 feet on either side of the kitchen
sink shall be ground-fault circuit-interrupter protected for
personnel.
SUBSTANTIATION: I feel that the outlets in the kitchen need to be
protected the same as the outlets in the bathroom. Small
appliances are used around the sink and the person running them
should be protected from hazardous shock.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
t
Revise to read as follows:
All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles above
countertops installed within 6 feet on either side of the kitchen
sink shall be ground-fault circuit-interrupter protected for
personnel.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel f e l t that in recognition of the lengths
of appliance cords, the distance should be increased to 6 feet.
There is no supporting data to include other than countertop
receptacle outlets.
30
SHOCK AND BURN INCIDENTS-HOME KITCHENS
January 1975 thru December 1980
Comments
Incident
Identification
Number
Electric
Product
Involved
Age
&
Sex
Inj,
or
Dead
Date of Incident
and
Location
1-75-4
Toaster
20-F
Dead
2-24-75
Kitchen of Home
Buffalo, MN
Electrocuted by a toaster.
3-76-21
Lamp Cord
52-M
Dead
7-28-76
Kitchen of Home
Boston, MA
Electrocuted by
touching an incorrectly
wired lamp while leaning
naked on a metal counter
rim in the kitchen.
4-76-205
Appliance
I-F
Dead
1-8-77
Kitchen of Home
Bath, NY
Electrocuted by an
appliance while sitting in
a sink with water in i t ,
2-78-49
Washing
Machine
33-F
Dead
5-19-78
Kitchen of Home
Berkley, MI
Electrocuted while
repairing a belt on an old
washer while i t was
plugged in
2-79-8
Toaster
5-F
Dead
5-9-79
Kitchen of Home
Pontiac, MI
Electrocuted by sticking
a knife in an electric
toaster while touching a
stainless steel sink.
2-80-15
Cord
9mo-F
Dead
5-31-80
Phoenix, AZ
Grasped frayed cord on
kitchen floor.
3-80-33
Toaster
5-M
Dead
8-14-80
Kitchen of Home
Eagle, WI
Apparently electrocuted
by touching faulty toaster
while soaking foot in a
cast iron sink.
4-80-1
Receptacle 26-F
Inj.
11-18-80
Kitchen of Home
Wilimgton, DE
Shocked unto
unconsciousness by
touching an outlet with
a metal pan, while
standing on a wet floor Sent to hospital.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Present UL Standard has approximately 100
milliamperes in I00 milliseconds and 160 milliamperes in 50
milliseconds.
Typical Class "A" GFCI's t r i p at 10 milliampere in
100 milliseconds and 20 milliamperes in 50 milliseconds,
essentially where proposed values with minus tolerance would be,
namely 12 milliamperes in 100 milliseconds and 20 milliamperes in
50 milliseconds.
The proposal has not addressed the long time effects, longer
than 100 milliseconds.
I t is an incomplete requirement and n~
guidance is provided as to which value device must meet. I t is
more restrictive at the two points selected than present UL
Standard.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COM~NT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-37.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Craig, Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
CRAIG: See comment of Proposal 2-19.
REIGN: See my comment on Proposal 2-19.
Log # 1202
2- 40 - (210-8(b)): Accept
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee has transferred the
ground-fault circuit-interrupter requirements for construction
sites to Article 305.
SUBMITTER: Charles J. Hart, NECA
~ATION:
Delete Section 210-8(b).
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is in conjunction with a proposal
to add a new Section 305-4, Ground-Fault Protection.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VDTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 864
2- 42 - (210-8(c)-(New)): Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA
~ T I O N :
Add new paragraph as follows:
(c) Hotels, Motels and School Buildings.
All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles
installed within 6 feet of a basin in hotels, motels, and school
buildings shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection
for personnel.
SUBSTANTIATION: a. Shock and injury hazards exist in these areas
where portable electrical appliances are commonly used close to
grounded surfaces. Use of these receptacles is similar to their
use in dwelling occupancies, and the Code should be consistent in
requiring the same protection.
b. During the period January i , 1975, through December 31,
1980, the UL Clipping Service recorded 4 deaths and 1 injury from
electrical shock in locations determined to be in the v i c i n i t y of
basins in hotels, motels, and schools. The victims would l i k e l y
have been protected had GFCI's been installed. As the UL Clipping
Service reports only a fraction of the electrical accidents
occurring in the United States, the number must actually be much
higher. A summary of the accident data follows:
Log # 124
2- 41 - (210-8(c) (New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: This comment (No. 70-36, CMP 2) on Proposal
No. 65 was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See
NEC-TCD 1980 Annual Meeting.
SUBMITTER: Richard P. Kuchnicki, National Association of Home
Builders
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new subsection (c) as follows:
(c) Construction Specification. All 15- and 20-ampere
ground-fault circuit-protection devices shall be manufactured to
conform to one of the two following broad specifications:
(1) 25 milliamperes, plus or minus 20 percent in 50
milliseconds maximum time.
(2) 15 milliamperes, plus or minus 20 percent in 100
milliseconds maximum time.
SUBSTANTIATION: Currently manufactured GFCI devices are not
performing adequately and therefore should be removed from the
market place so that the consumer can truly be protected. GFCI's
meeting the above construction specs, can replace the inadequate
devices.
Injury
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
TDTAL
3i
Death
i
2
-
2
~
1
4
The following are summarized from the UL Clipping Service and
describe the accidents in more d e t a i l .
SHOCK AND BURN INCIDENTS-HOTEL - MOTELS BATHROOM
January 1975 thru December 1980
Incident
Identification
Number
Electric
Product
Involved
Age
&
Sex
Inj.
or
Dead
Date of Incident
and
Location
4-75-67
Heater
46-M
Dead
11-20-75
Bathroom of Hotel
C l a r k s v i l l e , TN
Found electrocuted in
bathroom with burn
marks on his body.
There was an e l e c t r i c
heater present.
4-77-4
Coffee
Warmer
47-M
Dead
11-23-77
Bathroom of Hotel
Was using an e l e c t r i c
coffee warmer a f t e r
showering.
4-77417
Shaver
48-M
Dead
12-30-77
Bathroom of Motel
Tupelo, Miss
Comments
Using an e l e c t r i c
shaver
while running water in
the tub
SHOCK AND BURN INCIDENTS SCHOOLS
January 1975 thru December 1980
Incident
Identification
Number
Electric
Product
Involved
Age
&
Sex
Inj.
or
Dead
Date of Incident
and
Location
1-75-3
Ext. Cord
Ad-F
Inj.
2-12-75
School kitchen
Minn.
Shocked by a food warmer
while plugging i t into a
receptacle - Taken to
hospital.
1-75-23
Receptacle
15-M
Dead
3-27-75
School Lab
Failed to unplug an
e l e c t r i c a l device
before working inside
it.
PANEL ACTION: Accept
See Panel Action on
PANEL COMMENT: I t is
is too broad.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
in Part.
Proposal 2-22.
the opinion of the Panel that the proposal
Comments
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel has proposed to transfer t e x t and
j u r i s d i c t i o n of Section 210-9 to Panel 13.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
~FIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Cunningham, Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
CUNNINGHAM: Panel 13 has not received a proposal to include
Section 210-9 in A r t i c l e 450. The vote to reject could leave
Section 210-9 as i t was before in A r t i c l e 210. This proposal for
a t h i r d exception to allow autotransformer-supplied branch
c i r c u i t s is needed to supply equipment with d i f f e r e n t or unusual
voltage ratings. This practice is already accepted f o r feeders,
especially in industrial i n s t a l l a t i o n s .
I f the Correlating Committee is able to transfer the t e x t of
Section 210-9 to A r t i c l e 450, the proposed exception should be
allowed.
REIGN: The proposed Exception No. 3, whether or not Section
210-9 is transferred to Panel 13, should be accepted because i t
allows a c o s t - e f f e c t i v e method of operating u t i l i z a t i o n equipment
that is not compatible With the existing voltage in an industrial
or commercial f a c i l i t y .
Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1710
2- 43 - (210-9, FPN): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y , Inc.
~OMMENDATION: Eliminate t h i s sentence from 210-9 and move i t to
A r t i c l e 100.
SUBSTANTIATION: D e f i n i t i o n ' f o r Autotransformers should be
included under A r t i c l e 100 where most would look f o r a
definition.
All d e f i n i t i o n s should be in A r t i c l e 100 except where
i t would c o n f l i c t with other Code sections.
PANEL ACTION: Reject~
PANEL COMMENT: Present FPN is f o r information only.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1883
2- 44 - (210-g,Exception No.3-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that the requirements in Section 210-9 f o r branch
c i r c u i t s are the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of CMP 2.
SUBMITTER: Robert J. Cunningham, Duquesne Light Company
RECOMMENDATION: Add new Exception No. 3 as follows:
Exception No. 3. Autotransformers may supply branch c i r c u i t
equipment loads, other than l i g h t i n g , at any voltage up to 600
v o l t s in commercial or industrial applications.
SUBSTANTIATION: Frequently customers with 240 v o l t three-phase or
480 v o l t three-phase, three-wire ungrounded services purchase
equipment rated to operate on either 240, 380, 480 or 600 v o l t
systems. U t i l i t y companies cannot always supply individual
services at more than one voltage. Autotransformers provide a
safe and most economical means to supply this equipment usually at
less that two-thirds the cost of a conventional transformer and
sometimes one-tenth the cost.
Typical examples of equipment that would be supplied by
autotransformers are: motors, welders, x-ray machines,
a i r - c o n d i t i o n i n g and r e f r i g e r a t i o n equipment, imported machines
requiring unusual operating voltages, process heating, commercial
cooking equipment, etc.
2- 45 - (210-9): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that the requirements in Section 210-9 f o r branch
c i r c u i t s are the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of CMP 2.
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
~ATION:
Correlating Committee t r a n s f e r the t e x t and
I
j u r i s d i c t i o n of 210-9 Rules f o r Autotransformers to CMP 13 f o r
inclusion in A r t i c l e 450.
SUBSTANTIATION: CMP 13 has accepted rules governing protection of
autotransformers.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VO~E'ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
32
Log # 1134
2- 46 - (210-19(a)): Accept
SUBMITTER: H. I . Stanback, Lexington, KY
RECOMMENDATION: Replace f i r s t sentence with the following two
sentences:
(a) General. Branch-circuit conductors shall have an ampacity
not less than the maximum load to be served. In addition,
conductors of m u l t i o u t l e t branch c i r c u i t s supplying r e a d i l y
accessible receptacles shall have an ampacity of not less than the
rating of the branch c i r c u i t .
SUBSTANTIATION: A c o n f l i c t has existed in 1981 and previous Codes
between Sections 210-19(a) and 240-3 Exception No. I . Section
240-3 Exception No. 1: allows the next highest ampere rating of
fuse or c i r c u i t breaker when conductor ampacity does not
correspond with a standard r a t i n g .
Section 210-19(a) now requires
conductor ampacity not less than the rating of the branch c i r c u i t
(which Section 210-3 indicates is the ampere rating or setting of
the fuses or c i r c u i t breaker). Taken l i t e r a l l y , Section 210-19(a)
would prevent using Section 240-1 Exception No. I : f o r any branch
circuit.
The more r e s t r i c t i v e requirement of Section 210-1g(a) is only
needed f o r m u l t i o u t l e t branch c i r c u i t s supplying readily
accessible receptacles. The loading of such branch c i r c u i t s is
unpredictable and, therefore, the branch c i r c u i t overcurrent
protection should be selected or set no higher than the ampacity
of the conductors.
Correlating changes are proposed f o r Sections 210-19(a) and
240-3 Exception No. 1: to eliminate the c o n f l i c t and r e t a i n the
more r e s t r i c t i v e requirement f o r m u l t i o u t l e t branch c i r c u i t s
supplying r e a d i l y accessible receptacles.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1584
2- 49 - (210-19(b), Exception No. 1): Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter Pollak, The Aluminum Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Revise l a s t l l n e to read:
"...
conductors and shall not be smaller than No. i0 copper or
No. 8 aluminum."
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is submitted to c l a r i f y the proper'
size equivalent of aluminum conductor f o r the application.
The size l i m i t a t i o n is based upon an ampacity requirement which
can be met with an aluminum conductor sized to provide the
required ampacity per Tables 310-16 through 310-19. While Section
110-5 says "Where the conductor material is not specified, the
sizes given in t h i s code shall apply to copper conductor" and
"Where other materials are used, the size shall be changed
accordingly," i t does not indicate to the code reader s p e c i f i c a l l y
where aluminum conductors can be used or how to a r r i v e at the
equivalent aluminum conductor size.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel believes subject is adequately covered in
Section 110-5, A r t i c l e 310, Tables 310-16 thru 310-19 and Table
Nos. 8 and 9 in Chapter 9.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1585
2- 50 - (210-19(c)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Peter Pollak, The Aluminum Association, Inc.
~DATION:
Revise l a s t line to read:
"smaller than No. 14 copper or No. 12 aluminum."
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is submitted to c l a r i f y the proper
size equivalent of aluminum conductor f o r the application.
The size l i m i t a t i o n is based upon an ampacity requirement which
can be met with an aluminum conductor sized to provide the
required ampacity per Tables 310-16 through 310-19. While Section
110-5 says "Where the conductor material is not specified, the
sizes given in t h i s code shall apply to copper conductor" and
"Where other materials are used, the size shall be changed
accordingly," i t does not indicate to the code reader s p e c i f i c a l l y
where aluminum conductors can be used or how to a r r i v e at the
equivalent aluminum conductor size.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 2-49.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1736
2- 47 - (210-19(a)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity, Inc.
~ T I O N :
"15-, 20-, 30-, 40'-, and 50-amp" branch circuit
conductors shall have an ampacity of not less than the rating of
the branch circuit and not less than the maximum load to be
served...
SUBSTANTIATION: Article 21043 is the reference for 15-, 20-, "30-,
40-, and 50-amp circuits. Manypeople are reading 210-19(a) and
210-20(a) and noting a conflict between the two. For example, i f
you had a piece of equipment that required a conductor of 55 amps,
you could install a No. 6 TW rated 55 amps and using Exception No.
I of 240-3 and Note 9 of Table 320-16, a 60-amp breaker would be
permitted.
But 210-19(a) would almost give the impression that this is not
permitted since the conductor does not have the ampacity of the
overcurrent device. The above proposal would alleviate the
conflict between these two sections.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COM~NT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 2-46.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
COMMENT ON VOTE:
SCHUCK: Panel Action should read "See Panel Action f o r Proposal
2-46 ."
Log # 894
2- 51 - (21~-20, Exception Nos. 1 and 2-(New)): Accept in
Principle
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Control C i r c u i t Protection
RECOMMENDATION: Replace the Exception to Section 210-20 with the
following two Exceptions:
Exception No. i : Tap conductors as permitted in Section
210-19(c) shall require only s h o r t - c i r c u i t and ground-fault
protection and shall be permitted to be protected by the
branch-circuit overcurrent device.
Exception No. 2: Fixture wire and cords as permitted in Section
240-4.
SUBSTANTIATION: The wording in the Code should better express the
intent of the r u l e . I f the rule intends that the conductor need
only be protected against low impedance f a u l t s , then the rule
should say i t .
The phrase "shall be considered as being protected
by" is not s p e c i f i c , and is not s u f f i c i e n t to properly express the
i n t e n t of the r u l e .
PANEL ACTION: Accept in P r i n c i p l e .
PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 2-52.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1613
2- 48 - (210-19(a), FPN): Reject
SUBMITTER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los Angeles, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Raise Voltage Drop note to f u l l size p r i n t ;
makin~ i t a requirement. Insert "shall be" before the word
"sized" in the f i r s t l i n e and delete the l a s t phrase, ending the
sentence with . . . 5 per cent.
SUBSTANTIATION: The problem is that A r t i c l e 310 does not provide
f o r voltage drop. In the past the smaller branch c i r c u i t
conductors were underrated with minimized voltage drop problems.
This is no longer necessarily true, and i t is not r i g h t to not
make a provision to protect the public from the problem associated
with low voltage.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is a design consideration.
Proposal does not
consider other elements of the system and other variables such as
temporary voltage f l u c t u a t i o n s and variations in impedance.
MOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Bowling, Craig.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: This proposal provides the inspector additional
enforceable data on which to judge an i n s t a l l a t i o n .
This would be
especially relevant on i n s t a l l a t i o n s which have not employed
formal engineering techinques.
CPJ~IG: I agree with the substantiation.
The public needs
protection from the problems associated with low voltage.
2- 52 - (210-20): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
RECOMMENDATION: Delete "Ca) General"
Replace the Exception with the following:
"Exception No. I : ,Tap conductors as permitted in Section
210-19(c) shall be permitted to be protected by the branch-circuit
overcurrent device.
Exception No. 2: Fixture wire and cords as permitted in Section
240-4."
SUBSTANTIATION: There is no (b) in the 1981 Code.
The changes in the Exception are required to support the Report
of the NEC Correlating Committee Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Control
C i r c u i t Protection, Ampacities and Use of No. 16 and No. 18
Conductors.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VU[E ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
33
Log # 217
2- 56 - (210-22(c), Exception No. 2): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: John C. Miller, Abolite Lighting, Inc.
~ATION:
Delete Exception No. 2.
SUBSTANTIATION: With the increased ampacities of some of the
conductors in Tables 310-16 through 310-19 the derating
requirements of Note No. 8 to the tables would permit the load to
be the same as the branch circuit rating, ie, No. 14 TW = 20 A,
6 conductors in a raceway requires 80 percent derating,
20 X .80 = 16 AMP. Table 310-16 Footnote limits the load to 15
amp, which is the same as the branch circuit rating.
This deletion would also bring the requirement in line with
Section 384-16(c) which does not have this Exception.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Lordi, Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LORDI: Reject action is consistent with reject action on
Proposal 2-124.
REIGN: Exception No. 2 should not be deleted because this
exception points out that the Code does not require double
derating for both a continuous load and a raceway f i l l of more
than three conductors. The increased ampacity of some of the
conductors in Tables 310-16 to 19 of the 1981 Code recognizes that
the higher temperature insulations can withstand the I~R heat
produced with higher load currents. As the submitter points out,
these higher ampacitites do permit the derated load current to be
the same as the branch-circuit rating. However, the Code permits
branch circuits with protective devices listed for 100 percent
load and multioutlet branch circuits supplying receptacles to have
the load the same as the branch-circuit rating.
Log # 201
2- 53 - (210-21(b)(i), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception as follows:
Exception: A receptacle installed for a specific motor-operated
equipment, permitted to be cord- and plug-connected, other than
room air conditioners specified in Part G of Article 440.
SUBSTANTIATION: Various sections of the Code permit receptacles
for the connection of motors, e.g., 430-81(c), 430-109 Exception
5, and 680-7. Since not specifically indicated as amending
Section 210-21(b)(1), i t is not clear whether these sections may
be applied with application of overcurrent device values specified
or permitted by Article 430 or 630. A specific motor-operated
equipment rated 3/4 HP 115 V l-phase, cord- and plug-connected to
a properly rated 15-ampere receptacle/interlocked switch device on
an individual circuit may have overcurrent protection
(nontime-delay fuse) rated at 45 amperes per Section 430-52, but
Section 210-21(b)(1) limits overcurrent protection for this
receptacle rating to 15 amperes. I f i t is the intent that other
articles may modify this section i t seems desirable to clearly
indicate this.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Covered in Articles 430 and 440. Beyondthe Scope
of Article 210.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1509
2- 54 - (210-21(b)(3), Exception-(New)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
ITE'~TOI~'IqI~ATION: Add Exception:
Exception: In industrial establishments where the conditions of
maintenance and supervision assure that only qualified persons
will service the installation.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is common in industrial establishments to
provide several single receptacles of 30, 60, or higher amperage
rating on a single branch circuit to allow quick relocation of
equipment for production and/or maintenance use, such as electric
welders. Generally, only one piece of equipment is operated at a
time, and restricting this to industrial establishments with
qualified personnel to service these receptacles will help insure
proper usage. The type of receptacles used are of the non-NEMA
type configuration, known as a pin-and-sleeve receptacle. These
may or may not be horsepower rated and their uses are not now
covered in any sections of the NEC Article 210.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 2-4.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
2- 57 - (210-23): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
RECOMMENDATION: Revise as stated:
210-23, No change.
210-23(a), Change "appliances" to "other utilization equipment"
in the second, fourth, f i f t h , and seventh lines.
210-23(b), Change "appliances" to "utilization equipment" in the
third and fourth line.
210-23(c), Revise to read:
"(c) 40- and 50-Ampere Branch Circuits. A 40- or 50-ampere
branch circuit shall be permitted to supply cooking appliances
that are fastened in place in any occupancy. In other than
dwelling units, such circuits shall be permitted to supply fixed
lighting units with heavy duty l ampholders, infrared heating units
or other utilization equipment."
SUBSTANTIATION: To allow the use of "utilization equipment" on
multioutlet branch circuits.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Reign, Schuck.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
REIGN: The proposed wording in Section 210-23(a) is incorrect.
The word "appliance(s)" in the 4th, 5th and 7th lines should be
changed to " u t i l i z a t i o n equipment" NOT "other utilization
equipment."
SCHUCK: Section 210-23(a) should read "other utilization
equipment" in 2nd line and " u t i l i z a t i o n equipment" in the 4th,
5th, and 7th lines.
Log # 1927
2- 56 - (210-22(c)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Joseph C. Roohan, Whittier, CA
I~E'~)I;I~P~N]~ATION: Delete all reference to "Continuous Load."
. SUBSTANTIATION: The inclusion of "Continuous Load" and the
accompanying derating rules in the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODEsome
time ago was a well intended, but unnecessary refinement in the
practical application of the Code.
The consideration of "Continuous Load" clearly belongs in
electrical handbooks and other designers' guides but not in a
safety code. "In Section 90-1(c) i t is stated that "This is not
intended as a design specification..." I t is ludicrous to
consider an installation safe where i t carries current for
slightly less than three hours and unsafe where this time is
exceeded. I t is just as ridiculous to consider an installation
safe where i t is carrying continuous current and is momentarily
interrupted every three hours. The ampacity ratings for
conductors in Article 310 are continuous ratings and the derating
factors for continuous loads are design considerations to reduce
nuisance tripping current breakers that are not temperature
compensated where enclosed in panelboards. Nuisance tripping is
not generally considered a safety hazard.
By deleting the reference to "Continuous Load" in theNATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODEan important step toward practicality will be
achieved allowing inspectors, plan reviewers and others, whose
duties consist of evaluating an installation to concern themselves
with the safety provided by conductor size, material, insulation,
and overcurrent protection. The time element of. an installation
is an impractical, unenforceable and unrelated element of safety
within the referenced sections.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal would eliminate the use of the term
"Continuous Load," but i t would not eliminate the need to
recognize the interreIated heating effects such a change would
cause in the various system components.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1224
2- 58 - (210-23(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Richard Lloyd, Huntinton, NY
RECOM~NDATION: After the words "The total rating of" in the
third sentence of this paragraph, insert the words "fixtures used
for continuous lighting and."
SUBSTANTIATION: This revision would prevent using receptacle
outlets on branch circuits used for continuous lighting in stores
and offices where the lighting load is already at or near 80
percent. Using additional receptacle load on these circuits could
cause overheating of the supply panelboard and would defeat the
intent of the present 80 percent limit on continuous load. The
proposed revision would limit the continuous lighting load to 50
ercent where receptacles were also used.
ANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The system is inherently protected.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
~
34
SUBSTANTIATION: This w i l l bring the National Electrical Code and
the Uniform Mechanical Code in line with each other.
Sections 708 and 709 in the Uniform Mechanical Code state that
"a permanent electric outlet and lighting f i x t u r e , controlled by a
switch located at the passageway opening, shall be provided at or
near the furnace."
50 AMP The outlets are installed by the electrician on the job and
should be in the National Electrical Code.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
6 PANEL COMMENT: The Panel presumes the submitter referenced
4
Section 210-70(a).
Panel considers proposal a design consideration.
12.
10 VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1586
2- 59 - (Table 210-24): Reject
SL~3MII-TER: Peter Pollak, The Aluminum Association, Inc.
~ATION:
Table 210-24 expanded to read:
CIRCUIT RATING
CONDUCTORS: (Min Size)
15 AMP
20 AMP
30 AMP
40 AMP
Copper C i r c u i t Wires*
Aluminum C i r c u i t Wires*
Copper Taps
Aluminum Taps
14
12
14
12
12
10
14
12
10
8
14
12
8
6
12
I0
Footnote: *These ampacities are for conductors where derating is
not required. The ampacities of copper-clad aluminum are
identical to those for aluminum. See Tables 310-16 through 310-19.
Log # 82
2- 63 - (210-52(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Stephen M. Peckham, Peckham & Sons E l e c t r i c a l , Inc.
RECOF~MENDATION: F i r s t paragraph, f i f t h and s i x t h lines change to
read: . . . i n c l u d i n g any "usable" wall space 2 f e e t (~i0 mm) or more
in w i d t h . . .
SUBSTANTIATION: Many'times, receptacles are required in wall
spaces, 2 feet wide, that are t o t a l l y unusable, because the space
is behind open doors or in walkways.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: "Usable" is undefined. See Panel Action on
Proposal 2-65.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is submitted to c l a r i f y the proper
size equivalent of aluminum conductor for the application.
The size limitation is based upon an ampacity requirement which
can be met with an aluminum conductor sized to provide the
required ampacity per Tables 310-16 through 310-19. While Section
110-5 says "Where the conductor material is not specified, the
sizes given in this code shall apply to copper conductor" and
"Where other materials are used, the size shall be changed
accordingly," i t does not indicate to the code reader specifically
where aluminum conductors can be used or how to arrive at the
equivalent aluminum conductor size.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COM~NT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-49.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 359
2- 64 - (210-52(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dennis Westervelt, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Receptacle outlets in floors shall not be counted
as part of the required number .of receptacle outlets unless
located within 12 inches from the wall.
SUBSTANTIATION: To set an exact distance between the wall and the
receptacle, so there is not a l o t of confusion in determining as
what is close or not.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Subject is adequately covered.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 218
2- 60 - (Table 210-24-Single Asterisk Note): Reject
SUBMITTER: John C. Miller, Abolite Lighting, Inc.
~ATION:
Rewritethis Note to read: These ampacities are
for copper conductors where the Correction Factors of
Tables 310-16 through 310-19 are not required.
SUBSTANTIATION: 1) Derating is not defined.
2) For the past several Codes there has been confusion as to
what constitutes derating.
3) With the rewording of this Footnote the requirement would be
specific and the confusion eliminated.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel does not believe that there would be any
meaningful improvement in the Code by this proposal.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1281, 1912
2- 61 - (210-24): Accept in Principle
SUBMI~ERS: IAEI (1281)
H. B. Love/M. Shapiro, Michigan Chapter IAEI (1912)
RECOMMENDATION: ReviseSection 210-24 to read:
Branch-Circuit Requirements - Summary. The requirements for
circuits having two or more outlets, other than the receptacle
circuits of Section 220-3(b) as specifically provided for above,
are summarized in Table 210-24. Branch circuits in dwelling-type
occupancies shall not be connected to serve more than one dwelling
unit.
SUBSTANTIATION: ASHRAE-90-75R which has been widely adopted
requires that, "In any multi-tenant residential building,
provisions shall be made to separately determine the energy
consumed by each tenant." This amendment is needed to compliment
that requirement. I t also would prevent two tenants from
overloading a circuit by having a situation where each tenant
would be attempting to plug in appliances that were rated at 80
percent of the branch c i r c u i t .
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Change "dwelling-type occupancies" to "dwelling units."
PANEL COMMENT: Clarification.
VOTE ON'PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 428
2- 65 - (210-52(a)): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correl'ating
Committee to direct the Panel to c l a r i f y the location of the added
wording.
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
RECO~ENDATION: Add "any wall space made inaccessible by the
opening of a door, other than a closet or cabinet door, shall not
be included in the measurement for determination of outlet
locations."
SUBSTANTIATION: The inclusion of this inaccessible space serves
no useful purpose in the completed home. Usually such a door is
open 99 percent of the time and an outlet located behind i t is not
available. The requirement only adds expense without returning
benefit. Sometimes, a bedroom entry door opens against the end of
wardrobe closets which qualify f o r "not being counted." This
results presently with an outlet being placed on the 2 1/2- to
3-feet space in back of the entry door to meet the requirement of
Section 210-52(a).
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
YERKE: T h i s proposal has been argued back and forth and the
concern is whether anything new has been brought up that would"
effect former Code decisions. Please note Section 550-6(d),
Exception No. 3 which chose to specifically treat this situation
and addresses the problem of doors installed side by side which
could result in an extensive wall space without a receptacle.
Log # 1227
2- 62 - (210-26(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert M. Milatovich, Clovis, CA
~ATION:
Change second paragraph to read:
At least one permanent electric outlet and lighting outlet,
controlled by a switch located at the passageway opening, shall be
provided at or near the equipment installed in an attic,
underfloor space, u t i l i t y room and basement only where these
spaces are used for storage or containing equipment requiring
servicing.
Log # 500
2- 66 - (210-52(a)):. Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee to direct the Panel to c l a r i f y the location of the added
wording.
SUBMITTER: Ernest E. Cannon, Tempe, AZ
RECOMMENDATION: Add "any wall space made inaccessible by the
opening o9 a door, other than a closet or cabinet door, shall not
be included in the measurement for determination of outlet
locations."
o
35
ROBERTS: This proposal is unnecessarily r e s t r i c t i v e in that i t
does not consider receptacle outlets f o r special purposes such as
wall-mounted clocks, through-wall a i r conditioners, etc., which
can be installed over baseboard heaters as long as the location of
receptacle outlets or length o f cord is such that the cord cannot
be draped over the baseboard heater.
Also, this proposal does not consider either the i n s t a l l a t i o n or
subsequent removal of baseboard heaters by the occupant years
after the original construction which could result in hazards.
Section 210-52(a) would not be met and the occupant would be l e f t
without receptacles or the occupant would i n s t a l l the baseboard
heater under a receptacle.
The problem is the use of the receptacle, which has not been
addressed, and not the location of the receptacle.
SUBSTANTIATION: The inclusion of this inaccessible space serves
no useful purpose in the completed home. Usually such a door is
open 99 percent of the time and an outlet located behind i t is not
available. The requirement only adds expense without returning
benefit. Sometimes, a bedroom entry door opens against the end of
wardrobe closets which qualify f o r "not being counted." This
results presently with an outlet being placed on the 2 1/2 to 3
feet space in back of the entry door to meet the requirement of
Section 210-52(a).
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-65.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1691
2- 67 - (210-52(a)): Reject
SUBMI~ER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 210-52(a) to read:
"...
from an outlet in that space, including any wall space 2
feet (610 mm) or more in width and the wall space occupied by
"non-transparent" sliding panels in exterior walls."
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed addition of the words
"non-transparent" would c l a r i f y that receptacles are not required
in front of sliding glass doors, since this would cause a
potential hazard by having cords in front of walkways.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-65.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 145
2- 70 - (210-52(a) Exception): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be reported as "Reject" because less
than two-thirds of the members e l i g i b l e to vote have voted in the
affirmative.
SUBMITTER: Bob K. Middleton, City of Pocatello, ID
RECOMMENDATION: Add: No receptacle shall be installed where a
supply cord w i l l hang over a baseboard heater.
SUBSTANTIATION: I feel this w i l l bring Section 110-3(b) in line
the rough-in of a house. The listed instructions on most
baseboard heaters prohibit cords over base~ards.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-69.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
• AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Bowling, Craig, Cunningham, Roberts.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: I concur in the comments which were made on this
proposal by Mr. Robert J. Cunningham.
CRAIG: See comment on Proposal 2-69.
CUNNINGHAM: This proposal covers steam, hot water, fuel fired
and e l e c t r i c baseboard heaters and is more consistent than
Proposal 2-69. However, the same negative co~nents on Proposal
2-69 apply here.
This proposal also leaves the burden on the inspector to
determine "whether a supply cord from a receptacle could hang over
a baseboard heater." How long a cord do you consider?
ROBERTS: See comment on Proposal 2-69.
Log # 1911
2- 68 - (210-52(a)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: H. B. Love/M. Shapiro, Michigan Chapter IAEI
~ T I O N :
In the last paragraph of Section 210-52(a) but
before the exception remove the following words:
"5 i / 2 feet above the f l o o r . " and insert the following:
"Twenty-four (24) inches above the f l o o r or more than twenty-four
(24) inches above a fixed work surface they are intended to serve
and pendant receptacle outlets are not to be counted as any of the
receptacle outlets required by Section 210-52(a) and (c) except as
provided f o r in bathrooms."
SUBSTANTIATION: We have found many cases where the required
receptacles, recreation rooms p a r t i c u l a r l y , were installed on or
near the ceiling and were almost useless. The Code requirement
f o r a maximum distance of 12 feet between receptacles is
predicated on the assumption that a standard 6 foot cord can then
reach an outlet. I f the receptacle is 5 feet high we then have a
triangle, the hypotenuses of which is over 6 feet long. This
would also take care of the barrier-free design concepts and other
changes in building codes that are being promulgated.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Would not contribute to safety and would be too
complicated to enforce.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 349
2- 71 - (210-52(a), Paragraph I ) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Steve Wipf, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Delete- "and the wall space occupied by sliding
pa-a-neTs'i'n-exterior walls."
SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of this section is to minimize the
use of cords across doorways and similar openings. To f u r t h e r
minimize this hazard, I propose t h a t " s l i d i n g panels in exterior
walls" be treated as a doorway or similar opening.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
F~NE'~'-C~-O-M-N~E'-NT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-65.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f l n ~ a t i v e .
Log # 1786
2- 69 - (210-52(a)): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be reported as "Reject" because less
than two-thirds of the members e l i g i b l e to vote have voted in the
affirmative.
SUBMITTER: Leo F. Martin, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
R-R~-C~T~F~NFDATION: Add a paragraph before the exception as follows:
Receptacles required by this section shall not be located above
permanent e l e c t r i c baseboard heaters.
SUBSTANTIATION: The exception presently applies to requirements
that are found in l i s t i n g and/or manufacturers instructions and
authorities must reference Section 110-3(b) and the l i s t i n g or
labeling instructions.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANLL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Bowling, Craig, Cunningham, Roberts.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
YLRKt: i t is suggested that the proposal be modified to
indicate that receptacle outlets f o r special purposes such as
wall-mounted clocks can be installed over baseboard heaters as
long as the location of the receptacle outlet or length of cord is
such that the cord cannot be draped over the baseboard heater.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~UWLING: I concur Mr. Robert J. Cunningham comments and feel
that we must rely on instructions required by the l i s t i n g
laboratories as we do on almost all electrical products.
CRAIG: UL forbids the i n s t a l l a t i o n of baseboard heaters under
outlets. The substantiation does not show a need f o r additional
requirements.
CUNNINGHAM: The UL l i s t i n g No. ULlO42, paragraph 48.1 requires
caution notices on each baseboard unit and the i n s t a l l a t i o n
requirements forbid i n s t a l l a t i o n under outlets. The
substantiation does not prove that this change is required. I f
this rule is necessary, baseboard heaters with other heat sources
such as hot water, steam, and direct fuel f i r e d should be included.
Log # 363
2- 72 - (210-52(a) and (b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Barton Peters, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: (a) In every family room, dining room, living
room, parlor, l i b r a r y , den, sunroom, bedroom, recreation room,
kitchen, or similar rooms of dwelling units, "except counter tops
in kitchen," receptacle outlets shall be installed . . . . . .
(b) Counter tops: a receptacle outlet should be "installed
three feet" from "edges," and every "six feet" after that, so no
point on counter is "three feet" from a receptacle outlet.
SUBSTANTIATION: I think the minimum Code requirements on counter
outlet spaclng was not enough. According to Section 210-52(a) an
outlet was only required f o r the six feet of counter top from an
edge, and every 12 feet after that, so no point along counter top
space was 6 feet from a receptacle outlet.
I agree that the counter space wider than 12 inches needs a
receptacle. 210-B2(b).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Present wording r e f l e c t s Panel's i n t e n t .
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1787
2- 73 - (210-52(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Leo F. Martin, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
RECOM--~-M~N-DATION: In the f i r s t sentence, delete "12" and replace
"6". Also change metric equivalent accordingly.
SUBSTANTIATION: As presently written, a counter than measures 12
~ - f e s s does not require a receptacle and consequently
cords of many appliances are draped across sinks and ranges to
usable counter top spaces "not wider than" 12 inches.
3B
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Leo Nagel, North Dakota
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch, Inc.
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
RECOFI~ENDATION: Amend Section 210-52(d) so as to read as follows:
"(d) Outdoor Outlets. For each dwelling unit with grade access
there shall be at least one receptacle outlet installed outdoors,
supplied fromthe electrical system of the dwelling unit that i t
serves. See Section 210-8(a)(3)."
SUBSTANTIATION: As the section presently reads the requirement
applies only to one- and two-family dwellings and there only has
to be one receptacle. You don't have to be a mental giant to know
all the d i f f i c u l t y that this wording has caused. Such inane
discussions such as, "Who has p r i o r i t y of use?", "Who pays the
b i l l ? " , "Where shall i t be located?", etc., etc." Just saying
there will be two receptacles will clear up these inane questions,
but i t certainly will not answer the major question! I f there is
a documented need for receptacles outdoors on one- and two-family
dwellings, then the same documentation must hold true for not only
the duplex, but also the t r i p l e x , the quadriplex, etc. As long as
the people can come out of their dwelling and use the ground
around, in front of, or in back of that dwelling the need for that
receptacle is identical to the need for one- and two-family
dwellings.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposals 2-79 and 2-61.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Appliance counters would normally be at least 12
inches.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 387
2- 74 ° (210~52(c)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Merlyn Winter, George, IA
ITE~C~QB~T~ATION: In dwelling units at least one wall receptacle
outlet shall be installed in the bathroom wi.thin 3 feet measured
horizontally along the wall from the center of the basin location.
SUBSTANTIATION: Most personal appliances such as electric shavers
only have 3-4 foot cords. I f they are used above the basin the
receptacles have to be within at least 3 feet of the basin,
otherwise the cord will be stretched too far causing damage to the
cord and appliance.
PANEL ACTION: Reject,
PANEL COMMENT: Already covered.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 364
2- 75 - (210-52(c), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Markey, Sheldon, IA
ITE'L'-OI~IT~ATION: Exception: I f medicine cabinet is installed
adjacent to basin that has an UL listed receptacle then wall
receptacle does not have to be installed.
SUBSTANTIATION: Because of the space taken up by some medicine
cabinets in some bathrooms above the basin.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Does not contribute to safety.
VOTE ON PANLL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1239
2- 79 - (210-52(d)):
Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the voting.
SUBMITTER: IAEI
ITE~C'I~I~'I~I~ATION: Changeparagraph (d) to read:
"(d} Outdoor Outlets. For one-family dwelling at least one
receptacle outlet shall be installed outdoors. For two-family
dwelling at least one receptacle for each unit at grade level
shall be installed outdoors."
SUBSTANTIATION: With the present wording only one outdoor
receptacle is required for two dwelling units. As this is for
safety of use of hand held appliances, this is not being
accomplished with only one receptacle, as most of two family
dwellings have separate power supply; i f the one having the
outdoor receptacle is vacant with power o f f , then the other unit
has no outdoor receptable available. Also, with separate power
supply, the owner or tenant of unit having control of the
receptacle circuit refuses to let other unit have use of the
receptacle.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise as follows:
Insert "a" between "For" and "one-family" in the f i r s t
sentence. Insert "a" between "For" and "two-family" in the second
sentence. Insert "outlet" between "receptacle" and "for" in the
second sentence. Insert "shall be installed outdoors" after
"outlet" and before "for" in the second sentence. Insert
"located" between "unit" and "at" in the second sentence. Add
"See Section 210-8(a)(3)" at the end of the paragraph.
PANEL COMMENT: More accurately reflects Panel intent.
VUlt UN PANLL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
CUNNINGHAM: I am concerned that this wording may be
misinterpreted to require a GFCI outlet for the second unit of a
twn-family dwelling where the second unit has no direct connection
to grade level. Example, a second floor duplex unit where the
stairway is at grade level.
REIGN: I believe the Panel Action should have the whole
paragraph, complete with changes, written out. All the "insert
betweens" are very confusing and hard to follow.
SCHUCK: Panel intent was to delete "shall be installed
outdoors" at the end of 2nd'sentence as this phrase was inserted
elsewhere in the sentence.
Log # 228
2- 76 - (210-52(d)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMII-FER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 210-52(d) to read:
For one-family dwellings, at least one receptacle outlet shall
be installed outdoors.
For two-family dwellings, at least one receptacle outlet shall
be installed outdoors for each dwelling unit. See Section
210-8(a)(3).
SUBSTANTIATION: The text in the 1981 Code has drawn considerable
criticism in "implying" that tenants occupying both units of a
two-family dwelling would be required to share the use of the
"one" required outdoor receptacle outlet.
Comment Text by NFPA in the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODEHANDBOOK
supports the need for one receptacle for each dwelling unit.
On many occasions an electrical inspector, making what he
considers a reasonable judgement, that being requiring one for
each unit, has no supporting text with which to operate.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-79.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 427
2- 77 - (210-52(d)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
ITE~LR~E~NI~ATION: Changeparagraph (d) to read: "(d) Outdoor
Outlets. For one-family dwelling at least one receptacle outlet
shall be installed outdoors. For two-family dwelling at least one,
receptacle for each unit at grade level shall be installed
outdoors."
SUBSTANTIATION: With the present wording only one outdoor
receptacle is required for two dwelling units. As this is for
safety of use of hand-held appliances, this is not being
accomplished with only one receptacle, as most of two-family
dwellings have separate power supply; i f the one having the
outdoor receptacle is vacant with power off,.then the other unit
has no outdoor receptacle available. Also, with separate power
supply, the owner or tenant of unit having control of the
receptacle circuit refuses to let other unit have use of the
receptacle.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-79.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
2- 78 - (210-52(d)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Leo Witz, Continental Electric C o .
Bill Hogan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Log # 1773
2- 80 - (210-52(d)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
~DATION:
Revise f i r s t section as follows:
For a dwelling unit(s), at least one receptacle outlet shall be
installed outdoors at direct grade level access for each unit that
is at grade level. (Second sentence remains the same.)
SUBSTANTIATION: The revision clarifies that a receptacle outlet
at direct grade level access is required for each dwelling unit
that is at grade level. That is, one receptacle outlet for a
one-family dwelling, two receptacle outlets for a two-family
dwelling, three receptacle outlets for a three-family dwelling,
etc. However, where a dwelling unit is not at direct grade level,
a receptacle outlet is not required for that unit.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2479.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1453
37
Log # 118
2- 85 - (210-52(f)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert S. Dennison, County of Riverside, CA
~DATION:
Delete the word "attached" preceding the word
garage.
New "Basements and garages. For a one-family dwelling at least
one receptacle outlet in addition to any provided for laundry
equipment shall be installed in each basement and in each garage."
SUBSTANTIATION: In every garage there is a need for at least one
receptacle outlet for an automobile battery charger, or power
tools. When i t is not installed we see cords, exposed Romex and
other unsafe wiring being run to a detached garage without permit
or inspection.
This change would recognize that the same needs exist in a
detached garage as an attached garage for which the Code now
provides.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL CO{~MENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-84.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1788
2- 81 - (210-52(d)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Leo F. Martin, Hyde Park, MA
RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:
(d) Outdoor Receptacle Outlets. For one- and two-family
dwelling at least one receptacle outlet at direct grade level
access shall be installed outdoors for each dwelling unit.
See Section 210-8 (a)(3).
SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y the intended requirements as I don't
believe i t was intended for two families to share one receptacle
at one family's expense.
PANEL ACTION: Accept ih Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-79.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 865
2- 82 - (210-52(d)(i) and (2)): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA
RECOF~MENDATION: Revise as follows:
Outdoor outlets. (1) For each dwelling unit with direct grade •
level access, at least one receptacle outlet shall be installed
outdoors. See Section 210-8(a)(3).
(2) For each dwelling unit having outdoor living space above
grade without direct grade level access, e.g. a balcony, porch or
deck, at least one receptacle outlet shall be installed outdoors
within the outdoor living space. This receptacle outlet shall be
in addition to any required by Section 210-52(d)(1).
SUBSTANTIATION: There is confusion in the present text as to
whether or not each unit of a two-family dwelling, such as a
duplex, with direct grade level access to each unit, requires at
least one receptacle outlet outdoors. I f only one outlet is
provided, there is a safety problem with the other unit.
There is a need to provide adequate electric service with
equipment grounding for electrical appliances frequently used on
balconies, porches, and decks above grade. Requiring a receptacle
outlet at these locations will minimize the unsafe use of
extension cords, adapters, and other temporary wiring methods.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-79.
Panel feels that a receptacle on a balcony is a design
consideration.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Roberts.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
ROBERTS: Every location in the Code where receptacle outlets
are required was presumably decided on by considering the merits
of "safety considerations" dominant over "design considerations."
The trend in housing is towards multiple dwelling units, often
with each unit having direct grade level access and an individual
garden area. I t is d i f f i c u l t to understand why a two-family
dwelling requires an outdoor receptacle outlet for each unit with
direct grade level access when a similar dwelling with three
garden apartments requires none.
The lack of requirements for receptacle outlets onbalconies,
porches or decks above grade leads to unsafe use of extension
cords, adapters and other temporary wiring methods. We believe
that "safety considerations" j u s t i f y accepting the proposal.
Log # 1772
2- 86 - (210-52(g)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
~DATION:
Add a new (g) as follows:
(g) Refrigerator Outlets.
In dwelling units, at least one
20-ampere branch circuit shall be provided to supply refrigerator
outlet(s). This circuit shall have no other outlets.
SUBSTANTIATION: This new addition would relieve some of the load
that is presently permitted on the "two or more" circuits provided
for small appliances.
Also, i f accepted, changes in calculations would be necessary in
Examples of Chapter g.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Adequately covered. No substantiation as to need.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1910
2- 87 - (210-52(g)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: H. B. Love/M. Shapiro, Michigan Chapter, IAEI
~ T I O N :
Add new (g) to read:
Halls and Corridors.
Halls, corridors, etc., multi-family
dwellings shall have at least one receptacle outlet for each
twenty-five (25) linear feet for major fraction of hall length.
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is necessary for maintenance
equipment to scrub or vacuum halls and/or corridors. Where
receptacles are not provided, unsafe methods are used to provide
power to operate such machines. Hall receptacles are necessary
due to the separate metering requirements of ASHRAE90-75R. Lack
of such receptacles also leads to flexible cords being run through
doorways and similar openings.
PANEL ACTION: RejeCt.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel believes this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: I concur with the proposal but do not concur with the
Panel Comments regarding design consideration.
Proposal 2-61
prohibits a receptacle from being installed from a dwelling unit
in the hallway of multifamily dwellings.
Buildings management
provides illumination of hallways and should provide hallway and
corridor receptacle for maintenance purposes.
2- 83 - (210-52(f)): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
~ATION:
Revise last sentence to read:
"See Sections 210-8(a)(4) and 210-8(a)(2)."
SUBSTANTIATION: To reference the addition of Section 210-8(a)(4).
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1282, 1909
2- 88 - (210-52(h)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: IAEI (1282)
~ v e / M .
Shapiro, Michigan Chapter IAEI (1909)
RECO~,MENDATION: Add: Unfinished attic space in dwelling-type
occupancies adaptable for living which is accessible by permanent
stairs shall be provided with at least one (1) receptacle outlet
which shall be wired on an independent circuit of at least 15
ampere capacity.
SUBSTANTIATION: To provide for future wiring of this space when
i t is turned into living quarters are overloaded when extension
cord wiring and other unapproved methods are used by untrained
persons when finishing o f f these areas into living space. With
increasing sophistication among consumers on the use of fans for
cooling and with rising energy costs creating reluctance to use
air conditioners; more and more attic fans are coming into use.
Unapproved and hazardous wiring methods involving extension cords
run into attics or improperly connected in attics are the norm not the exception. This rule makes provision for this need as
well as providing for safe use of the area when i t is made into
living area (again the norm).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: This proposal recognizes the homeowner who is
postponing or delaying the completion of a dwelling. A 15-ampere
circuit would provide a minimum source of power for areas to be
completed in the future or as needs dictate.
Log # 370
2- 84 - (210-52(f)): Reject
SUBMII'[ER: Terry Teunissen, Alvord, IA
~TEqL~O-~U~N
' -~ATION: For a one-family dwelling, at least one
receptacle outlet, in addition to any provided for laundry
equipment, shall be installed in each basement and in each single
attached garage. In attached garages, larger than single garages,
an additional receptacle outlet shall be installed for each car.
SUBSTANTIATION: In two and three car attached garages, one
receptacle outlet i s n ' t sufficient. Each car should have an
outlet in which the water heater of the car, or other equipment
can be plugged into. This would minimize the use of cords across
doorways, cars, and similar places.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Already adequately covered. Additional receptacle
outlets are a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
38
Log # 1240
2- 93 - (210-61-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~ATION:
New Section:
210-61 Other Than One- or Two-Family Dwellings. In other than
one- or two-family dwellings at least one receptacle outlet shall
be installed within 25 feet (7.62 m) of any equipment requiring
servicing.
SUBSTANTIATION: Equipment repair persons, when electric tools on
trouble lights are needed, are using alligator clips and attaching
ahead of fuse or disconnect and grounding to the case of the
switch with an adapter on the other end. Many serious injuries
have resulted from this practice. This is not only on roofs, but
in attic spaces, and at grade level outside. Two f a t a l i t i e s were
recorded last year in Southern California, one on a roof
connected clips to a 480 volt switch) and one in an attic
connected soldering iron and touched a gas line).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-91.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: See comments on Proposal 2-91.
Log # 1508
2- 89 - (210-52(x)-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
~ATION:
Add a new section:
Hallways. There shall be one receptacle outlet for each 10 feet
or major fraction of hall ways.
SUBSTANTIATION: The only way receptacle outlets can be required
in dwelling unit hallways as now presently worded is to f a l l back
upon Section 210-50(b) since i t is expected that floor cleaning
equipment will be used. This creates a misunderstanding problem
with the installer and requires a call back to provide an outlet
in hallways.
Most vacuum sweepers are equipped with a cord of sufficient
length so that in most homes one receptacle would suffice.
The Code requires receptacles in many areas of the dwelling for
convenience sake, but neglects to include hallways as one of the
specified areas.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: No substantiation as to need.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
I
2- 90 - (210-60): Accept
SUBMITTER: C~ 2
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following sentence:
"See Section 210-8(b)."
SUBSTANTIATION: To call attention to new G~CI requirements.
PANEL ACTION:" Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1283, 1908
2- 94 - (210-63-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: IAEI (1283)
~ v e / M .
Shapiro, Michigan Chapter IAIE (1908)
RECOMMENDATION: Add new section:
210-63 Receptacle Outlets (In Other Than Dwelling-Type
Occupancies).
(i) Receptacle outlets shall not be connected to circuits
supplying general lighting including office portions of buildings.
(2) A readily accessible duplex receptacle, fed from any 115
volt receptacle circuit, shall be installed on the roof within
twenty-five (25) feet of each roof-top heating, air conditioning
and refrigeration unit or any combination of these units.
SUBSTANTIATION: (1) Our experience shows that receptacle circuits
are much more often overloaded resulting in overloads and
outages. Losing the lights in a public building can have serious
negative consequences.
(2) To provide means to service these rooftop units without
resorting to unsafe methods.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Design consideration.
No data to support
substantiation.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: Item 1: See Substantiation. Item 2: Adoption would
more closely align this Code with other building and mechanical
codes now in force.
Log # 429
2- 91 - (210-61-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-TER: Southwestern Section IAEI
~ATION:
210-61. Other Than One- or Two-Family
Dwellings. In other than one- or two-family dwellings at least
one receptacle outlet shall be installed within 25 feet (7.62 m)
of any equipment requiring servicing.
SUBSTANTIATION: Equipment repair persons, when electric tools on
trouble lights are needed, are using alligator clips and attaching
ahead of fuse or disconnect and grounding to the case of the
switch with an adapter on the other end. Manyserious injuries
have resulted from this practice. This is not only on roofs, but
in attic spaces, and at grade level outside. Two f a t a l i t i e s were
recorded last year in Southern California, one on a roof
connected clips to a 480 volt switch) and one in an attic
connected soldering iron and touched a gas line).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Substantiation does not support need.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: Means should be provided for servicing equipment.
Adoption would more closely align this Code with other building
and mechanical codes now in force.
I
Log # 156
2- 95 - (210-70): Reject
SUBMII-TER: Michael J. Goeb, baltimore, MD
RECOMMENDATION: None.
SUBSTANTIATION: Below please find a copy of complaint concerning
a situation concerning an incident which happened to my wife in
the sanitary f a c i l i t i e s in the Osler Medical Building in Baltimore
County, MD which I believe speaks for i t s e l f .
Yesterday May 6, 1981 I had a long conversation with the
Baltimore Co. Electrical Engineers. I was informed at this time
there was nothing in the Electrical Code that compels the
offending parties from operating such a hazardous f a c i l i t y , and
only your office can be instrumental i n its elimination.
Therefore on behalf of my wife and I, the aged and infirm, the
p a r t i a l l y and permanently handicapped, throughout the United
States, I plea your office for prompt attention and hopefully a
correction of the hazards of such f a c i l i t i e s .
(The following is the l e t t e r of complaint mentioned above.)
On Wednesday, April 22, 1981 at approximately 9:30 a.m. my wife
made a v i s i t to the office of Dr. "X". During the time of her
v i s i t there, i t became necessary that she use the sanitary
f a c i l i t i e s provided on the second floor. Upon entry, there was
some visible l i g h t . Several minutes later she heard a click and
all the lights went out.
Not knowing what had happened she (my wife) groped around in
fear and darkness trying to find a way out as there is not window
for the penetration of natural l i g h t .
Had she collapsed from coronary arrest or other injury while
groping around in the darkness and fear of what was to come, she
could have lain there without medical attention for any length of
time and death could have been the consequences.
Upon returning to the doctor's office, s t i l l in fear and
nervous, my wife was informed that several complaints about the
lighting in the ladies room have thus far gone unheeded. She was
also informed that the light was on a timer switch and thus, had
gone out after an allotted time.
Having returned home in a state of nervous shock which lasted
throughout the day, I decided on Thursday to call the building
management.
Log # 1115
2- 92 - (210-61-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. H. (Jim) Richards, Maryland Electrical Inspectors
~ o n
RECOMMENDATION: One or more receptacle outlets shall be installed
outdoors for every building (or structure) regardless of the type
of occupancy. These outlets shall have either ground fault
protection breakers at the panelboard or be of a type
incorporating ground f a u l t protection in the receptacle. Such
receptacles shall be located within five feet of grade or floor
level.
SUBSTANTIATION: Outdoor connections are needed for work or
decorations used at commercial, industrial, church, school and
other occupancies as well as at dwellings.
This presents a need
for these proposed receptacles.
Receptacles that are out of reach on outdoor installations are
often ignored and cords are connected inside the building, from
unprotected outlets, and run outside through doors or windows thus
bypassing the protection provided for persons. The theory that
i t ' s all right to get a serious shock injury away from home but
protect yourself at home makes l i t t l e common sense.
Note: Somecorrelation with Section 210-52(d) may be needed.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PAIWEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
39
At precisely 10:08 a.m. on Thursday, April 23, 1981, I made a
call at which time the lady who answered the phone did not f u l l y
understand my complaint. The lady in turn called Ms. "Y".
Having been made f u l l y aware of the nature of my complaint, the
lady, whom I do not know, called my home and was in agreement that
such a deplorable condition should not exist, especially in a
medical f a c i l i t y which is frequented primarily by elderly citizens
with visual, mental, and bodily handicaps.
Secondly, lighting f a c i l i t i e s are, in my opinion, a part of our
medical fee, and any deprivation of same is a violation of our
health, education and welfare laws, i.e. Federal, State and Local
Building Codes.
Should the unlighted windowless f a c i l i t y be in violation of the
building code of either, and or, all of the aforementioned
governments and on behalf of all parties compelled by nature to
use same such f a c i l i t i e s , I seek a complete investigation of same
such f a c i l i t i e s .
And, furthermore, with the rampant increase in criminal activity
throughout Baltimore County and elswhere, i t is the express
opinion of this complaintant that these blacked-out f a c i l i t i e s are
in part blame for same.
Should my complaint be found in disfavor of the American public,
I extend my apologies to those whom I have inconvenienced.
Should my complaint prove positive in regard to the health and
safety of the American public, and in consideration of the rampant
crime throughout the nation, I question why such vital areas such
as the sanitary f a c i l i t i e s are constructed in total darkness and
why permits are granted for the construction of same.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Material included is clearly covered by other than
NEC.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unani~w)uslyAffirmative.
Log # 1832
2- 99 - (210-70(a)):
Reject
SUBMII-[ER: Paul E. Phelan, Trade Education Inc. and New Hampshire
~
l
Contractors Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite last sentence which presently reads,
"equipment requiring servicing" to read "equipment requiring
periodic inspection or servicing."
SUBSTANTIATION: Whether equipment requires maintenance is largely
a judgement question, but adding "periodic inspection" would
provide for illumination to read meters or inspect heating
equipment.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COI~ENT: Present wording adequately reflects Panel intent.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 2020
2- 100 - (210-70(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Idaho Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Change second paragraph to read:
At least one lighting outlet shall be installed in an a t t i c ,
under floor space, u t i l i t y room and basement, only where these
spaces contain equipment requiring servicing or are used for
storage. Storage space fixtures shall be located over an area
which is unobstructed to the floor maintaining an 18 inch
clearance horizontally between the fixture and a storage area
where combustible material ma~vbe stored.
SUBSTANTIATION: Code requires lighting in areas used for storage
without concern as to whether or not the area will ever be used to
, store combustible material. In residential occupancies any type
of storage is going to be involved with combustible materials,
this even holds true in canned goods and vegetable storage areas.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COM~ZNT: Adequately covered by Code.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 119
2- 96 - (210-70(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert S. Dennison, County of Riverside, CA
~ATION:
Delete the word "attached" preceding the word
"garage."
New "Dwelling Unit(s). At least one wall switch-controlled
lighting outlet shall be installed in every habitable room; in
bathrooms, hallways, stairways, and garages; and at outdoor
entrances."
SUBSTANTIATION: The same hazards exist in an unlighted detached
garage as in an attached garage. The danger of a f a l l exiting or
entering an unlighted detached garage are great, and most of the
time greater than an attached garage.
In addition homeowners are "bootlegging" cords, exposed Romex
and jmpr?per overhead wiring after moving into a new home or after
construczlng a new detached garage.
This change would recognize that the same needs exist in a
detached garage as an attahced garage for which the Code now
rovides.
ANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
~ A C T I O N :
UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 102
2- 101 - (210-70(a), Exception No. I ) : Reject
SUBMIl-[ER: Arnold G. Wencel, Robbinsdale, MN
RECOMMENDATION: Add: Wall switch-controlled receptacles
installed for this purpose shall be in addition to the receptacles
required in 210-52(a). Wall switches intended for lighting
control shall be adjacent to room entries.
SUBSTANTIATION: In order to make the provisions of Section
210-52(a) effective, i t seems necessary to spell out, that
generally; the purpose of receptacles is to supply cord-connected
equipment and that switched lighting outlets are not intended as
substitutes for the receptacle outlets mentioned in 210-52(a).
Section 90-i(b) supports the principle of providing adequate
electrical installations to ensure the safety of the use of
electricity.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
Adequately covered by Code.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:' Unanimously Affirmative.
p
Log # 1825
2- 97 - (210-70(a)): Accept
SUBMITTER: Paul E. Phelan, Trade Education Inc. and New Hampshire
Electrical Contractors Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Changeword "containing" to "contain" so as to
read "only where these s~aces are used for storage or contain
equipment requiring servlcing."
SUBSTANTIATION: Readability.
PANEL A~IIUN: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1132
2- 102 - (210-70(a), Exception No. I : ) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert C. Halverson, Cargill, Inc
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to Exception No. I:
Such receptacles shall be in addition to or in combination with
those receptacles required by Section 210-52.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present NEC text makes no distinction between
receptacle outlets which are energized at all times and those
which are wall switch controlled. Consequently, the permanently
energized receptacles intended to be required by Section 210-52
are sometimes eliminated entirely and replaced by lighting
receptacles. This presents a potentially unsafe condition, in
that extension cords Would have to be used to provide continuous
power in the affected area(s), contrary to the intent of Section
210-52. The proposed change would require either separate
lighting outlets/receptacles or "split-bus" duplex receptacles
with half wall switch controlled and half permanently energized
where lighting outlets are required.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Present wording does reflect Panel°s intent.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1831
2- 98 - (210-70(a)):' Reject
SUSMITTER: Paul E. Phelan, Trade Education Inc. and New Hampshire
~
I
Contractors Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Reword the sentence "only where these spaces are
used for" to read "odly where these spaces are, or may be, used
for."
SUBSTANTIATION: Electrical Work is usually done prior to
occupancy. I t is unlikely that these spaces will be used for
storage "prior" to occupancy.
This may also be the case with certain pieces of equipment
installed by occupant.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANLL COMMENT: Panel feels that one cannot speculate on future
use.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1254
2- 103 - (210-70(a), Exception No. 1): Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI
ITE"C'I~WQB~ATION: Rewrite to read:
In habitable rooms other than the kitchens, pantry, breakfast
room, and dining room, one or more receptacles controlled by a
wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets.
SUBSTANTIATION: To move a conflict of Code. Section 220-3(b)(1)
does not permit any other outlets onthe small appliance branch
circuits. However, Section 210-70(a), Exception No. 1 then
ermits wall switch-controlled receptacles in dining rooms,
reakfast rooms, and pantries.
~
40
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: Multiple switching capability would eliminate the
necessity of negotiating stairways when not illuminated.
The conflict arises that where a receptacle is permitted to be
wall switched by Section 210-70(a), Exception No. 1, in lieu of
the wall switch-controlled lighting outlet, as required by Section
210-7(a), in fact then permits lighting outlets to be installed on
the small appliance circuit.
This is a violation of Section 220-3(b)(1) which does not permit
any other outlets on a small appliance c i r c u i t .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is the intent of the Panel that the small
appliance branch circuits should not supply switched receptacles
-used in lieu of switched lighting outlets, as permitted by Section
210-70(a). Exception No. i .
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Bowling, Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: This proposal clarifies the intent and eliminates the
present conflict of Code sections.
REIGN: I f i t ' s the Panel's intent, and i t appears to be from
the Panel Comment, that the small appliance branch circuits should
NOT supply switched receptacles used in lieu of switched lighting
outlets, them the submitter's proposal should be accepted because
that is what he is trying to do by eliminating this conflict now
allowed by Section 210-70(a), Exception No. 1.
Log # 1906
2- 107 - (210-70(d)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: M. Shapiro/P. Van Putten, Michigan Chapter IAEI
R~ATION:
Add 210-70(d) "Stairways and Hallways" (In
Dwelling-Type Occupancies). (d) All stairway lighting outlets
shall have multiple switch control at head and foot of stairway
unless supplied by house meter and controlled by time clock or
controls accessible to authorized persons only.
SUBSTANTIATION: To provide for safetyand to allow for energy
conservation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMFIENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: See comments on Proposal 2 - i 0 6 .
Log # 1905
2- 108 - (210-71-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: M. Shapiro/P. Van Putten, Michigan Chapter, IAEI
~ T I O N :
Add new:
ZI0-/I. "Switches" (In Other Than Dwelling-Type Occupancies).
All stairway lighting outlets shall have multiple switch control
at head and foot of stairway unless supplied by house meter and
controlled by time clock or controls accessible to authorized
persons only.
SUBSTANTIATION: To provide for safety and encourage energy
conservation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 144
2- 104 - (210-70(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~ATION:
Revise second paragraph of (a) as follows:
(b) All occupancies. At least one wall switch-controlled
lighting outlet shall be installed in an a t t i c , underfloor space,
above ceiling space, u t i l i t y room and basement only where these
spaces are used for storage or containing equipment requiring
servicing.
Change paragraph (b) to (c).
SUBSTANTIATION: I f safety requires a lighting outlet in these
areas of a dwelling, the need is no less in a commercial occupancy
where the same spaces may have the same or similar type equipment
installed. The present wording does not cover equipment locations
in above-ceiling spaces (between floors). These are not generally
defined as attics. I am presently involved in the construction of
a large building complex where several dozen electric water
heaters and air conditioning units with external motors and belts,
and associated controls have been installed in above-ceiling
spaces, with no lighting outlets provided for servicing this
equipment. In my opinion this lack of lighting increases the
potential hazard for tripping, f a l l i n g , injury from moving parts,
and electric shock.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is adequately covered by Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1904
2- 109 - (210-72-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: M.'Shapiro/P. Van Putten, Michigan Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 210-72:
Toilet Ventilation. Toilets requiring mechanical ventilation
shall be provided with a light and vent fan operated
simultaneously with the light switch, unless ventilation is
provided by a fan whose controls are accessible to authorized
persons only and are operated during normal occupancy of the
building. In dwellings, a switch separate from the light shall be
rovided.
UBSTANTIATION: The NEC makes no provisions for this yet all the
building codes do address themselves to this problem and we should
also. The reason for a separate switch in dwellings is to provide
a no-draft condition while a baby is being bathed and energy
conservation i f the bathroom was used for washing or bathing only.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously AfFirmative.
~
Log # 1284, 1907
2- 105 - (210-70(c)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: IAEI (1284)
H. B. Love/M. Shapiro, Michigan Chapter IAEI (1907)
RECOMMENDATION: Add new subsection as follows:
Basement Lighting. Basements in dwelling-type occupancies shall
be wired for a minimum of one ( i ) lighting outlet in each 200
square feet or major fraction of area for use as general
illumination. All enclosed areas that may be walked into such as
t o i l e t rooms, f r u i t storage room, u t i l i t y rooms, excavated areas
under porches, etc., shall be provided with at" least one (i)
lighting outlet (except coal bins).
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal provides for more adequate lighting
in large areas. Under the present rule only one light is required
even in large areas.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: This proposal assures illumination of all divisions or
partitioned areas of a basement.
ARTICLE 212 -- MINIMUMSTANDARDS
Log # 1893
2- 110 - (Article 212-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: Pete Van Putten/B. L. Auger/Mark Shapiro, Michigan
Chapter of IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Minimum Standards for the Wiring of Existing
Dwelling-Type Occupancies.
212-i. Scope. This article covers the wiring of existing wired
dwelling type occupancies.
212-2. Inadequate Wiring. Evidence of the inadequacy of wiring
of an existing dwelling-type occupancy shall be one or more of the
following:
(a) Use of cords in lieu of permanent wiring.
(b) Oversizing of conductor overcurrent protection for branch
circuits, feeders or services.
(c) Unapproved extensions to the wiring system in order to
provide l i g h t , heat or power.
(d) Existence of less than two (2) duplex electrical receptacle
outlets in each habitable room or one (1) duplex electrical
receptacle outlet on each wall in the living room or one ( i )
duplex electrical receptacle outlet in the bathroom.
(e) Electrical overloads.
( f ) Misuse of electrical equipment.
(g) Lack of an operable light f i x t u r e in every t o i l e t room,
bathroom, laundry room, kitchen, furnace room, hall or stairway.
(h) Lack of an operable laundry receptacle on an independent
circuit.
(i) Lack of at least one (I) lighting outlet in basement area.
Log # 1285
2- 106 - (210-70(d)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI
ITE'C'~PElql)ATION: Add 210-70(d) Stairways and Hallways, (In
Dwelling-Type Occupancies).
(d) All stairway lighting outlets shall have multiple switch
control at head and foot of stairway unless supplied by time clock
or controls accessible to authorized persons only.
SUBSTANTIATION: To provide for safety and to allow for energy
conservation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
41
C.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: Multiple switching capability would eliminate the
necessity of negotiating stairways when not illuminated.
The conflict arises that where a receptacle is permitted to be
wall switched by Section 210-70(a), Exception No. 1, in lieu of
the wall switch-controlled lighting outlet, as required by Section
210-7(a), in fact then permits lighting outlets to be installed on
the small appliance circuit.
This is a violation of Section 220-3(b)(1) which does not permit
any other outlets on a small appliance c i r c u i t .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is the intent of the Panel that the small
appliance branch circuits should not supply switched receptacles
-used in lieu of switched lighting outlets, as permitted by Section
210-70(a). Exception No. i .
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Bowling, Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: This proposal clarifies the intent and eliminates the
present conflict of Code sections.
REIGN: I f i t ' s the Panel's intent, and i t appears to be from
the Panel Comment, that the small appliance branch circuits should
NOT supply switched receptacles used in lieu of switched lighting
outlets, them the submitter's proposal should be accepted because
that is what he is trying to do by eliminating this conflict now
allowed by Section 210-70(a), Exception No. 1.
Log # 1906
2- 107 - (210-70(d)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: M. Shapiro/P. Van Putten, Michigan Chapter IAEI
R~ATION:
Add 210-70(d) "Stairways and Hallways" (In
Dwelling-Type Occupancies). (d) All stairway lighting outlets
shall have multiple switch control at head and foot of stairway
unless supplied by house meter and controlled by time clock or
controls accessible to authorized persons only.
SUBSTANTIATION: To provide for safetyand to allow for energy
conservation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMFIENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: See comments on Proposal 2 - i 0 6 .
Log # 1905
2- 108 - (210-71-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: M. Shapiro/P. Van Putten, Michigan Chapter, IAEI
~ T I O N :
Add new:
ZI0-/I. "Switches" (In Other Than Dwelling-Type Occupancies).
All stairway lighting outlets shall have multiple switch control
at head and foot of stairway unless supplied by house meter and
controlled by time clock or controls accessible to authorized
persons only.
SUBSTANTIATION: To provide for safety and encourage energy
conservation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 144
2- 104 - (210-70(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~ATION:
Revise second paragraph of (a) as follows:
(b) All occupancies. At least one wall switch-controlled
lighting outlet shall be installed in an a t t i c , underfloor space,
above ceiling space, u t i l i t y room and basement only where these
spaces are used for storage or containing equipment requiring
servicing.
Change paragraph (b) to (c).
SUBSTANTIATION: I f safety requires a lighting outlet in these
areas of a dwelling, the need is no less in a commercial occupancy
where the same spaces may have the same or similar type equipment
installed. The present wording does not cover equipment locations
in above-ceiling spaces (between floors). These are not generally
defined as attics. I am presently involved in the construction of
a large building complex where several dozen electric water
heaters and air conditioning units with external motors and belts,
and associated controls have been installed in above-ceiling
spaces, with no lighting outlets provided for servicing this
equipment. In my opinion this lack of lighting increases the
potential hazard for tripping, f a l l i n g , injury from moving parts,
and electric shock.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is adequately covered by Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1904
2- 109 - (210-72-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: M.'Shapiro/P. Van Putten, Michigan Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 210-72:
Toilet Ventilation. Toilets requiring mechanical ventilation
shall be provided with a light and vent fan operated
simultaneously with the light switch, unless ventilation is
provided by a fan whose controls are accessible to authorized
persons only and are operated during normal occupancy of the
building. In dwellings, a switch separate from the light shall be
rovided.
UBSTANTIATION: The NEC makes no provisions for this yet all the
building codes do address themselves to this problem and we should
also. The reason for a separate switch in dwellings is to provide
a no-draft condition while a baby is being bathed and energy
conservation i f the bathroom was used for washing or bathing only.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously AfFirmative.
~
Log # 1284, 1907
2- 105 - (210-70(c)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: IAEI (1284)
H. B. Love/M. Shapiro, Michigan Chapter IAEI (1907)
RECOMMENDATION: Add new subsection as follows:
Basement Lighting. Basements in dwelling-type occupancies shall
be wired for a minimum of one ( i ) lighting outlet in each 200
square feet or major fraction of area for use as general
illumination. All enclosed areas that may be walked into such as
t o i l e t rooms, f r u i t storage room, u t i l i t y rooms, excavated areas
under porches, etc., shall be provided with at" least one (i)
lighting outlet (except coal bins).
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal provides for more adequate lighting
in large areas. Under the present rule only one light is required
even in large areas.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: This proposal assures illumination of all divisions or
partitioned areas of a basement.
ARTICLE 212 -- MINIMUMSTANDARDS
Log # 1893
2- 110 - (Article 212-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: Pete Van Putten/B. L. Auger/Mark Shapiro, Michigan
Chapter of IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Minimum Standards for the Wiring of Existing
Dwelling-Type Occupancies.
212-i. Scope. This article covers the wiring of existing wired
dwelling type occupancies.
212-2. Inadequate Wiring. Evidence of the inadequacy of wiring
of an existing dwelling-type occupancy shall be one or more of the
following:
(a) Use of cords in lieu of permanent wiring.
(b) Oversizing of conductor overcurrent protection for branch
circuits, feeders or services.
(c) Unapproved extensions to the wiring system in order to
provide l i g h t , heat or power.
(d) Existence of less than two (2) duplex electrical receptacle
outlets in each habitable room or one (1) duplex electrical
receptacle outlet on each wall in the living room or one ( i )
duplex electrical receptacle outlet in the bathroom.
(e) Electrical overloads.
( f ) Misuse of electrical equipment.
(g) Lack of an operable light f i x t u r e in every t o i l e t room,
bathroom, laundry room, kitchen, furnace room, hall or stairway.
(h) Lack of an operable laundry receptacle on an independent
circuit.
(i) Lack of at least one (I) lighting outlet in basement area.
Log # 1285
2- 106 - (210-70(d)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI
ITE'C'~PElql)ATION: Add 210-70(d) Stairways and Hallways, (In
Dwelling-Type Occupancies).
(d) All stairway lighting outlets shall have multiple switch
control at head and foot of stairway unless supplied by time clock
or controls accessible to authorized persons only.
SUBSTANTIATION: To provide for safety and to allow for energy
conservation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
41
C.
212-3. Entrance and Exits. Entrances and exits shall be
illuminated by exterior lighting outlets. Lighting outlets shall
be controlled by interior wall switches, located for convenient
and readily accessible use.
212-4. Living Rooms. The living room shall be provided with
illumination, The lightin 9 outlet shall be controlled by a wall
switch, located, for convenlent and readily accessible use, nearest
to the entrance into the room. A receptacle outlet controlled by
a wall switch in lieu of a lighting outlet shall be permitted.
Convenient duplex electrical receptacle outlets shall be
provided equally spaced around the room, at least one (1) duplex
electrical outlet on each wall.
212-5. Kitchens. Kitchens shall be provided w4th illumination.
A lighting outlet(s) shall be controlled by a wall switch, located
for convenient and readily accessible use, nearest to the entrance
to the room. A separate small appliance circuit shall be
provided, supplying a minimum of three (3) grounding type duplex
electrical receptacle outlets. Two (2) of these receptacles shall
be located for convenient and readily accessible use. New
appliance circuits shall be a minimum of twenty (20) ampere
capacity.
212-6. Bathrooms or Washrooms. Bathrooms or washrooms shall be
illuminated. The lighting outlet or outlets shall be controlled
by a wall switch. In bathrooms; a receptacle outlet, separate
from the lighting fixture shall be provlded adjacent to the wash
basin.
212-7. Habitable Rooms. All habitable rooms shall be
illuminated. Lighting outlets shall be controlled by a wall
switch. Wall switches shall be located for conyenient and readily
accessible use. Convenient duplex electrical receptacle outlets
shall be provided with a minimum of two (2) outlets equally spaced
around the room. An additional receptacle outlet, controlled by a
wall switch, shall be permitted in lieu of a light outlet.
212-8. Basement. Basements shall be wired for a minimum of one
(1) lighting outlet. All additional enclosed a~eas used for
storage or containing equipment requiring servicing such as
furnace rooms, f r u i t storage rooms etc. shall be provided with at
least one ( i ) lighting outlet (except coal bins).
212-9. Laundry Areas. Laundry areas shall be provided with
illumination. Laundry circuit shall be an individual circuit. A
wall-mounted grounding type duplex receptacle outlet shall be
provided, located near the laundry equipment.
An existing drop cord receptacle outlet on a separate circuit
shall be acceptable providing i t is a grounding type receptacle
outlet not more than five (5) feet six (6) inches above the floor.
212-10. Stairways. Stairways and/or each stair section shall be
adequately illuminated. Lighting outlets shall be controlled by
wall switches. Wall switches shall be located for convenient and
readily accessible use.
212-11. Service and Feeders. Service to existing dwelling unit
shall be at a minimum three (3) wire f i f t y - f i v e (55) ampere
capacity. Service equipment shall be dead front. Type "S" fuses
shall be installed where fusible equipment is used. Ampacity of
existing feeder conductors shall be t h i r t y (30) amperes, minimum.
I f the existing service does not comply with the above and i t is
then necessary to increase service or change service equipment,
the service shall be increased in compliance with Section
230-41(b).
212-12. Existing Wiring and Electrical Equipment. Existing
wiring and equipment shall be in good repair. Existing wiring and
electrical equipment shall be maintained and used as originally
listed and designed to be used. Circuit extensions made with
flexible cord wiring in lieu of permanent wiring shall be
eliminated.
212-13. New Work. All new wiring and electrical equipment used
to replace existing inadequate wiring shall comply with all of the
provisions of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE(NFPA 70).
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal has been entitled Article 212 since
the proposors have visions of its being adopted and taking its
rightful position in the Code. We would not be opposed to
Code-Making Panel designating the article as new Chapter 10 so
that local units may elect by ordinance to adopt the Code with or
without Chapter 10.
Section gO-l(a), properly states the PURPOSEof the Code as "the
practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards
arising from the use of e l e c t r i c i t y . " Further, the fine print
note to part "(b) Adequacy," alludes to the misuse of electrical
systems due to increases (new) in uses of e l e c t r i c i t y . The l a t t e r
statement probably presents more succinctly the need we have for
new Article 212.
The development of electrical appliances in our homes for
culinary, personal care, temperature control and liesure time
recreational purposes has extended the use of the original system,
designed for basic lighting, far beyond its safe limits. Since
these systems are installed to service every area of our homes we
are l i t e r a l l y wrapped up in an envelope of electrical branch
c i r c u i t r y . Therefore, any abrogation of safe wiring practices can
place any area of the home in jeopardy.
The lack of receptacle outlets has led to a proliferation of
fixture cord type extensions to f a c i l i t a t e the use of today's
appliances. With Table 402-5 declaring a No. 18 cord to operate
at a maximum of 6 amperes, we should not feel complacent about
this misuse since the preponderance of inspections show that these
cords are not in free air as tested for their use as fixture
cords. The facts are that they are covered with carpeting,
furniture or the l i t t e r of living which in effect chokes off the
free air and therefore we must derate the allowable ampacity
accordingly. The'cords are also cascaded, i f the cord does not
reach the desired area, patch on another. Our friends from
Underwriters Lab have very f i t t i n g l y either by design or
coincidence assigned a product category index of ZIPR to this
anomalous wiring method product.
Tables 40045 and 402-5 are the optimum condition ampacities and
the overcurrent protection specified in Section 240-4 definitely
cannot take into account the conditions which we observe in the
f i e l d . Is i t then any wonder that these cords and all the
combustible items adjacent thereto are often completely
incinerated before the overcurrent device can perform its designed
task?
With nationwide statistics indicating up to 20-25 percent of
building fires being of an electrical ignition source i t is
imperative that we adopt a minimum standard for rewiring these
inadequately wired older homes.
The Michigan Chapter, IAEI, has proffered this Article 212 for
the 1978 and 1981 Codes. Our model for the proposal is the City
of Detroit, Michigan Chapter 10, Electrical Code, "Minimum
Standards." This standard has been in effect for over two decades
and is bein9 used as a mandatory requirement in over 150
governmenta] units in Michigan to obtain commitments for. V.A.,
F.H.A. and other Federal funds guaranteeing loans on prlor owoed
housing units.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
commissioned a research on rehabilitation of used housing through
the National Institute of Building Sciences. Out of that study a
"Rehabilitation Guidelines, 1980" was produced which details the
problem, cites that NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, suggests solutions
and lists as an appendix, Chapter 10, Detroit Electric Code.
The "Guidelines" were a Congressional mandate. The booklet can
be ordered from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. The stock number for the
book is 023-000-00640-5~ The t i t l e is,, "Electrical Guidelines for
Residential Rehabilitation.~'
We as an industry and also the Code-Making Panel should adopt
the proposal as a standard. F o r too long we have lived with
building code o f f i c i a l s ' attempts at writing minimum electrical
standards. Those standards are so woefully inadequate that the
application thereof encourages the use of extension cords.
I f we delay our efforts we may see some bureaucratic group use
the "Guidelines" to promulgate a standard which may well be in
conflict with tested and proven practices in the electrical
industry.
Among the groups who worked on the Guidelines were; U.S.
Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Assoc.
of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, AFL-CIO Building and
Construction Trades Council, National Assoc. of Home Builders,
U.S. League of Savings Assoc's., Council of American Building
Officials, National Fire Protection Association, and the American
Institute of Architects.
The need for a minimum housing standard is clearly attested to
by the thousands of governmental units across the country that
have enacted their own rules. While we are not in a position to
know of and l i s t them all (and this is just the point), we are
aware that the State of Massachusetts, the City of Minneapolis,
and our own 150 plus communities in Michigan are a relative
handfull amongmany. Yet, we boast of being the only trade with
one uniform national code.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Code is designed to provide the minimum
requirements needed for safeguarding persons and property. Any
deviation from this Standard for existing occupancies is better
l e f t to local government agencies.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
CO~MENT ON VOTE:
CUNNINGHAM: I disagree with Panel Comment. I t should not be
suggested that governmental agencies should adopt or accept" rules
less stringent than the minimum safety standards of the NEC. The
second sentence should be dropped.
42
ARTICLE 215 -- FEEDERS
Log # 347
2- 115 - (215-2, Paragraph 1): Reject
SUBMITTER: DougOppedal, Story City, IA
~ T I O N :
Feeder conductors shall' have an ampacity not
lower than required to supply the load as computed in Parts B, C,
and D, of Article 220. The minimum sizes shall be as specified in
(a) and (b) below under the conditions stipulated.
Feed conductors for "all occupancies" need not be larger than
service-entrance conductors.
SUBSTANTIATION: This Code states that feeder conductors for a
dwelling unit or a mobile home need not be larger than
service-entrance conductors.
In any occupancy feeder conductors need not be larger than the
service-entrance conductors. This section doesn't state that.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: There is a lack of substantiation for extending
the practice of reducing the feeder size.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1506
2- 111 - (215-x-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-TER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
~ATION:
Add new section:
215-X. Ground-fault Protection for Equipment. Ground-fault
protection for equipment shall be permitted to be installed where
required elsewhere in the Code. The ground-fault protection
system shall be performance tested when f i r s t installed. The test
shall be conducted in accordance with approved instructions which
shall be provided with the equipment. A written record of this
test shall be made and shall be available to the authority having
jurisdiction.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is just as c r i t i c a l for feeder ground-fault
equipment to be performance tested as for service equipment,
especially when i t is necessary that proper coordination be
achieved when required in large capacity hosptial feeders as
covered in Section 517-14(a). This proposal coordinates with a
proposal to the Panel having jurisdiction over Article 517 that
the required additional step of ground-fault circuit interrupter
be performance tested similar to services in Section 230-95.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Substantiation does not support the proposal.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 627
2- 112 - (215-2): Accept
SUBMII'TER: R. P. O'Riley, Dallas Joint Electrical Apprenticeship
and Training Committee
RECOMMENDATION: Last sentence of Section 215~2 now reads:
"Feeder conductors for a dwelling unit or etc." Drop the "a"
before dwelling unit and change the word "unit" to "units."
New reading: "Feeder conductors for dwelling units or etc."
SUBSTANTIATION: There is a conflict between Section 215-2 and
Table 310-16, Note 3.
Section 215-2 is singular using a dwelling unit.
Table 310-16, Note 3 is plural using the term dwelling units.
This change would make Section 215-2 and Table 310-16, Note 3
read the same.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1776
2- 116 - (215-8, FPN-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
~ATION:
Add a new fine print note as follows:
FPN: See Section 384-3(e) and (f) for phase arrangement.
SUBSTANTIATION: Correlation is necessary among Sections 215-8,
ZJO-b6, and 384-3(e) and (f) and any exception or modifications to
these requirements.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is not required.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
I
Log # 352
2- 113 - (215-2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Gary McPherson, Sheldon, IA
~ATION:
Existing feeder conductors shall not be
overloaded by additions to the systems. Overloaded feeder
conductors shall be replaced with conductors not smaller than
required to supply the load.
SUBSTANTIATION: According to 215-i this article is for new
installation and does not cover existing installations. I t is not
in the Code that you can't overload existing installations by
installing additional equipment or branch circuits.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Feeder ampacities are presently covered in the
~ode. I t is up to local enforcement agencies to determine
deficiencies in existing systems. See Section 220-35.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
2- 117 - (215-9): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
DATION: Add to last line:
"and Article 305."
SUBSTANTIATION: The Correlating Committee has voted to direct
CMP 2 and CMP 3 to transfer the text of Section 210-8(b) to an
appropriate section in Article 305.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
ARTICLE 220 -- BRANCH-CIRCUIT AND
FEEDER CALCULATIONS
2- 118 - (220-i): Accept
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CI~~ 2 that
article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating
Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel
Action.
SUBMITTER: C/~° 2
RECOMMENDATION: Add a second paragraph to the scope as follows:
"Unless other voltages are specified, for purposes of computing
branch-circuit and feeder loads, nominal system voltages of 120,
120/240, 208Y/120, 240, 480Y/277, 480, and 600 volts shall be
used."
SUBSTANTIATION: There is a need to specify what voltage level the
Panel intends should be used for branch-circuit and feeder
computations.
The voltage levels selected are in keeping with the nominal
system voltages listed in ANSI Standard C84.1.
'PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1614
2- 114 - (215-2(b), FPN): Reject
SUBMITTER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los Angeles, CA
I~-E~R~'tQ~IE'N'I~ATION: Raise voltage drop note to f u l l size print,
making i t a requirement. Insert "shall be" before the word
Usized" in the f i r s t line and delete the last phrase, ending the
sentence with . . . 5 percent.
SUBSTANTIATION: The problem is that Article 310 does not p~ovide
for voltage drop. In the past the smaller branch circuit
conductors were underrated with minimized voltage drop. problems.
This is no longer necessarily true, and i t is not right to not
make a provision to protect the public from the problem associated
with low voltage.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-48.
VUl~ UN PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Bowling, Craig.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: See comments on Proposal 2-48.
CRAIG: I agree with the substantiation. The public needs
protection from the problems associated with low voltage.
Log # 667
2- 119 - (Article 220 & Examples in Chapter 9): Reject
SUBMITTER: Warren H. Cook, IEEE
~ATION:
Replace all reference to "watts" or "kilowatts"
to read "voltamps" or "kilovoltamps."
SUBSTANTIATION: The terms "watts" does not necessarily reflect
true ampere load on a circuit and except for 100 percent
power-factor loads could result in calculated loads using watts
resulting in currents considerably less than actual.
An example for a fluorescent lighting system is as follows:
A typical rapid start, high power factor ballast for one
F40T12/RS lamp at 115 volts (GE #6G3106W) lists an input of 50
watts and 0.45 amperes. Their low power factor ballast for one
F40T12 preheat start lamp (#6G3022) lists an input of 45 watts and
0.73 amperes.
Example 3 blithely equates receptable load in volt-amperes to
equal watts.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Correction for power factor is already covered in
Sections 210-22(b) and 220-2(b), FPN.
43
ARTICLE 215 -- FEEDERS
Log # 347
2- 115 - (215-2, Paragraph 1): Reject
SUBMITTER: DougOppedal, Story City, IA
~ T I O N :
Feeder conductors shall' have an ampacity not
lower than required to supply the load as computed in Parts B, C,
and D, of Article 220. The minimum sizes shall be as specified in
(a) and (b) below under the conditions stipulated.
Feed conductors for "all occupancies" need not be larger than
service-entrance conductors.
SUBSTANTIATION: This Code states that feeder conductors for a
dwelling unit or a mobile home need not be larger than
service-entrance conductors.
In any occupancy feeder conductors need not be larger than the
service-entrance conductors. This section doesn't state that.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: There is a lack of substantiation for extending
the practice of reducing the feeder size.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1506
2- 111 - (215-x-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-TER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
~ATION:
Add new section:
215-X. Ground-fault Protection for Equipment. Ground-fault
protection for equipment shall be permitted to be installed where
required elsewhere in the Code. The ground-fault protection
system shall be performance tested when f i r s t installed. The test
shall be conducted in accordance with approved instructions which
shall be provided with the equipment. A written record of this
test shall be made and shall be available to the authority having
jurisdiction.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is just as c r i t i c a l for feeder ground-fault
equipment to be performance tested as for service equipment,
especially when i t is necessary that proper coordination be
achieved when required in large capacity hosptial feeders as
covered in Section 517-14(a). This proposal coordinates with a
proposal to the Panel having jurisdiction over Article 517 that
the required additional step of ground-fault circuit interrupter
be performance tested similar to services in Section 230-95.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Substantiation does not support the proposal.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 627
2- 112 - (215-2): Accept
SUBMII'TER: R. P. O'Riley, Dallas Joint Electrical Apprenticeship
and Training Committee
RECOMMENDATION: Last sentence of Section 215~2 now reads:
"Feeder conductors for a dwelling unit or etc." Drop the "a"
before dwelling unit and change the word "unit" to "units."
New reading: "Feeder conductors for dwelling units or etc."
SUBSTANTIATION: There is a conflict between Section 215-2 and
Table 310-16, Note 3.
Section 215-2 is singular using a dwelling unit.
Table 310-16, Note 3 is plural using the term dwelling units.
This change would make Section 215-2 and Table 310-16, Note 3
read the same.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1776
2- 116 - (215-8, FPN-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
~ATION:
Add a new fine print note as follows:
FPN: See Section 384-3(e) and (f) for phase arrangement.
SUBSTANTIATION: Correlation is necessary among Sections 215-8,
ZJO-b6, and 384-3(e) and (f) and any exception or modifications to
these requirements.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is not required.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
I
Log # 352
2- 113 - (215-2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Gary McPherson, Sheldon, IA
~ATION:
Existing feeder conductors shall not be
overloaded by additions to the systems. Overloaded feeder
conductors shall be replaced with conductors not smaller than
required to supply the load.
SUBSTANTIATION: According to 215-i this article is for new
installation and does not cover existing installations. I t is not
in the Code that you can't overload existing installations by
installing additional equipment or branch circuits.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Feeder ampacities are presently covered in the
~ode. I t is up to local enforcement agencies to determine
deficiencies in existing systems. See Section 220-35.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
2- 117 - (215-9): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
DATION: Add to last line:
"and Article 305."
SUBSTANTIATION: The Correlating Committee has voted to direct
CMP 2 and CMP 3 to transfer the text of Section 210-8(b) to an
appropriate section in Article 305.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
ARTICLE 220 -- BRANCH-CIRCUIT AND
FEEDER CALCULATIONS
2- 118 - (220-i): Accept
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CI~~ 2 that
article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating
Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel
Action.
SUBMITTER: C/~° 2
RECOMMENDATION: Add a second paragraph to the scope as follows:
"Unless other voltages are specified, for purposes of computing
branch-circuit and feeder loads, nominal system voltages of 120,
120/240, 208Y/120, 240, 480Y/277, 480, and 600 volts shall be
used."
SUBSTANTIATION: There is a need to specify what voltage level the
Panel intends should be used for branch-circuit and feeder
computations.
The voltage levels selected are in keeping with the nominal
system voltages listed in ANSI Standard C84.1.
'PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1614
2- 114 - (215-2(b), FPN): Reject
SUBMITTER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los Angeles, CA
I~-E~R~'tQ~IE'N'I~ATION: Raise voltage drop note to f u l l size print,
making i t a requirement. Insert "shall be" before the word
Usized" in the f i r s t line and delete the last phrase, ending the
sentence with . . . 5 percent.
SUBSTANTIATION: The problem is that Article 310 does not p~ovide
for voltage drop. In the past the smaller branch circuit
conductors were underrated with minimized voltage drop. problems.
This is no longer necessarily true, and i t is not right to not
make a provision to protect the public from the problem associated
with low voltage.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-48.
VUl~ UN PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Bowling, Craig.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: See comments on Proposal 2-48.
CRAIG: I agree with the substantiation. The public needs
protection from the problems associated with low voltage.
Log # 667
2- 119 - (Article 220 & Examples in Chapter 9): Reject
SUBMITTER: Warren H. Cook, IEEE
~ATION:
Replace all reference to "watts" or "kilowatts"
to read "voltamps" or "kilovoltamps."
SUBSTANTIATION: The terms "watts" does not necessarily reflect
true ampere load on a circuit and except for 100 percent
power-factor loads could result in calculated loads using watts
resulting in currents considerably less than actual.
An example for a fluorescent lighting system is as follows:
A typical rapid start, high power factor ballast for one
F40T12/RS lamp at 115 volts (GE #6G3106W) lists an input of 50
watts and 0.45 amperes. Their low power factor ballast for one
F40T12 preheat start lamp (#6G3022) lists an input of 45 watts and
0.73 amperes.
Example 3 blithely equates receptable load in volt-amperes to
equal watts.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Correction for power factor is already covered in
Sections 210-22(b) and 220-2(b), FPN.
43
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Lordi, Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LORDI: Volt-amperes more accurately reflect circuit loading
than watts.
Watts and volt-amperes are presently indiscriminately mixed in
the present Code ( i . e . , Section 220-2(c) listing for outlets uses
"volt-amperes" while Exception No. 3 uses "watts"). A SLm=nary of
the necessary changes is as follows:
Section 2 2 0 - 2 ( c )
Exception
No. 3. Change "200 watts" to
"200 volt-amperes"
Table 220-2(b)
Change "Unit Load per Sq. Ft. (Watts)"
to "Unit Load per Sq. Ft. (Volt-amperes)"
**Change "1 watt per square foot" to "1
volt-ampere per square foot"
Section 220-3(d)
Change "watts-per-square-foot" to
."volt-amperes-per-square-foot"
Section 220-12
Change "200 watts" to "200 volt-amperes"
Table 220-11
Change "(wattaqe)" in column t i t l e to
"(volt-amperes)"
Change "Total Wattage" in "All Others"
line to "Total Volt-amperes"
Table 220-13
Change "(wattage)" in column t i t l e to
"(volt-amperes)"
Change "First 10 kW or less" to " f i r s t
10 kVa or less"
Change "Remainder over 10 kW at" to
"Remainder over 10 kVa at"
Section 220-16(a)
Change "1500 watts" to "1500
volt-amperes" (2 places)
Change "1500 watts" to "1500
vol t-amperes~
16(b)
Log # 866
2- 120 - (220-xx): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA
ITE"~-6]~E:-N-F]~TION: Section 220-xx-Sign or Outline Lighting Load.
The load for the circuit required by Section 220-3(x)(x) for signs
or outline lighting shall be computed at a minimum of 1200
vol t-amperes.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 600-6(c) requires, in the text of this
proposal, the consideration of this load when this specific
circuit is required.
The submitter believes this text more appropriately belongs
within Article 220 than its present location.
Companion and correlating proposals have been submitted to
Code-Making Panels 2 and 18.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COM#4ENT: Panel feels this is adequateIy covered in Section
225-10.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Section 220-18
After 5000 watts add "(volt-amperes)"
Section 220-19
At the end of the f i r s t chapter add:
"KVA shall be considered equiyalent to
kW for loads computed under this section"
Section 220-30(b)(i)
Change"1500 watts" to "1500
volt-amperes"
Section 220-39(b)(2)
Change"3 watts" to "3 volt-amperes"
Table 220-30
In column t i t l e delete "kW or"
Change "10 kW" to "10 kVA"
Table 220-31
In column t i t l e delete "kW or"
Change "SkW" to "8 kVA"
Section 220-31
Second paragraph
Change "3 watts" to "3 volt-amperes"
Change "1500 watts" to "1500
volt-amperes"
Log # 230
2- 122 - (220-xx-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
~ATION:
Section 220-xx - Sign or Outline Lighting Load.
The load for the circuit required by Section 220-3(x)(x) for signs
or outline]ighting shall be computed at a minimum of 1200
volt-ampereC.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 600-6(c) requires, in the text of this
proposal, the consideration of this load when this specific
circuit is required.
This text more appropriately belongs within Article 220 than its
present location.
Companion and correlating proposals have been submitted to CME 2
and CMP 18.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-120.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Fourth paragraph
Change "First 8 kW" to "First 8 kVA"
Change "1500 watts" to "1500
volt-amperes"
Change "3 watts" to "3 volt-amperes"
Section 220-32(c)(1)
Change"1500 watts'~ to "1500
volt-amperes"
Section 220-32(c)(2)
Change"3 watts" to "3 volt-amperes"
Table 220-34
In column t i t l e change "watts" to
"volt-amperes"
Examples 1 thru 5
Change "watts" to "volt-amperes" and
"kW" to "kVA"
Log # 1350
2- 121 - (220-X-(New)): Reject
SUBMI~ER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Add new section:
220-X "Optional Calculation for Non-Dwelling Type Occupancies.
For those occupancies where the heating, ventilating and cooling
loads are unknown prior to construction, i t shall be permitted
where acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, to provide
8 watts per square foot in the feeder for such loads."
SUBSTANTIATION: Manyspeculative shopping centers and proposed
multi-purpose tenant buildings are completed before leasing or
rental arrangements are complete, and in many instances months may
pass before the area(s) are occupied. In order to insure that
adequate capacity shall exist in the feeder and service when the
equipment is f i n a l l y installed, the provision for 8 watts per
square foot figure allows a conservative figure to be used. Using
this in conjunction with Table 220-2(b) for general lighting loads
and Section 220-13 for non-dwelling receptacle loads, i t would
provide adequate capacity.
This 8 watts per square foot figure is now being used by
designers and in many cases i t is impossible to otherwise know
what figures to use. I t is not possible to approve plans in some
instances without resorting to Section 90-4 for special permission
and involves many discussions with designers as well.
This will give help and guidance to inspectors, designers, and
contractors.
(This proposal should be coordinated with the proposal for a
double asterisk note to be used with the 3 watts per square foot
now required for stores.)
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Present Code adequately addresses the problem.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 2088
2- 123 - (220-2(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Joseph C. Roohan, Whittier, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Delete all reference to "Continuous Load."
SUBSIANTIATION: The inclusion of "Continuous Load" and the
accompanying derating rules in the National Electrical Code some
time ago was a well intended, but unnecessar] refinement in the
practical application of the Code.
The consideration of "Continuous Load" clearly belongs in
electrical handbooks and other designers' guides but not in a
safety code. "In Section 90-1(c) i t is stated that "This is not
intended as a design specification..." I t is ludicrous to
consider an installation safe where i t carries current for
slightly less than three hours and unsafe where this time is
exceeded. I t is just as ridiculous to consider an installation
safe where i t is carrying continuous current and is momentarily
interrupted every three hours. The ampacity ratings for
conductors in Article 310 are continuous ratings and the derating
factors for continuous loads are design considerations to reduce
nuisance tripping current breakers that are not temperature
compensated where enclosed in panelboards. Nuisance tripping is
not generally considered a safety hazard.
Other Code articles where changes from watts to volt-amweres
should be addressed:
Sections 550-5,-11, -22
551-8, -44
600-6(c )
REIGN; The substantiation is correct. The Correlating Committee
should appoint a Technical Subcommittee to correlate these changes
throughout the Code.
44
Log # 356
2- 128 - (220-2(b)(2)-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: George Schulz, Sheldon, IA
~ATION:
Receptacle Loads. The total allowable load for
branch circuits 15 or 20 amperes shall be computed at 1 i / 2
amperes per outlet. Where computed according to this the amperage
of the outlets shall not exceed the amperage of the circuit.
SUBSTANTIATION: The number of outlets allowed on a branch circuit
now is unlimited due to calculating by watts per square foot. I t
would be very easy to put an excess number of outlets on i
circuit. Limiting each outlet to 1 i / 2 amperes each and
calculating the maximum number of outlets by that would help
eliminate the possibility of an overload.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Adequately covered by the Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
By deleting the references to "Continuous Load" in the National
Electrical Code an important step toward practicality will be
achieved allowing inspectors, plan reviewers, and others whose
duties consist of evaulating an installation to concern themselves
with the safety provided by conductor size, material, insulation,
and overcurrent protection. The time element of an installation
is an impractical, unenforceable and unrelated element of safety
within the referenced sections.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~
:
See Panel CoF~nent for Proposal 2-55.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 219
2- 124 - (220-2(a), Exception No. I ) : Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was ~he action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the voting.
SUBMITTER: John C. Miller, Abolite Lighting, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception No. 1.
SUBSTANTIATION: With the increased ampacities of some of the
conductors in Tables 310-16 through 310-19 the derating
requirements of Note No. 8 to the tables would permit the load to
be the same as the branch circuit rating, ie, No. 14 TW = 20 A,
6 conductors in a raceway requires 80 percent
derating, 20 X .80 = 16 AMP. Table 310-16 Footnote limits the
load to 15 amp, which is the same as the branch circuit rating.
This deletion would also bring the requirement in line with
Section 384-16(c) which does not have this Exception.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 2-56.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
REIGN: See my co~Inent on Proposal 2-56.
2- 129 - (Table 220-2(b)): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
RECOMMENDATION: Change last type of occupancy to:
"In any of the above occupancies except one-family dwellings and
individual dwelling units of two-family and multifamily
dwellings:" etc.
SUBSTANTIATION: To reflect Panel's intent in view of Article 100
definition of "Multifamily Dwelling."
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
2- 130 - (Table 220-2(b)): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
R~'-C-OI~'I~ATION: Change asterisk note to:
"All receptacle outlets of 20-ampere or less rating in
one-family, two-family and multifamily" ---etc.
SUBSTANTIATION: To reflect Panel's intent in view of Article 100
definition of "Multifamily Dwelling."
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1351
2- 125 - (Table 220-2(b)):
Reject
SUBMII-FER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Add a double asterisk note to the row listing
stores as requiring 3 watts per square foot:
Type of Occupancy
Stores
Unit load per
Sq. Ft (Watts)
3**
Log # 466
2- 131 - (220-2(c), Exception No. 5-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Darrell Hazelwood, J. M. Perry Institute
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Exception.
Exception No. 5. For motor loads in dwelling units, the branch
circuit load for each motor shall be the f u l l load current rating
of the motor when those motors operate on a diversity, such as:
garbage disposals and water pumps that supply the dwelling units
with water.
SUBSTANTIATION: I f motor loads, such as disposals, are required
~
~ u p
by 125 percent to Sections 430-22 or 430-24, too
large of a service load will be calculated for these motors,
particularly in a multifamily dwelling situation. These loads, by
their nature of operation and function, are never on for any
length of time. Consequently, no increase of the f u l l load
current is justified to allow for continuous operation.
The "NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODEHandbook" which the NFPAendorses
by the presence of the coupon offering in the front of the 1981
NEC, does not increase the f u l l load current values for i t ' s
disposal and water pump's load in a dwelling unit (see page 94,
Section 220-17). I f the NFPA does not intend for these loads to
be increased by 125 percent, then the Code Sections 220-2(c)(2)
should be changed or the endorsed handbook should reflect Section
220-2(c)(2).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PTTNEL COMMENT: Proposal would create a conflict in other sections
of the Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
SUBSTANTIATION: This would allow speculative type store
occupancies to use the same allowance as offices for receptacle
loads when the total is not known at the time of building. Many
stores are b u i l t where the final occupant is unknown and in order
to ensure adequate feeder and service capacity, many designers are
using rule-of-thumb aids which require the inspecting agency to
give special permission and involve Section 90-4.
This will give guidance to designers, installers, and inspectors
alike.
(This proposal should be coordinated with a proposal for a new
Section 220-X.)
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Load calculations are adequately covered in
• present Code.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 668
2- 126 - (Table 220-2(b)): Accept
SUBMITTER: Warren H. Cook, IEEE
~ATION:
Halls, Corridors, Closets, "Stairways" i/2
(Addition in quotations)
SUBSTANTIATION: Stairways are equivalent to halls and corridors.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 38
2- 127 - (220-2(b), and Exception (New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RE-RE-C~~
i M-~--N-~ATION: Revise last sentence as follows: For dwelling
unit{s), the computed floor area shall not include open porches,
garages, unused or unfinished spaces not adaptable for future u s e
nor the areas stipulated in Section 220-3(b)(1). The minimum load
for each outlet in these areas shall be as specified in Section
220-2(c).
Exception: Outlets installed on circuits specified or permitted
by Section 220-3(b)(1) and (2).
SUBSTANTIATION: Requires a watts/square foot load for areas
served by small appliance branch circuits.
I f 3 watts per square
f o o t are deemed sufficient for general lighting loads, the areas
supplied by small appliance branch circuits (which may be a
considerable portion of the total dwelling area) should not be
included, In addition, other outlets which may be installed in
exterior areas for lawo or 9arden lighting, floodlights, patios,
etc., may add considerable load and should be indicated as load
which is additional to the watts per square foot load.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~
:
Already covered by the Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 20
2- 132 - (220-2(c), Exception Nos. 5 and 6 (New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Change paragraph (c) to: Lighting and Other
Loads-All Occupancies. Except when computed as specified in (b)
above, the minimum load for each outlet for general-use
receptacles, lighting, and other outlets shall be not less than
the following, the loads shown being based on nominal branch
circuit voltages.
Remainder of paragraph (c) to remain the same.
Add Exceptions as follows:
Exception No. 5: Receptacles specified in the FPN to Table
220-2(b).
Exception No. 6: Outlets supplying intermediate or candelabra
base l ampholders for decorative lighting may be computed at not
less than the volt-ampere rating of the lamp(s).
45
SUBSTANTIATION: No requirement for a minimum load per outlet used
for general illumination in non-listed occupancies. The words
"other loads" and "NOT used for general illumination" which follow
paragraph (b) do not leave Code users with a specific minimum load
to be applied to GENEP~ALILLUMINATIONoutlets installed in
non-listed occupancies (which do not have a minimum
watts-per-square-foot requirement). Further, this proposal will
limit the number of outlets installed on a branch circuit when the
actual fixture load is not known. The lastsentence of
220-2(d)(1) and (d)(2) which refer back to paragraph (c) is
somewhat confusing, because (c) as presently worded, EXCLUDES
general illumination outlets.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
HANbL CUMMENF: Panel believes t h i s is adequately covered.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
2- 136 - (220-3(b)(2)): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 2
~ATION:
Changeparagraph to read as follows:
"(2} Countertop receptacle outlets installed in the kitchen
shall be supplied by not less than two small appliance branch
circuits, either or both of which shall also be permitted to
supply receptacle outlets in kitchen and other rooms specified in
(b)(1) above. Additional small appliance branch circuits shall be
permitted to supply receptacle outlets in kitchen and other rooms
specified in (b)(1) above."
SUBSTANTIATION: To minimize activation of branch-circuit
overcurrent device caused by overload when all kitchen counter
receptacles are wired to one circuit.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1714
2- 133 - (220-2(c)(5), Exception No.l): Accept
SUBMII-[ER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~ATION:
220-2(c)(5),Exception No. 1: "Where fixed
multi-outlet assemblies are employed, each 5 feet (1.52 m) or
fraction thereof of each separate and continuous length shall be
considered as one outlet of not less than (1 1/2 ampere)"18OVA"
capacity, except in locations where a number of appliances are
likely to be used simultaneously, when each 1 foot (305 mm) or
fraction thereof shall be considered as an outlet of not less than
(1 1/2 ampere) "180VA." The requirements of this section shall
not apply to dwelling unit(s) or the guest rooms of hotels or
motels. (Deletions in parentheses, additions in quotations.)
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 220-2(c)(5) establishes the values at
180VA which is equal to 1 I/2 amps. The above change is necessary
for consistency since most load calculations are designated with
VA not amps, such as examples to NEC Chapter 9.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
LoI # 1454
2~ 137 - (220-3(b), Exception No. 1, Exception No. 2-(New} :
Accept
SUBMITTER: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
Bill Hogan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, II
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert,. Minneapolis, MN
B i l l Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch, Inc.
Homer M. L e f l e r , Chicago, IL
RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 220-3(b) so that the exceptions
thereto read as follows:
"Exception No. i . A receptacle i n s t a l l e d solely f o r the
e l e c t r i c supply to and support of an e l e c t r i c clock in any of the
rooms specified above."
"Exception No. 2. Outdoor receptacles."
SUBSTANTIATION: As the present "Exception" is written i t appears
to cover two separate and distinct sets of circumstances.
However, grammatically i t does not. I f i t is the intention of CMP
2 that there be two sets of circumstances where the small
appliance circuit may supply receptacles other than as stipulated
in Section 220-3(b)(i), this proposed wording does the job cleanly
and succinctly. There is no need for the additional verbiage
concerning the circuits, etc. That is already covered by the Code
and does not have to appear in an "exception."
This has been the subject of many discussions at various IAEI
Chapter meetings during the past year. Since there is only one
"exception" the outside receptacles must be supplying clock
outlets. Since that really doesn't make sense, we suggest that
CMP 2 clean up the wording as indicated so as to eliminate the
possibility of future disagreements.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 628
2- 134 - (220-2(c)(5)-(New) and 220-2(c)(6)): Reject
SUBMITTER: R. P. O'Riley, Dallas Joint Electrical Apprenticeship
~ i n g
Committee
RECOMMENDATION: Existingnumber (5) move down and make i t number
(6) but leave i t read as is.
"(6) *Other outlets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 volt-amperes per outlet.
Add a new (5) The load for the required branch circuit
installed for the supply of exterior signs or outline lighting
shall be computed at a minimum of 1200 volt-amperes. This
receptacle is not subject to demand factors f o r nondwelling
receptacle loads but is a continuous load.
SUBSTANTIATION: Number (5) is moved to make room f o r number (6).
Section 600-6 requires a receptacle to be i n s t a l l e d f o r outside
sign and gives the minimum computed load. This seems to be out of
place or hidden in the Code when calculations are being
considered. Also due to the f a c t i t has a d i f f e r e n t volt-ampere
rating of any other receptacle loads.
There is a need f o r the minimum load requirement f o r the
required sign o u t l e t to be l i s t e d in A r t i c l e 220 "Branch Circuits
and Feeder Calculations" as this is where a l l other calculations
s t a r t from.
Due to the f a c t the receptacle is l i s t e d at 1200 volt-ampere and
has a specific application i t should not be derated with these
other receptacles through the demand factors.
I f a sign o u t l e t is going to be required, t h i s indicates planned
use. I f a sign is plugged into the receptacle, i t w i l l burn for
more than three hours continuously.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is adequately covered in Section
225-10.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1011
2- 138 - (220-3(b)(1)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. H. (Jim) Richards, Maryland Electrical Inspectors
~ o n
RECOMMENDATION: Add after dining room "and a general purpose room
adjacent to the kitchen."
Change Section 220-3(b)(I) to read as follows; (i) In addition
to the number of branch circuits determined in accordance with (a)
above, two or more 20 ampere small appliance branch circuits shall
be provided for all receptacle outlets specified by Section 210-52
for small appliance loads, including refrigeration equipment in
the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room and any general
purpose room adjacent to the kitchen or dining area which is used
by the family for study, entertainment or general home tasks, in
all dwelling units.
SUBSTANTIATION: The wording Family Room (which has been removed
in the 1981 Code) was never f u l l y defined and the ruling was
either ignored or used very restrictively by some inspection
authorities. The use of "GENERAL PURPOSEROOMADJACENT TO THE
KITCHEN OR DINING AREA USEDBY THE FAMILY FOR STUDY, ENTERTAINMENT
OR GENERAL HOMETASKS FULLY DEFINES THIS ROOM." I t is f e l t that a
small appliance circuit is needed in such areas.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COF~MENT: Panel feels this is adequately covered.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnapimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 58
2- 135 - (220-3(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~ATION:
Suggest that the Panel provide a requirement to
proportion the load evenly between the two REQUIRED small
appliance branch circuits, or limit the floor area that may be
served by only one of these required circuits.
SUBSTANTIATION: No requirement for evenly proportioned load, or
limitation of area served by one of the two required small
appliance branch circuits. With no Code requirement to proportion
the load evenly between the two required small appliance branch
circuits, or to limit the area (square feet) that may be served by
one of these circuits, a condition could result in which one of
these circuits is serving a square foot area which is larger than
that permitted for a 20-ampere general lighting circuit. For
example, i f one of the required circuits serves only one
receptacle outlet in the kitchen for refrigeration equipment, and
the other required circuit serves all other receptacles, in the
kitchen and other specified rooms with a combined area greater
than 800 square feet, a load capacity may not be provided to equal
that required for general lighting circuits.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: No substantiation as to need. Not practical to
implement.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 513
2- 139 - (220-3(b)(1)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Delete "or more" in the 2nd and 6th lines.
SUBSTANTIATION: "or more" should be deleted because:
I~
two'20-ampere branch circuits should be sufficient and,
with "or more" you have technically disallowed appliances
fastened in place that are rated 12-16 amperes (see Section
210-23(a)) because this would require a 20-ampere circuit.
4B
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COM~NT: Panel feels this would not be in the interest of
safety.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1241
2- 144 - (220-3(b)(2)): Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~ T I O N :
Change Section 220-3(b)(2) to read as follows:
Receptacle outlets installed in the kitchen shall be of the
split-wired multiple-type receptacle supplied by not less than two
small appliance branch circuits, either or both of which shall
also be permitted to supply receptacle outlets in the other rooms
specified in (1) above. Additional small appliance branch
circuits shall be permitted to supply receptacle outlets in such
other rooms.
Exception: Receptacles rendered inaccessible by appliances
occupying dedicated spaces.
SUBSTANTIATION: The general public overloads the circuits with
heavy kitchen appliances which creates nuisance tripping of
circuit breakers. We have found in our area that some contractors
and the general public change the breaker to a larger one, which
creates a hazardous condition due to overheating of the conductor
and receptacles.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Proposal 2-136.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1860
2- 140 - (220-3(b)(i)): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA
RECOMMENDATION: Delete "including refrigeration equipment" in the
fourth line.
SUBSTANTIATION: With the proliferation and increased usage of
kitchen counter-top appliances, the capacity of the small
lappliance branch circuits is often f u l l y utilized. There are
frequent instances where the simultaneous usage of counter-top
appliances and the starting current of a refrigerator on the same
branch circuit has caused the branch-circuit overcurrent device to
operate.
Removing the refrigeration equipment from the small appliance
branch circuits will provide needed capacity on these circuits for
supplying the counter-top appliances for which they were
originally intended.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~
i
See Panel Action for Proposai 2-37.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 64
2- 145 - (220-3(c)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Lawrence H. Chapman, Chapman Electric"
RECOMMENDATION: (c) Laundry Branch Circuits -- Dwelling Unit.
In addition to the number of branch circuits determined in
accordance with (a) and (b) above, at least one additional
20-ampere branch circuit shall be provided to supply the
receptacle outlet(s) required by Section 210-52(e). A lighting
load of 300 watts or less for the laundry area controlled by a
wall switch will be permitted on this br~nch c i r c u i t . This
circuit shall have no other outlets.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 220-3(c) as i t now stands without
allowing for minimum lighting, especially in remote laundry areas,
both creates an unnecessary, arbitrary hardship upon the
electrician and a hazardous situation when the resident attempts
to obtain lighting by using a plug in extension or tap for a lamp
next to laundry tubs. A permanently mounted light fixture
controlled by a light switch is certainly safer than plug in lamps
which are in the proximity of laundry tubs, or plumbing outlets to
a washing machine.
The electrician in complying with 210-52(e) and 220-3(c) by
installing the separate 20-ampere branch laundry c i r c u i t has
computed loading of 1500 watts from 220-16(b) to wit:
1500 watts + 300 watts (lighting load) = 1800 watts,
and
1800 watts x 1.25 = 2250 watts (calculated minimum capacity for
conductor capacity.
The electrician has calculated that up to even 1920 watts at 120
volts is a permissible safe loading easily permitting a 300 watt
lighting load on the laundry branch c i r c u i t , to wit:
1920 watts x 1.25 = 2400 watts and,
20 Amperes x 120 volts = 2400 watts.
In the past there have been local jurisdictions which allowed
such a lighting outlet on the laundry branch circuit in these
cases without any overloading problems being caused by the
lighting load. To prohibit the small lighting load on this branch
c i r c u i t would seem that the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE is r e a l l y
placing an a r b i t r a r y and capricious r e s t r i c t i o n upon the working
e l e c t r i c a l contractor which can not be j u s t i f i e d by the ultimate
test of increasing e l e c t r i c a l safety.
In f a c t , by not allowing a
small l i g h t i n g load in the laundry area, in cases i n v o l v i n g a
remote laundry area; a hazard has a c t u a l l y been created should the
resident s t a r t to tap in l i g h t i n g f i x t u r e s from m u l t i - t a p
extension cords when no l i g h t has been i n s t a l l e d by the e l e c t r i c a l
contractor because the Code would not allow a permanent small
l i g h t and wall switch to be loaded onto the laundry c i r c u i t .
Furthermore, even with the l i g h t i n g w r i t t e n into the 220-3(c)
Code language proposed above there w i l l s t i l l b'e unused capacity
of 6-1/4 percentum in t h i s laundry branch c i r c u i t to w i t :
2400 watts - 2250 watts = 150 watts and,
150
: .0625 (%)
Log # 2084
2- 141 - (220-3(b)(1)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
~ATION:
Delete the words "including refrigeration
equipment" from Section 220-3(b)(1) fourth line.
SUBSTANTIATION: This new addition would relieve some of the load
that is presently permitted on the "two or more" circuits provided
for small appliances.
Also, i f accepted, changes in calculations would be necessary in
Examples of Chapter 9.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COM~IENT: See Panel Action for Proposal 2-37.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
\
Log # 39
2- 142 - (220-3(b)(1) Exception): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake V i l l a g e , CA
R~E'~]~E']~R~ATION: Revise as follows:
Receptacles i n s t a l l e d solely f o r the e l e c t r i c supply and support
of e l e c t r i c clocks in any of these stipulated rooms, or AN outdoor
receptacle o u t l e t MAY be supplied by a small appliance branch
circuit.
SUBSTANTIATION: May be i n t e r p r e t e d to p r o h i b i t an individual
branch c i r c u i t f o r outdoor receptacle, or the i n s t a l l a t i o n of more
than one clock o u t l e t . Present wording may be interpreted to
l i m i t clock o u t l e t s to one, and to preclude an individual branch
c i r c u i t f o r outdoor receptacles.
I t does not l i m i t the number of
outdoor.receptacle o u t l e t s which may be i n s t a l l e d , such as in
gardens, lawn areas, e t c . , which may supply permanent loads which
are cord- and plug-connected, which may c o n s t i t u t e substantial
load.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Present wording r e f l e c t s Panel intent not to l i m i t
the clock and outdoor receptacle o u t l e t s to one.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 430
2- 143 - (220-3(b)(2)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
~ATION:
ChangeSection 220-3(b)(2) to read as follows:
Receptacle outlets installed in the kitchen shall be of the
split yoke multiple type receptacle supplied by not less than two
small appliance branch circuits, either or both of which shall
also be permitted to supply receptacle outlets in the other rooms
specified in (1) above. Additional small appliance branch
circuits shall be permitted to supply receptacle outlets in such
other rooms.
Exception: Receptacles rendered inaccessible by appliances
occupying dedicated spaces.
SUBSTANTIATION: The general public overloads the circuits with
heavy kitchen appliances which creates nuisance tripping of
circuit breakers. We have found in our area that some contractors
and the general public change the breaker to a larger one, which
creates a hazardous condition due to overheating of the conductor
and receptacles.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The wiring method in the proposal is more
restrictive than the Panel intent. See Panel Proposal 2-136.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal would defeat the Panel intent of
retaining the laundry c i r c u i t as a dedicated c i r c u i t .
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 669
2- 146 - (220-3(d)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Warren H. Cook, IEEE
RECOMMENDATION: Add at end of paragraph: "Panelboard
branch-c~rcuit overcurrent device space shall be included to serve
the calculated load." (Change in quotations)
SUBSTANTIATION: Capacity to the panelboard but not used f o r the
connected load should be r e a d i l y available f o r future additions.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COM~IENT: The present wording requires that panelboard
branch-circuit overcurrent device space be included to serve the
calculated load.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
47
Log # 1286, 1903
2- 147 - (220-3(e)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI (1286)
"~iro/P.
Van Putten, Michigan Chapter IAEI (1903)
RECOMMENDATION: To end of Section 220-3 add:
(e) Space Heating Equipment (Other Than Electric Heat).
( i ) At least one ( i ) individual branch c i r c u i t of not less than
15 ampere capacity shall be installed for the heating equipment.
(2) Only those motors which are an integral part of the heating
equipment shall be permitted to be connected to the c i r c u i t
required by Section 220-3(e)(i).
SUBSTANTIATION: To assure continuity of heat in the dwelling,
this heating equipment shall be divorced from other c i r c u i t s .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Substantiation does net j u s t i f y proposal
requ~ rements.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Bowling.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLING: Would provide c i r c u i t for furnace controls with
assurance that i t would not be overloaded with other equipment.
Leg # 2089
2- 151 - (220-10(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Joseph C. Roohan, Whittier, CA
~ATION:
Delete all reference to "Continuous Load."
SUBSTANTIATION: The inclusion of "Continuous Load" and the
accompanying derating rules in the National Electrical Code some
time ago was a well intended, but unnecessary refinement in the
practical application of the Code.
The consideration of "Continuous Load" clearly belongs in
electrical handbooks and other designers' guides but not in a
safety code. "In Section 90-1(c) i t is stated that "This is not
intended as a design specification..." I t is ludicrous to
consider an installation safe where i t carries current for
slightly less than three hours and unsafe where this time is
exceeded. I t is just as ridiculous to consider an installation
safe where i t is carrying continuous current and is momentarily
interrupted every three hours. The ampacity ratings for
conductors in Article 310 are continuous ratings and the derating
factors for continuous loads are design considerations to reduce
nuisance tripping current breakers that are not temperature
compensated where enclosed in panelboards. Nuisance tripping is
not .generally considered a safety hazard.
By deleting the references to "Continuous Load" in the Nation~
Electrical Code an important step toward practicality will be
achieved allowing inspectors, plan reviewers, and others whose
duties consist of evaluating an installation to concern themselves
with the safety provided by conductor size, material, insulation,
and overcurrent protection. The time element of an installation
is an impractical, unenforceable and unrelated element of safety
within the referenced sections.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-55.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 867
2- 148 - (220-3(x)(x)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA
~ATION:
Section 220-3(x)(x). Each commercial building
and each commercial occupancy with ground floor footage accessible
to pedestrians shall be provided, at an accessible location
outside the occupancy, with at least one outlet for sign or
outline lighting use. This outlet shall be supplied by an
individual 20 ampere-branch circuit.
Exception: Interior hallways or corridors shall not be
considered outside the occupancy.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 660-6(b) requires, in the text of this
proposal, the circuit and outlet for such a purpose. Article 220
and specifically, Section 220-3, addresses "Branch C,ircuits
Required."
The submitter believes this text more appropriately belongs
within Article 220 than its present location.
Companion and correlating proposals have been submitted to Code
Making Panels 2 and 18.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is adequately covered in Sections
225-10 and 600-6.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 710
2- 152 - (Table 220-11): Reject
SUBMITTER: Donald M. Maston, Copper Development Association Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Change "next 20,001 to 100,000 at"
To: ';from 20,001 to 100,000 at"
SUBSTANTIATION: As presently worded, the statements are
confusing. The proposed change will c l a r i f y this and make these
statements consistent with a similar statement in Table 220-34.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Present wording expresses the intent of the Panel,
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Schuck.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SCHUCK: Agree with the proposer that the present wording is
confusing because i t is inconsistent with the obvious intent of
the Panel.
Log # 229
2- 149 - (220-3(x)(x)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: H . K . Glenn, Pacific Coast E l e c t r i c a l Association, Inc.
]T~-(~-~-~ATION: Each commercial building and each commercial
occupancy with ground f l o o r footage accessible to pedestrians
shall be provided, at an accessible location outside the
occupancy, with at least one o u t l e t for sign or outline lighting
use. This o u t l e t shall be supplied by an individual 20-ampere
branch c i r c u i t .
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 600-6(b) requires, in the t e x t of this
proposal, the c i r c u i t and o u t l e t f o r such a purpose. A r t i c l e 220
and s p e c i f i c a l l y , Section 220-3, addresses "Branch Circuits
Required."
This text more appropriately belongs within A r t i c l e 220 than i t s
present location.
Companion and correlating proposals have been submitted to CMP 2
and CMP 18.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 2-148.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 709
2- 153 - (Table 220-11): Reject
SUBMITTER: Donald M. Maston, Copper Development Association Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Change "next 3001 to 120,000 at"
To: "from 3001 to 120,000 at"
SUBSTANTIATION: As presently worded, the statements are
confusing. The proposed change will c l a r i f y this and make these
statements consistent with a similar statement in Table 220-34.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Present w~rding expresses the intent of the Panel.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Schuck.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SCHUCK: Samecomment as on Proposal 2-152.
Log # 1698
2- 150 - (220-10(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Add fine print note:
"Does not apply to the grounded conductor. (See Section
220-22. )"
SUBSTANTIATION: 220-I0(b) sometimes referred to by some
Inspectors which requires that the grounded conductor be sized as
a feeder conductor. This will identify that continuous loads do
not affect the grounded conductor.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels that the proposal could be
misinterpreted and lead to erroneous computations.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1920
2- 154 - (220-15, Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: Mark Shapiro/Richard Emmons, Michigan Chapter IAEI
~TION:
Add a new Exception as follows:
Exception No. 3: The service or feeder conductors shall not be
smaller than the branch circuit conductors.
SUBSTANTIATION: Article 220, Section 220-15 and Article 424,
Section 424-3(b) as presently written i t is possible to have a
smaller feeder to fixed electric space heating equipment than the
required branch circuit; especially i f the feeder is not supplying
other loads.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-115.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Reign.
4B
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
RLIGN: The substantiation appears to be correct. Section
220-15 says feeders to fixed elecric space heating are to be
computed using 100 percent of the connected load while Section
424-3(b) says branch circuits supplying fixed electric space
heating shall not be less than 125 percent of the total load.
Based on the above, i t is conceivable that a branch circuit could
be larger than the feeder.
This proposal should be accepted in principle, but rather than
add Exception No. 3 as proposed, a semicolon should be inserted at
the end of the f i r s t sentence and the following words added:
"however in no case shall a feeder load current rating be less
than the rating of the largest branch circuit supplied."
The Panel added these exact words to Section 220-20 in the 1981
Code when i t was pointed out by Proposal 162 in the 1981TCR that
a similar situation existed in this section.
SUBSTANTIATION: The wording in Part B of Article 220 makes i t
unclear that the feeder demand factors listed in Part B of Article
220 also apply to service-entrance conductors. The only way to
determine that the listed feeder demand factors apply to
service-entrance conductors is to draw that conclusion by looking
at the examples in Chapter 9. Even then the words "main feeder"
and "feeder" found in Examples 1, l ( a ) , l(b), 1(c), 3, 4, and 4(a)
should not be used to describe the service-entrance conductors.
Article 100 has specific definitions for these two conductor
types. The words "feeder" and "service-entrance conductor" are
not interchangable.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this is adequately covered in Section
230-41.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 499
2- 159 - (220-18, Exception-(New)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Ernest E. Cannon, Tempe, AZ
RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to read: Exception: In
multifamily dwelling units where constructed provisions are made
for dryers which preclude the later installation of larger
capacity and ampacity dryers, the branch circuit ampacity and the
load calculations may use the nameplate date of the dryer. (shall
be permitted in place of may?)
SUBSTANTIATION: A new generation of residential dryers and
washer-dryers has been developed specifically for the compact
apartment developer. These units have a load requirement some 60
percent of the NEC normal requirement. The Exception permits
further economies in the construction of multifamily units without
having an adverse affect. One such unit combines the washer and
dryer and operates under a nameplate designation of 3000 watts at
240 volts. (For the normal large multifamily installation on
120/208 volt supply, the heating element rating is reduced so that
this rating is correspondingly lower). These units are all
sub-compact, that is, physically they occupy less space. The
intent of the Exception should be to require that partitions be
b u i l t to "preclude" installing f u l l size units.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Proposal 2-160.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1662
2- 155 - (220-15(b)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Add new section as follows:
, 220-15(b) Air conditioning equipment load shall be computed in
accordance with Sections 440-32, 440-33, and 440-34.
SUBSTANTIATION: Sections 440-32, -33, -34 indicate how to size
conductors with air conditioning equipment. There are no sections
in Article 220 which reference these sections of Article 440. I t
would provide logical reference for sizing the feeder conductor
for air conditioning equipment.
•
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Already covered in Section 210-2.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1828
2- 156 - (220-16(b)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Paul E. Phelan, Trade Education Inc. and New Hampshire
~
l
Contractors Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Last sentence changed to read:
" I t shall be permissible to include this load with the general
lighting load and "subject i t " to the demand factors provided in
Section 220-11."
SUBSTANTIATION: Readability. The present form doesn't mean
anything.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels that the present wording is
understandable.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Schuck.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
SCHUCK: Agree with submitter.
2- 160 - (220-18, Exception): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: C~ 2
~ATION:
In multifamily dwelling units, where provisions
are made for dryers which preclude the later installation of
larger capacity dryers, the nameplate rating of the dryers to be
installed shall be permitted to be used.
SUBSTANTIATION: See Panel Comment for Proposal 2-161.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Cunningham.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
CUNNINGFLAM: This proposed exception indicates that dryers with
lower ratings will have their feeder size calculated by using the
actual nameplate ratings and the demand factors in Table 220-18.
Table 220-18 was developed from extensive u t i l i t y test data using
conventional dryers with ratings close to 5000 watts. There is no
test data supporting demand factors for dryers with lower
ratings. (The Panel was discussing 3 kW units.)
The use of nameplate data for smaller units should be permitted
without using the demand factors in Table 220-18. The total of
the connected loads of smaller units without a demand factor or
the diversified load of 5000 watt units, whichever is smaller,
should be permitted.
The Pane] Comment should have been referenced to Proposal 2-159
instead of 2-161.
Log # 1684
2- 157 - (220-17): Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOW~MENDATION: 220-17. (Fixed Appliance) Load - Dwelling
Unit(s). I t shall be permissible to apply a demand factor of 75
percent to the nameplate-rating load of four or more appliances
fastened in place served by the same feeder in a one-family,
two-family, or multifamily dwelling.
The term "fixed appliance" should be changed to whichever of the
following terms would be most appropriate:
"Permanently connected appliance"
"Cord- and plug-connected appliance"
"Fastened in place appliance"
"Located to be on a specific current"
(Deleted material in parentheses, added material in quotations).
SUBSTANTIATION: For consistency, the term "fixed appliance"
should be removed and other appropriate phrase should be used.
Since the 1981 Code removed the words "fixed appliances" from
Article 100, possibly the words of Section 220-32(c)(3) could
better identify its intent.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part.
Revise Section 220-17 t i t l e as follows:
Delete "Fixed"
PANEL COMMENT: The term "f'ixed" is confusing and is no longer
defined in Article 100 - Definitions.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 629
2- 161 - (Table 220-19, Note 5, FPN-(New) and Examples, Chapter 9,
Example No. 9-(New)): Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: R. P. O'Riley, Dallas Joint Electrical Apprenticeship
Training Committee
RECOMMENDATION: Add Fine Print Note after Note (5) of Table
220-19 to read:
"See Example No. 9 Chapter 9 for application of notes to Table
220-19"
Add to Chapter 9 Example No. 9 which will be applications of the
various notes.
Log # 468
2- 158 - (Article 220, Part B): Reject
SUBMITTER: Darrell Hazelwood, J. M. Perry Institute
~ATION:
Where the wording in Part "B" of Article 220
mentions "feeders," the wording should also include the words "and
service-entrance conductors."
Example No. 9
Table 220-19 COLUMN A
Two ranges equal ratings less than 12 kW
Two ranges from Col A = 11 kW feeder demand
49
Table 220-19 COLUMNA
Two ranges unequal, over 8 kW but not over 12 kW
The feeder demand shall not be less than the sum of the largest
two kitchen equipment loads.
SUBSTANTIATION: Using a term such as "other kitchen equipment"
permits the use of all loads not s p e c i f i c a l l y exempted. The
feeder being only required to be as large as the largest branch
c i r c u i t would at times allow an overloaded feeder. Manywork
areas have a bank of heat lamps that are on continuously and they
need total nameplate with no d i v e r s i t y . Example - 20 kW quick
recovery water heater; 5 kW f r y e r ; 4 heat lamps at 250 watts each
- total 26 kW at 65 percent = 16.9. Largest branch c i r c u i t would
be No. 6 cu at 60 amperes. Heater and f r y e r would require 69
amperes assuming a 120/208 v o l t supply.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
REIGN: I could accept t h i s proposal i f the second paragraph was
deleted.
The requirement f o r the feeder being only as large as the sum of
the largest two kitchen equipment loads could lead to an
undersized feeder.
Example: 4 kW booster heater; 3 kW f r y e r ; and four 2 kW food
warmers - 15 kW total x 65% demand factor = 9.75 kW ÷ 208V =
46.9 amperes or a 50 ampere feeder. The largest two loads would
be 4 kW + 3 kW : 7 kW ÷ 208 = 33.7 amperes or a 35 ampere feeder.
Treat as two ranges under 12 kW
Two ranges from Col A = 11 kW feeder demand
Table 220-19 Note 3 COLUMN C
Three cooking appliances 2 1/2 kW each (less than 3 kW)
From Col B demand factor f o r 3 units less than 3 1/2 kW = 70%
2.5 kW X 3 units X 70% = 13.2 kW feeder load
Table 220-19 COLUMN A
28 apartments each have a 12 kW range
From Col A 26 - 30 ranges = 15 + 1 f o r each range
15 kW + 28 units X 1 kW = 15 kW = 43 kW feeder load
Table 220-19 COLUMNA
50 unit multifamily dwelling with 12 kW range in each unit
From Col A 41 to 50 ranges = 25 kW + 3/4 per range
25 kW +50 X 3/4 kW = 62.5 kW feeder demand
Table 220-19 COLUMNA Note 1
20 unit multifamily dwelling with a 15.5 KE range in each unit
Ranges over 12 kWI 6% per kW in excess of 12 kW
15.5 kW rating - 2 kW listed = 3.5 kW over 12 kW 3.5 use next
larger 04 4kW
5% per kW excess = 4kW X 5% = 20%
From Col A 20 ranges ~ 35 kW X 120% = 42 kW feeder demand
Log # 1242
2- 164 - (220-20): Accept
SUBMITTER: IAEI
RECOF~MENDATION: Revise Section 220-20 as follows:
Kitchen Equipment - Other than Dwelling Unit(s). I t shall be
permissible to compute the load f o r commercial e l e c t r i c cooking
equipment, dishwasher booster heaters, water heaters, and other
kitchen equipment in accordance with Table 220-20. These demand
factors may be applied to all equipment rated 2 kW and larger
which has either thermostatic control or intermittent use as
kitchen equipment. They shall not apply to space heating,
ventilating or air-conditioning equipment.
The feeder demand shall not be less than the sum of the largest
two kitchen equipment loads.
SUBSTANTIATION: Using a term such as "other kitchen equipment"
permits the use of all loads not s p e c i f i c a l l y exempted. The
feeder being only required to be as large as the largest branch
c i r c u i t would at times allow an overloaded feeder. Manywork
areas have a bank of heat lamps that are on continuously and they
need total nameplate with no d i v e r s i t y . Example - 20 kW quick
recovery water heater; 5 kW f r y e r ; 4 heat lamps at 250 watts each
- total 26 kW at 65 percent = 16.9. Largest branch c i r c u i t would
be No. 6 copper at 60 amperes. Heater and f r y e r would require 69
amperes assuming a 120/208 v o l t supply.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NEGATIVE: Reign.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
REIGN: See my comment on Proposal 2-163.
Table 220-19 COLUMNA Note 2
Three 10 kW ranges, three 12 kW ranges, and three 14 kW ranges to
be installed in a multifamily dwelling unit.
Ranges of unequal rating average then increase in:
three ranges @ 10 kW (12 kW shall be used ) X 3 : 36 kW
three ranges @ 12 kW
X 3 = 36 kW
three ranges @ 14 kW
X 3 = 42 kW
Total kW
=114 kW
114 kW divided by 9 units = 12.67 average or 13 kW each
13 kW exceeds 12 by 1 - increase by 1 X 5% or 5%
From Col A 9 units = 24 kW
24 kW X 105% = 25.2 kW feeder demand
Table 200-19 Note 4 COLU~ A
A dwelling unit i n s t a l l a t i o n 3 kW oven, 12 kW range, and 8 kW
b r o i l e r all on the same branch c i r c u i t and feeder.
Add all together and treat as one range
3 kW + 12 kW + 8kW = 23 kW
From Col A one range = 8 kW
Note i - Over 12 kW increase 5% per kW in excess of 12
23 kW - 12 kW : 11 kW increase
11 kW X 5% = 55%
8 kW X 155% = 12.4 kW feeder load
SUBSTANTIATION: Application of the notes to Table 220-19 are
often misunderstood and misused.
Fine print note is to l e t i t be known that the notes are
i l l u s t r a t e d with an example in Chapter 9.
By adding the Examples i t w i l l help c l a r i f y the intent and the
applications of Table 220-19.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part.
Add Fine Print Note to Section 220-19 to read as follows:
"See Examples, Chapter 9."
PANEL COF~MENT: Enclosed information is explained in the Examples.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 72
2- 165 - (220-22): Accept
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECO#LMENDATION: Delete the word "connected" in the second
sentence and substitute the words "net computed."
S~STANTIATION: Does not correlate with examples of neutral
calculations in Chapter 9, and may require neutral conductors
larger than ungrounded conductors in many cases. Connected load
is generally interpreted as a computed, or nameplate rating load,
before application of any demand factors. Examples of neutral
conductor calculations in Chapter 9 apply demand factors to
computed loads other than cooking appliances.
Literally
interpreted, this section would require a feeder neutral larger
than the ungrounded conductors in many cases. For example: a
balanced 120/240 volt receptacle load of 30 KW; this section
requires the neutral load to be computed at 125 amperes. The
ungrounded conductors may be sized f o r a net computed load of 20
KW (per Sec. 220-13), or 83 amperes. I t seems reasonable to
permit a reduction in size of the neutral based on the allowable
demand factors wi~ich may be applied to the load.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1692
2- 162 - (Table 220-19): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y Inc.
ITE~C~PRE'I~I)ATION: Table 220-19. Heading "Demand loads f o r
household e l e c t r i c ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted
cooking units, and other household cooking appliances over 1 3/4
kW rating. Column A to be used in all cases except as otherwise
permittea in Note 3(below)."
SUBSTANTIATION: In handbook and paperback editions of the NEC,
Note 3, is not printed below this table and therefore the word
"below" should be removed.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Already covered in the Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 431
2- 163 - (220-20): Accept
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 220-20. Kitchen Equipment - Other
than Dwelling Unit(s). I t shall be permissible to compute the
load f o r commercial e l e c t r i c cooking equipment, dishwasher booster
heaters, water heaters, and other kitchen equipment in accordance
with Table 220-20. These demand factors may be applied to all
equipment rated 2 kW and larger which has either thermostatic
control or intermittent use as kitchen equipment. They shall not
apply to space heating, ventilating or air-cbnditioning equipment.
Log # 255
2- 166 - (220-22): Reject
SUBMITTER: C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN
RECOM--~-'-N-DATION: Amend the last sentence in the f i r s t paragraph of
Section 220-22 to read: There shall be no reduction of the
neutral capacity f o r lighting loads.
50
SUBSTANTIATION: This would preclude any problems developing when
a single-phasing condition happened to any type of l i g h t i n g
system. And single-phasing is preferrable to having a l l the
l i g h t s go out in a building.
Instead o f stating that the neutral of discharge l i g h t i n g
feeders shall be f u l l size; the Code should state that a l l
l i g h t i n g feeders must have f u l l - s i z e neutrals. Otherwise, should
single-phasing occur, the neutral would be too small to handle the
current. I t is c e r t a i n l y desirable to keep on as much of the
normal l i g h t i n g system, yes, even 1/3, which w i l l provide more
i l l u m i n a t i o n than the emergency l ! g h t i n g system.
00 ;i}::::{x00
IOOA
'1
3
SUBSTANTIATION: There is presently no mechanism that allows such
a reduction f o r clothes dryers as there is f o r e l e c t r i c ranges.
Yet the t y p i c a l clothes dryer uses the neutral only f o r a
f r a c t i o n a l HP motor and a small timer.
The 5000 watt requirement of Section 220-18 should not apply to
the neutral and i f i t does hot, i t should so state.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in P r i n c i p l e .
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Proposal 2-171.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
;I
2- 171 - (220-22): Accept
SUBMII~ER: Chip 2
~ T I O N :
Change 3rd sentence as f o l l o w s :
For a feeder supplying household e l e c t r i c ranges, wall-mounted
ovens, counter-mounted cooking u n i t s , and e l e c t r i c dryers the
maximum unbalanced load shall be considered as 70 percent of the
load on the ungrounded conductors, as determined in accordance
with Table 220-19 f o r ranges and Table 220-18 f o r dryers.
SUBSTANTIATION: To allow reasonable derating of a neutral f o r
dryers as is allowed f o r ranges.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
COMMENT ON VOTE:
YERKE: Add "3-wire dc or single-phase ac" before " e l e c t r i c
dryers." This is needed to point out that the neutral reduction
does not apply to 115-volt dryer i n s t a l l a t i o n s wherein there is no
b u i l t - i n d i v e r s i t y f a c t o r such as exists on e l e c t r i c ranges, etc.
,1.
IOOA
-~
OA
*
* --~200--A
- -
Fault at 'X'
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANLL COMMENT: Already required by f i r s t
220-22.
sentence of Section
Log # 1837
2- 172 - (220-22): Reject
SUBMITTER: Paul E. Phelan, Trade Education Inc. and New Hampshire
~ I
Contractors Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Possible change of last sentence to read: "There
shall be no reduction of the neutral capacity f o r that portion of
the load which consists of electric-discharge l i g h t i n g , data
processing equipment, or s i m i l a r equipment supplied from a 4-wire
3-phase wye system.
SUBSTANTIATION: T i e - i n with note lO(c) to the Tables 310-16
through 310-19.
Is this harmonic problem prevalent on ac
single-phase systems? I took the time to measure (with a hook-on
ammeter) the neutral current on a job I did with a balanced load
of fluoresent f i x t u r e s on a single-phase 3-wire system having
approximately 180 amps on each ungrounded conductor and we
measured only six (6) amperes on the neutral. There was no
apparent neutral heating.
I f this is also a single-phase problem, Note lO(c) should so
state. I f i t is "not" a single-phase problem, Section 220-22
should so read.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Lack of s u f f i c i e n t data to support proposal.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1198
2- 167 - (220-22): Reject
SUBMII~ER: Olaf G. Ferm, Ferm's Fast Finder Index
RECOMMENDATION: The last sentence of the paragraph should be
changed to read:
There shall be no reduction of the neutral capacity f o r that
portion of the load which consists of electric-discharge l i g h t i n g ,
data processing, or s i m i l a r equipment where there are harmonic
currents present in the neutral conductor.
SUBSTANTIATION: This w i l l correlate Section 220-22 with Note
lO(c) under Notes to Table 310-16 through 310-19 which had the
words data processing, or s i m i l a r equipment added to the 1981 Code.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
HANbL CUMMENT: There is a reduced size neutral f o r neutral
current over 200 amperes except electric-discharge l i g h t i n g .
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1688
2- 168 - (220-22): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y Inc.
~ATION:
Add last sentence:
"The grounded conductor shall not be required to be increased in
size f o r continuous loads."
SUBSTANTIATION: This is the intent of the Code at the present
time but many people are reading 220-i0(b) and r e f e r r i n g to feeder
conductors as grounded conductors also, and therefore requiring
the grounded conductor to be increased f o r continuous loads.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: On a 2-wire c i r c u i t , a neutral conductor shouid
not be reduced.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1738
2- 173 - (220-22): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 220-22. Feeder "Grounded Conductor" Load. The
feeder (neutral) "grounded conductor" load shall be the maximum
unbalance of the load determined by this a r t i c l e . The maximum
unbalanced load shall be the maximum connected load between the
neutral grounded conductor and any one ungrounded conductor,
except that the l o a d . . . "
Change a l l references from neutral to grounded conductor.
SUBSTANTIATION: Throughout the Code the neutral conductor is
referred to as the grounded conductor. By changing the word
neutral to grounded conductor, i t would provide an easier
t r a n s i t i o n knowing which conductor is being referred to.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Neutral conductors are not always grounded and
grounded conductors are not always neutral conductors.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1830
2- 169 - (220-22): Reject
SUBMITTER: Paul E. Phelan, Trade Education Inc. and New Hampshire
~ I
Contractors Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite t h i s paragraph in a subtopic form such as
a, b, c, etc. or as a series of exceptions to the general rule
s t a r t i n g at the word "except" on line 4.
SUBSTANTIATION: Readability. There is too much information here
to be presented as an essay.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel is unclear as to how proposed t e x t is to be
written.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 02
2- 174 - (220-23 (New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: This proposal is f o r a revision of the 1978
edition but was received a f t e r the deadline f o r proposals.
SUBMITTER: E.A. Bartsch, J r . , Bible Engineering Corporation
RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section as f o l l o w s :
220-23 Loads Served by a Transformer.
(a) Single Transformer: The load served by a transformer shall
be computed as 125 percent of the rated current of the transformer
rated 600 volts and below, or as 150 percent of the rated current
o f the transformer rated above 600 v o l t s , in place of summarizing
the unit loads.
(b) M u l t i p l e Transformers and Other Loa'ds: Conductors
supplying one or more transformers and other loads shall have
ampacity s u f f i c i e n t f o r the sum o f :
( i ) The ampacity required by Section 220-23 (a) f o r the
transformer with the largest r a t i n g .
Log # 1833
2- 170 - (220-22): Accept in P r i n c i p l e
SUBMITTER: Paul E. Phelan, Trade Education Inc. and New Hampshire
~
l
Contractors Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Add to this section a reasonable derating of the
neutral conductor f o r feeders supplying one or more household or
commercial e l e c t r i c clothes dryers.
51
l~I
00 percent rated current for all other transformers.
Other loads in accordance with Section 430-25.
Exception: The ampacity may not be less than that required by
Section 450-3.
SUBSTANTIATION: Here is a proposal for a new paragraph for the
1981 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODEto c l a r i f y the handling of loads
that are served by transformers and the feeder sizing for these
loads. The 1978 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, Article 220, in simple
terms; requires feeders sized, as a minimum, to handle 125 percent
of the long term loads and the largest motor, plus 100 percent of
the other load. Article 450, requires overcurrent protection for
the transformer at certain maximums. Except for control and
special use transformers, transformers are a i00 percent rated
device with short time overload capabilities. (Roughly similar to
motor ratings.) Transformers, conductors and overcurrent devices
come in discrete size increments which are poorly related to each
other. Thus, i t frequently happens in our experience, that
Article 220 requires large sized conductors for primary and
secondary connections to the transformer and for the bus of the
panelboards, both feeding the primary and fed by the secondary,
which are protected by overcurrent devices which are smaller than
the conductor ampacity. On the other hand, selection of a larger
transformer would allow part of its capacity to be unused i f
conductors based upon the load are properly protected.
This paragraph therefore, attempts to recognize that a
transformer is a " f i l t e r " to the electrical system just as a motor
is to the mechanical load, consequently should be recognized as
such and not ignored by the Code in this matter and the loads
served by a transformer should lose their identity. Further, that
the conductors and busses surrounding the transformer are sized to
the transformer rating and not to its calculated secondary load.
We realize f u l l well that this is contrary to the long standing
tradition in the Codes of sizing services based upon the unit
loads.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Load should determine size of transformer.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1726
2- 177 - (220-31): Accept
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 220-31. Optional Calculation for Additional
Loads in Existing Dwelling Unit. For an existing dwelling unit
presently being served by an existing 120/240 volt or 208Y/120,
3-wire, (60-ampere service) i t shall be permissible to compute
load calculations as follows:
Delete 60-ampere service.
SUBSTANTIATION: The use of the optional method really cannot be
used by this stringent requirement that i t be limited to 60-amp
existing services. I t should apply to all services.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 505
2- 178 - (220-31): Accept
SUBMITTER: Joseph E. McCann, City of Coral Springs, FL
RECOMMENDATION: Section 220-31 - Optional Calculation for
Additional Loads in Existing Dwelling Units. For an existing
dwelling unit presently being served by an existing 120/240 or
,208Y/120, (delete "60-ampere service") i t shall be pemissible to
compute load calculation as follows~
SUBSTANTIATION: In reading Section 220-31 optional calculations
for additional load in existing dwelling's units i t states for
120/240 volt or 208Y/120 3~wire, "60-ampere service" i t shall be
permissible to compute the load as follows:
I notice that Section 220-31 directs attention only to
"60-ampere services" and not to any other. What about additional
loads on existing 100 ampere, 150, etc?,
Does Section 220-35 optional calculations for additional loads
to existing installations apply to dwelling units?
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1715
2- 179 - (Table 220-34): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
-RIL'C'O-~/~E~T(~TION: Table 220-34
Connected load up to and including 3, (plus)
100
Connected load over 3 and including 20, (plus)
75
Connected load over 20 at
25
SUBSTANTIATION: Eliminate words "plus" as i t is understood that
these would be added and the words cause confusion.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Present wording more clearly reflects Panel intent.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1709
2- 175 - (220-30(b)(3)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOI~MENDATION: 220-30(b)(3). "The nameplate rating of all
(fixed) appliances, ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted
cooking units, and including four or more separately controlled
space heating units."
Change the word "fixed" to include whichever of the following
terms is appropriate:
"Permanently connected appliance"
"Fastened in place appliance"
"Cord and plug connected appliance"
"Located to be on a specific circuit"
SUBSTANTIATION: For consistency, the term "fixed" should be
removed and other appropriate phrase should be used.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: Revise Section 220-30(b)(3) as follows: "The
nameplate of all "fastened in place" appliances, etc."
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 170
2- 180 - (220-36-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Alexander M. Stevens, A. M. Stevens and Assoc.
RECOMMENDATION: That service entrance section sizing on
structures which are repetitive in,nature such as restaurant
franchises be governed by demand history of the average of at
least three other identical installations in the geographical area.
SUBSTANTIATION: For the most part I have been forced by code
considerations to specify 1,000 amperes and even 1,200 amperes
service for McDonald's Hamburger restaurants.
During cursory
checks of these restaurants I have never run across a demand
running higher than 600 Amperes.
When remodeling occurs, one is permitted to base service
entrance sizes on the demand history of the existing structure. A
repeatedl~ built franchise operation is even more predictable than
a remodellng operation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Not justified by the Substantiation.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1718
2- 176 - (220-30(c)(4)): Accept
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~ATION:
Delete Section 220-30(c)(4).
SUBSTANTIATION: Delete Section 220-30(c)(4) because the heading
states that the largest of ( c ) ( I ) , (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(4) is to
be used in determining the air conditioning or heating load for
optional calculations. (c)(4) creates confTicts and confusion
because 220-30(b)(3) also states four or more separately
controlled space heating units.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 8
NEGATIVE: Cunningham, Reign.
COMMENTON VOTE:
YERKE: By deleting "(4) the connected load of four or more
separately..." from Section 220-30c, i t does not become subject to
the application of Section 220-21. As i t reads, air conditioning
would always have to be included when there are four or more
separately controlled space heating units.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
CUNNINGHAM: The Panel appointed a Task Group with Robert J.
Cunningham as chairman with members David Brown, Anthony Lordi,
ahd Thomas Sparling. We are to recommend action on Proposals
2-176, 2-177, 2-178 which propose revisions of Sections 220-30 and
220-31 and the examples.
Possible action that can be taken by the Task Force and the
Panel at the next meeting could be to revise Sections 220-30 and
220-31 or perhaps to delete Section 220-30(c) altogether because
Table 220-30 already covers this material.
REIGN: My notes indicate the Panel appointed a Task Group
consisting of Cunningham (Chairman), Brown~ Lordi and Sparling to
investigate and recommend action on this proposal.
52
SUBSTANTIATION: The problem with the original proposal, as stated
by the pane-~-~[~-,was that i t contained primarily design
requirements. The specific design specification therefore, have
them eliminated and the only "design requirements" remaining are
those required for the protection of electricians maintaining or
repairing electrical systems within the enclosure or for the
protection of conductors. These "design requirements" are
consistent with other Sections of the NEC which establish design
c r i t e r i a for these purposes.
The problem with the present NEC, in relation to this type of
enclosure, is that i t does not specifically recognize i t as an
approved wiring method. Section 110-8 wiring method states, "only
wiring methods recognized as suitable are included in this Code."
Article 370 makes no mention of this type of enclosure nor the
conditions or environment in which i t is installed. Consequently,
there are no minimum standards to provide for workman safety.
Working in a manhole is hazardous at best and i f the conductors
have not been installed to provide a working area or there are
ungrounded metal parts i t can be deadly..
Furthermore, the conductors in manholes and handholes which have
restricted work space and dimensions will be subject to damage by
workmen standing on them or working in the confined space.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~NTCL~T:
The Panel feels that i t is impractical to include
speC~Ci-c details which will cover all design contingencies for all
areas of the country. The Code is not intended to be a design
manual.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
ARTICLE 225 -- OUTSIDE BRANCHCIRCUITS
AND FEEDERS
Log #125
4- 1 - (Article 225): Reject
Secretary's Note: This Comment (No. 70-66, CMP 2) on Proposal
No. 194 was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See
NEC-TCD-1980 Annual Meeting. The following was the Secretary's
Note with this comment.
"The Correlating Committee agrees with the Panel's original
comment that this is primarily a design consideration and does not
feel a Technical Subcommittee is necessary."
SUBMITTER: R. S. Pinkerton, Electrical Code Advisory Committee
for City of Los Angeles.
RECOI~IENDATION: The following revised proposal is intended to
answer the Panel's objection by deleting design requirements. In
following revision, the new words and sentences are in captial
letters and the deleted wording is struck out.
B. Manholes and Handholes
225-40. Scope. The provisions of Section 225-40 through 225-43
apply to the construction and installation of manholes and
handholes CONSTRUCTED OF CONCRETE, MASONRYOR OTHER SUITABLE
CORROSION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. For the purpose of these provisions
a manhole is a chamber in an underground conduit system containing
working space large enough for a person to enter. A handhole is a
permanent opening in an underground conduit system, an enclosure
smaller than a manhole, with a removable top and used in lieu of
an approved pull or junction box. The handhole shall be so
designed that the conductors may be pulled, spliced or otherwise
handled without requiring a person to enter the enclosure.
225-41. Manholes.
(a) Manholes shall be constructed in accordance with all
Municipal and State Codes and in accordance with the following:
1. Inside measurements shall be not less than 4 feet between
the side walls thereof, or i f circular in shape not less than 4
feet in diameter inside measurement and not less than 5 feet at
all points between the floor and the top or ceiling.
2. Any access opening to outer air shall be not less than 26
inches i f circular in shape, or not less than 24 X 26 inches clear
measurement i f rectangular in shape.
3. Floors shall be of concrete, stone, brick or similar
material not subject to decomposition.
(b) Manholes shall be installed only in permanently accessible
locations outside the exterior perimeter wall of buildings.
Exception: Manholes may be installed inside of buildings by
special permission.
(c) Conduits shall enter AND BE TERMINATED in the manhole in a
manner consistent with the type of wiring method used and in
accordance with the following:
1. Conduits shall enter the enclosure through the walls and be
terminated in a manner that provides suitable protection for the
type of wiring method used.
2. Direct burial conductors shall enter the enclosure by means
of conduit nipples which shall be suitably sealed.
(d)' Means For draining the enclosure shall be.provided where
practical.
(e) Suitable wall supports or racks shall be provided to secure
open conductors in a fixed position 2 inches or more above the
floor.
(f) Different systems including high and low voltage systems,
may be installed in a manhole where separated satisfactorily to
the enforcing authority.
225-42. Handholes.
(a) HANDHOLESSHALL HAVEwalls ~nd floors of handholes shall be
of concrete having a minimum thickness of 6 inches with dimensions
not less than set Forth in Article 370 and the following:
1. The minimum depth shall be 18 inches; and
2. The width shall be not less than half the depth.
Exception: Prefabricated concrete boxes (or other suitable
material) and their covers that are designed for the purpose, with
wall thickness less than set forth in the foregoing may be used as
handholes where satisfactory to the enforcing authority.
(b) Covers for handholes shall be f u l l opening and be of carbon
steel floor plate or equal with a minimum thickness of 1/4 inch
except where prefabricated boxes are permitted by other provisions
of this Section.
(b) Handholes shall be installed only in permanently accessible
locations outside the exterior perimeter walls of buildings except
by special permission.
(c) HANDHOLESAND THEIR where exposed to vehicular t r a f f i c , the
enclosure and its related covers shall be specifically designed
for the LOCATION AND LOADS TO BE I~OSED, INCLUDINGVEHICULAR
TRAFFIC.
(d) Conduits may enter a handhole through the lower wall or
bottom of the enclosure and shall be terminated in a manner
consistent with the type of wiring method used.
(e) Conductors shall be so arranged or secured so they maintain
a position 2 inches or more above the bottom of the handhole.
225-43. Grounding in Manholes and Handholes. Exposed
noncurrent-carrying metal parts of equipment, conductor supports
or racks, conduits and other metal appurtenances including any
metal cover and its supporting ring shall be bonded together and
connected to a common ground.
The size of the grounding means shall be as prescribed in
Section 250-95 except that where run exposed, the grounding
conductor shall be not smaller than No. 8.
Log # 14
4- 2 - (Article 225, Part A, Part B (New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: C.F. Pernick, City of Los Angeles, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add below the heading for Article 225 the word
~ f - p ~ e f - T x e d with a Capitol A and add a Part B to read:
B. Manholes and Handholes
225-40 Scope. The provisions of Section 225-40 through 225-43
apply to the installation of manholes and handholes. For the
purpose of these provisions a manhole is a chamber in an
underground conduit system containing working space large enough
for a person to enter. A handhole is a permanent opening in an
underground conduit system, an enclosure smaller than a manhole,
with a removable top and used in lieu of an approved pull or
junction box. The handhole shall be so designed that the
conductors may be pulled, spliced or otherwise handled without
requiring a person to enter the enclosure.
225-41 Manholes.
(a) Manholes shall comply with all Municipal and State Codes
and shall be in accordance with the Following:
(1) Inside measurements shall be not less than four feet
between the side walls ther~Jf, or i f circular in shape not less
than four feet in diameter inside measurement and not less than
five feet at all points between th~ floor and the top or ceiling.
(2) Any access opening to outer air shall be not less than 26
inches i f circular in shape, or not less than 24 X 26 inches clear
measurement i f rectangular in shape.
(3) Floors shall be of concrete, stone brick or similar
material not subject to decomposition.
(b) Manholes shall be installed only in permanently accessible
locations outside the exterior perimeter wall of buildings.
Exception: By special permission, manholes may be installed
inside of buildings.
(c) Conduits shall enter the manhole in a manner consistent
with the type of wiring method used and in accordance with the
following:
(1) ~onduits entering the enclosure shall be terminated not
less than two inches from the bottom or one foot from the tqp.
(2) Conduits shall enter the enclosure through the walls and
be terminated in a manner that provides suitable protection for
the type of wiring method used.
(3) Direct burial conductors shall enter the enclosure by
means of c)nduit nipples ~hich shall be suitably sealed.
(d) Means For draining the enclosure shall be provided where
practical.
(e) Suitable wall supports or racks shall be provided to secure
open conductors in a fixed position two inches or more above the
floor.
(f) Different systems including high and low voltage systems,
may be installed in a manhole where separated satisfactory to the
enforcing authority.
225-42 Handholes.
(a) Walls and Floors of handholes shall be of concrete having a
minimum thickness of six inches with dimensions not less than set
forth in Article 370 and the following:
{1) The minimum depth shall be 13 ilches; and
(2) The width shall b~ not les than half the depth.
Exception: By special permission, prefabricated concrete boxes
(or other suitable material) and t h e i r covers that are designed
f o r ti~e purpose, with wall thickness less than set f o r t h in the
Foregoing may be used as handholes.
(b) Covers f o r handholes shall be f u l l opening and be of carbon
steel f l o o r plate or equal with a minimum thickness of 1/4 inch
except where prefabricated boxes are permitted by other provisions
of this section.
53
(c) Handholes shall be installed only in permanently accessible
locations outside the exterior perimeter walls of buildings.
Exception: By special permission, handholes.may be installed in
buildings.
Where exposed to vehicular t r a f f i c , the enclosure and its
related cover shall be s p e c i f i c a l l y designed for the purpose.
(d) Conduits may enter a handhole through the lower wall or
bottom of the enclosure and shall be terminated in a manner
consistent with the type of wiring method used.
(e) Conductors shall be so arranged or secured so they maintain
a position two in. or more above the bottom of the handhole.
225-43 Grounding in Manholes and Handholes.
Exposed noncurrent-carrying metal parts of equipment, conductor
supports or racks, conduits and other metal appurtenences
including any metal cover and its supporting ring sha]! be bonded
together and connected to a common ground.
The size of the grounding means shall be as prescribed in
Section 250-95 except that where run exposed,'the grounding
conductor shall be not smaller than No. 8.
SUBSTANTIATION: Although i l is a common trade practice to install
concrete manholes ~nd handholes in outdoor underground conduit
systems, i t is not s p e c i f i c a l l y recognized by the NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODE. Properly designed manholes and handholes are
safe and meet the intent and purposes of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL
CODE, however, boxes which are improperly designed ,nay o f f e r an
unsafe and hazardous work condition and greatly increases the
chance for an electrical f a i l u r e . The proposed requirements for
manholes and handholes are practical and reasonable and provide
for reasonable safety. These requirements have been in effect for
many years in the state of California with notable success in
providing for workman safety and safety for the system.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-1.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 231
4- 5 - (225-XX:(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: New 225-XX t i t l e to be: Manholes, Handholes and
Underground Pull Boxes.
Section 225 XX Scope: The provisions of Section 225 XX through
225 XXXXX apply to the i n s t a l l a t i o n of manholes, handholes and
underground pull boxes.
Definitions:
Manhole: A manhole means a chamber in an underground system
containing working space large enough for a person to enter, which
provides space and access f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n and maintenance of
cables, transfonners, or other equi~nent or apparatus.
Pull Box: A box with a blank cover into which worktnen may reach
but not enter, which is inserted in one or more runs of raceway to
f a c i l i t a t e pulling, joining, supporting or inspecting conductors.
The term "Pull Box" includes but is not limited to junction boxes,
splice boxes, conductor support boxes, inspection boxes and
handholes.
Section 225 XXX Manholes
Manholes shall comply with the following requirements:
1. Inside measurements shall be not less than Four feet beLween
the side walls thereof, or i f circular in shape not less than four
feet in diameter inside measurement and not less than f i v e feet at
all points between the f l o o r and the top or ceiling.
2. Any access opening to outer air shall be not less than
24 X 26 inches clear measurement i f rectangular in shape.
3. Floors shall be of concrete, stone brick or similar material
not subject to decomposition.
4. Manholes shall be installed only in permanently accessible
locations.
5. Conduits entering the enclosure shall be terminated not less
than two (2) inches from the bottom or one foot from the top.
6. Direct burial conductors shall enter the enclosure by means
of conduit sleeve or bushing which shall be suitably sealed.
7. Means for draining the enclosure shall be provided where
practical.
8. Suitable wall support or racks attached to the wall(s) shall
be provided to secure open conductors in a fixed position two (2)
inches or more above the floor.
9. Different systems including high and low voltage systems
shall be physically separated.
225 XXXX Handholes and Underground Pull Boxes
i . Walls and floors of handholes and pull boxes shall be of
concrete or other suitable material, with covers that are designed
for the purpose.
2. Covers for handholes and pull boxes shall be f u l l opening,
and shall be of the t r a f f i c type when exposed to vehicular t r a f f i c .
3. Handholes shall be installed only in permanently accessible
locations.
4. Conductors shall be arranged or secured so they maintain a
position two (2) inches or more above the bott~n of tile handhole.
225XXXXX Grounding in Manholes, Handholes and Pull Boxes
Exposed noncurrent-carrying metal parts of equipment, conductor
supports or racks, conduits and other metal appurtenances
including any metal cover and its supporting ring shall be bonded
together and connected to a common ground.
Tile size of the grounding means shall be as prescribed in
Section 260-96 except that where run exposed, the grounding
conductor shall be not smaller than No. 8 cubic.
SU_BSTANTIATION: Although i t is a cow,non trade practice to install
concrete manholes, handholes and underground pull boxes in outdoor
underground conduit systems, i t is not specifically recognized by
the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. Properly designed manholes and
handholes are safe and meet tile intent and purposes of the
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. However, boxes wi~ich are improperly
designed may o f f e r an unsafe and hazardous work condition and
greatly increases the chance for electrical f a i l u r e . The proposed
requirements for manholes and handholes are practical and
reasonable and provide for reasonable safety.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~CTTO-M]~rEq~T: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-1.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1632
4- 3 - (Articles 225, 230, 240): Reject
SUBMITTER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los Angeles, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the word "approved" when used to mean the
use of alternate method(s) or materials.
SUBSTANTIATION: The NEC is incorporated in most construction
contract documents by reference. Therefore, the authority having
j u r i s d i c t i o n - the owner or the owner's representative, will not
be the third party qualified person contemplated by the
Code-Making Panel. Section 90-4 covers the case for governmental
bodies exercising legal j u r i s d i c t i o n .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel believes that the term "approved" as
used in these articles is proper and necessary in many instances.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 2055
4- 4 - (Articles 225, 230, 240): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee feels that this
proposal is editorial in nature and that i t is unnecessary to
repeat information already in the Code. I t was the action of the
Correlating Committee that this proposal be reported as "Reject"
as i t is not within the scope of CMP 4.
SUBMITTER: Ivan P. Nordstrand, Consumers Power Company
RECOMMENDATION: Propose each a r t i c l e have the Panel designation
A r t i c l e 90 - Introduction
(Panel No. 1)
A r t i c l e 100 - Definitions
(Panel No. 1)
A r t i c l e 110 - Requirements f o r Electric Installations
(Panel No. i)
A r t i c l e 200 - Use and I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Grounded Conductors
(Panel No. 5)
Article 210 - Branch Circuits
(Panel No. 2)
Etc.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present format of the published Code book
makes i t d i f f i c u l t and time consuming to determine the appropriate
Panel responsible for the article in which a problem is
developing. The addition of one line in parentheses under the
a r t i c l e number giving the Panel designation will quickly provide
the proper source.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 14
NEGATIVE: Kassebaum.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~ A - L I i ~ E - - I - t ' 5 " f 6 k this proposal is the editorial
responsibility of the Correlating Committee.
Log # 1686
4- 6 - (225-6(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Removefine print definition for Festoon lighting
~ g - ' 6 " ( ~ ) ' - a n d replace i t in A r t i c l e 100.
SUBSTANTIATION: The fine print notes definitions are being used
r--h-ro-u-ghout
t
the Code as in Section 430-71. There are definitions
in front of the chapters as in Section 680-4, as well as those
included in Article 100. For those not fmniliar with the Code, i t
is confusing to determine where a definition may be found.
Definitions should either be placed in A r t i c l e 100, or i f they
cause a c o n f l i c t with other sections, should be included in the
front of the section where they would be applicable.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~N]~'-C--COM}4E'NT: The Panel feels that the definition is sLill
required in Article 225.
See Panel Proposal 4-7.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
54
a. accept the o r i g i n a l proposal and add the f i r s t paragraph of
Section 230-24 which gives the basis f o r these clearances or,
b. rewrite Section 225-18 as follows:
Clearance from Ground. Conductors of not over 600 volts,
nominal shall have the minimum clearances f o r service
conductors as given in Section 230-24.
4- 7 - (225-6(b), FPN): Accept
SUBMITTER: Cf~) 4
RECOMMENDATION: Change the f i n e p r i n t note of d e f i n i t i o n to f u l l
text.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is the Panel's intent to make the d e f i n i t i o n a
part of the Code, rather than a recommendation.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 55
4- 8 - (225-6(b), FPN): Accept
SUBMII-FER: Dan Leaf, Westlake V i l l a g e , CA
~R~ATION:
Revise f i n e p r i n t note as follows:
See Section 225-24 f o r outdoor lampholders.
SUBSTANTIATION: E d i t o r i a l .
Fine P r i n t Note appears to refer to
{ncorrect section. Section 225-25 refers to location of outdoor
lamps, Section 225-24 refers to outdoor l ampholders.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
I/'O=FE'-qJN-TANCL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 582
4- 9 - (225-14(d)): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs C ~ ' s 4 and
16 to achieve c o r r e l a t i o n .
SUBMITTER: Ralph H. Lee, Lee E l e c t r i c a l Engineering, Inc.
]TE'-C-O-~E'-NDATION: Delete the following:
"Power Conductors below Communications Conductors - 30 inches."
SUBSTANTIATION: For coordination with proposal to change Section
~ r , ( - a ' ) - ~ t - o - - e l i m i n a t e power conductor placement below
communications conductors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: We feel that climbing space requirements are
necessary. I t is not always possible to eliminate power
conductors under communication conductors at a pole.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1769
4- 12 - (225-19(a), T i t l e ) :
Accept
SUBMIIq-ER: Louis M i r a g l i a , Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Change t i t l e from "Over Roofs" to "Above Roofs."
~NTI-ATI~:
The term "Above Roofs" is consistent with
requirements in Exceptions to Section 225-19 and also would be
consistent with Section 230-24.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 806
4- 13 - (225-19(a), Exception No. 5): Accept in Principle
SUBMII-TER: Robert A. Jutstrom, Westborough, MA
ITE'~TION:
Change Exception No. 5 to be the same as Section
2J6%26(a-~, Exception No. 2.
SUBSTANTIATION: Correlation required.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in P r i n c i p l e .
1 Delete "service-drop" and replace with the word " t h e . "
PANEL COMMENT: Section 225-19(a) is limited to outside branch
cir--~uq-ts" and" feeders.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1176
4- 14 - (225-19(d), 225-19(d), Exception-(New)): Accept
SUBMI~ER: M. F. 8 o r l e i s , EEl
RECOMMENDATION: Delete second paragraph and substitute the
~i'ng-E'x-ception:
Exception: Conductors run above the top level of a window shall
be permitted to be less than the three (3) feet (914 mm)
requirement above.
SU3STANTIATION: This change is f o r clariFicati~)n and ta be
~{stent
with the s t y l e manu~l gf the NEC. The basic rule in
three (3) Feet (g14 mm) so as to be out of reach fro.n windows,
doors, porches, f i r e escapes, etc. The Exception is f o r any
conductors run above window openings which are considered out of
reach.
A corresponding proposal has been submitted for Section
230-24(c).
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 380
4- I0 - (225-18): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Gary Lensch, Sheldon, IA
RECOF~IENDATION: 20 feet (6.10 m) on land traversed by machinery
used f o r c u l t i v a t i n g , ~razing, f o r e s t , and orchard, or where
subject to truck t r a f f l c .
SUBSTANTIATION: Due to the use of larger machinery I believe that
~wires
are needed to prevent e l e c t r i c a l shocks.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
COMMENT: The requirements in t h i s section are minimum
clearances.
Special circumstances require special design
considerations.
The 20 f e e t would c o n f l i c t with the National E l e c t r i c a l Safety
Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
L~-O-C-K: I think (914 mm) should be (9.14 m).
STANBACK: For e d i t o r i a l improvement, exception should read
"Conductors run above the top level of a window."
Log # 1196
4- 15 - (225-20): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Olaf G. Ferm, Ferm's Fast Finder Index
RECOMMENDATION: Change the wording to read:
Mechanical protection of conductors on buildings, structures, or
poles shall be provided where exposed to physical damage. Where
underground conductors emerge Fro,1 the earth they shall be
protected against physical damage in accordance with Section
300-5. Conductors specified in Table 310-13 shall only be
permitted to be i n s t a l l e d where part of a recognized wiring method
of Chapter 3.
SUBSTAN~F[ATIO____.~N: In i t s present wording Section 225-20 only refers
to Section 230-50. When one reads Section 230-50(b) i t is worded
in a manner that r e s t r i c t s many acceptable wiring'methods f o r
branch c i r c u i t s and feeders unless i n s t a l l e d 10 feet or more above
grade.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
F A ~ T :
Already covered in Sections 225-20, 225-23 and
225-28.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 14
NEGATIVE: Muska.
COM~4ENT ON VOTE:
STANBACK: Panel Comment reference to Section 225-28 should be
Section 225-18.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:'
MUSKA: Underground outdoor feeder and branch-circuit wiring
should be in ~onformity ~ith Section 300-5 which covers
underground i n s t a l l a t i o n s .
I t should not be in conformity to the
more r e s t r i c t i v e requirements of A r t i c l e 230 on services.
Log # 804
4- 11 - (225-18): Accept in P r i n c i p l e
SUBMII-FER: Robert A. Jutstrom, Westborough, MA
RECOMMENDATION: Change wording to be the same as Section
230-24~for
v e r t i c a l clearance to ground.
SUBSTANTIATION: Correlation of the two Sections is required.
PANEL ACTION: Accept i n P r i n c i p l e .
Revise the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs to read as follows:
12 f e e t (3.66 m) -- f o r those areas l i s t e d in the 15-foot
(4.57 m) c l a s s i f i c a t i o n when the voltage is limited to 300 v o l t s
to ground.
15 feet (4.57 m) -- over r e s i d e n t i a l property and driveways, and
those commercial areas not subject to truck t r a f f i c .
18 feet (5.49 m) -- over public streets, a l l e y s , roads, parking
areas subject to truck t r a f f i c , driveways on other than
r e s i d e n t i a l property, and other land traversed by vehicles such as
c u l t i v a t e d , grazing, f o r e s t , and orchard.
PANEL COMMENT: The lO-foot clearance requirements in Section
230-24(b) s p e c i f i c a l l y refers to service entrances and
service-drop cables.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVEi 14
NEGATIVE: Bowles.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLES: Although I agree with Robert Jutstrom that correlation
is needed, I disagree with the Panel Action and Comment. CMP 4,
in i t s Panel Comment, indicates that i t did not include the
lO-foot category from Section 230-24(b) because i t refers
s p e c i f i c a l l y to service entrances and service-drop cables. There
are other sections in A r t i c l e 225 {Sections 225-11, 225-15,
225-16, 225-17) that refer to sections in A r t i c l e 230 which
s p e c i f i c a l l y mention sedvices, service drops, or service
entrances. Triplex cable should be permitted f o r outside branch
c i r c u i t s and feeders with the same clearance provision as when the
t r i p l e x is used as service drop conductor.
I recommend that CMP 4
either:
55
ARTICLE 230 -- SERVICES
4- 19 - (230-2): Reject
Log # 1618
SUBMITTER: Richard B. Boyd, Jr., E l l i s Cannady Chapter, IAEI
RECON~MENDATION: Delete words "by only one service" and add "from
only one serv-Tce point" in the f i r s t sentence.
SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y what we understand to be the CMP's
intent. Other related changes may be desirable.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The intent of the Panel is to allow only one
service.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 643
4- 16 - (230-XX-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert C. Mierendorf, Square D Company
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Section 230-XX as follows:
Surge Arresters (Lightning Arresters) f@r Services of less than
1000 volts.
Surge arresters connected and installed in accordance with the
requirements of A r t i c l e 280 shall be placed on'each ungrounded
conductor on the load side of the service equipment.
Exception: Where surge arresters are connected and installed on
the secondary side of the distribution transformer which supplies
the service and located within 300 feet of the building or
structure served.
SUBSTANTIATION: At the present time insulation coordination
~outdoor
e l e c t r i c a l systems exists as f a r as electrical
u t i l i t y practice is concerned. I t does not exist, however, f o r
e l e c t r i c a l systems within buildings except by chance, depending
upon the impedance of the c i r c u i t s and the connected or
disconnected loads. As a result, transient overvoltages caused by
lightning strokes in the v i c i n i t y of power lines or switching
surges orginiating from u t i l i t y or other sources are l i k e l y to
impinge onto the service conductors to buildings and propagate
throughout the building e l e c t r i c a l system.
Insulation coordination within a building or structure can only
be achieved i f transient overvoltages are controlled to specified
levels. The essential starting point f o r a controlled overvoltage
"situation is at the service entrance, and this can be accomplished
by i n s t a l l a t i o n of secondary surge arresters at this location.
Surge arresters installed on the secondary side of a distribution
transformer and located within 300 feet of the building or
structure served are considered to provide similar transient
overvoltage protection. Secondary surge arresters are readily
available having ratings suitable for 120/240, 600 and 1000 v o l t
services.
The cost of i n s t a l l a t i o n is offset by the reduction of
probability of undesired incidents of loss of equipment such as
e l e c t r i c motors, television sets, smoke detectors, home computer
terminals and the like due to overvoltage stresses. In addition,
safety of persons and property is enhanced since the risk of
overvoltage causing flashover with the p o s s i b i l i t y of power
follow-current is substantially reduced.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Insufficient data to make this a mandatory
requirement.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 14
NECV~TIVE: Edwards.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
EDWARDS: With the increased use of consumer electronics, i t is
believed that further study of this proposal is j u s t i f i e d .
Log # 1455
4- 20 - (230-2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
B i l l Hogan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
B i l l Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch, Inc.
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
RECOMMENDATION:. Amend Section 230-2 so as to read as follows:
"230-2. Number of Services. Two or more services shall be
permitted to serve one building or structure under any of the
following conditions:
(a) Where one of the services supplies a f i r e pump.
(b) Where a separate service is required to supply an emergency
system.
(c) By special permission, in multiple-occupancy buildings
where there is no readily accessible location or space for the
service equipment necessary f o r all the occupants of the building.
(d) Where the required service capacity is in excess of 3000
amperes at 600 volts or less.
(e) Where the service capacity is greater than that which can
be served by the serving agency. (Proposers' co~nent: "serving
agency" could just as well be "the u t i l i t y supply company").
( f ) By special permission, in buildings of large area, either
vertical or horizontal.
(g) Where the d i f f e r e n t services have different electrical
characteristics such as voltage, phases or frequency.
(h) Where the services supply different types of loads or uses
that require a d i f f e r e n t rate structure from the serving u t i l i t y .
In each such i n s t a l l a t i o n a permanent plaque or directory, of
such size and c l a r i t y so as to be readily and immediately obvious
to all persons to whom such knowledge is of some importance, shall
be located on or immediately adjacent to each service disconnect
that w i l l identify the portion of the building served by the
service.
In all other instances there shall be but one service to a
building or a structure.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is obvious that most e l e c t r i c a l services that
are installed today are installed under the provision of one of
the "EXCEPTIONS" to Section 230-2. This makes the basic rule,
"one service to one building" rather inane. I f the "EXCEPTIONS'~
have proven themselves t o be e l e c t r i c a l l y safe and sound
engineering practice (and they certainly have or there would be a
clamor to have them removed from the Code) they should have become
the law, rat~er than the "EXCEPTIONS" to the law. Through the
years we have constantly been adding "EXCEPTIONS" which r e a l l y are
not "EXCEPTIONS" at a l l , but are acceptable methods of installing
services. We are sure that someone w i l l point out that we have
omitted some of the present "EXCEPTIONS." Those that do not
appear in our proposed wording as individual sections are included
in some other section that has been proposed or are not necessary
under this proposed approach. The present Code calls f o r a
"plaque or directory" to be installed at each service drop or
lateral or service equipment which w i l l denote a l l OTHERservices
on or in that.building and the area being served by each such
service.
When you are standing in front of a piece of service equipment
on the f i r s t f l o o r , you want to know what THAT service supplies.
You don't want to have to read through a five-page directory to
determine what service supplies the 2Bth f l o o r of the building.
High-rise buildings, and we know that this is a r e l a t i v e term
depending completely on where you are geographically located, are
taking the place of buildings thaty once were spread out on a
horizontal plane. The very simple fact is that land is too
expensive to continue to build in that fashion and serving an 800
foot high building is completely different than serving one 800
feet long. The information that is necessary is "What does this
serve?" We know that there are additional services and when we
get to them, w e ' l l know what each serves in turn.
In our travels around the country, we have found few individual
inspectors who have indicated that they were demanding and getting
the required directories or plaques.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel's intent is to require only one
service. The Panel disagrees with the f i r s t sentence of the
substantiation. Exception No. 7 is omitted.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
~ D { R ~ ¢ ~ # C - - S e e my comment on Proposal 4-24.
Log # 1619
4- 17 - (230-1): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 4 that
a r t i c l e scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating
Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel
Action.
SUBMITTER: Richard B. Boyd, J r . , E l l i s Cannady Chapter, IAEI
RECO~ENDATION: Relocate definition of "Service-point" from
Section 230-200 to the end of Section 230-1.
SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y what we understand to be the CMP's
intent.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The definition is used primarily f o r high voltage
and the present location is proper.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 368
4- 18 - (230-2): Reject
SUBMITTER: DaveKamies, Sheldon, IA
~ATION:
Where more than one service is permitted by any
of the following exceptions, a removable plaque or directory shall
be installed at each entry of the service conductors inside the
build by the incoming wires.
SUBSTANTIATION: The reason I w~uld like this Code changed is
because this would be over s u f f i c i e n t to put a plaque or directory
at every service, maybe you have a number of services why not put
only one removable plaque or directory at the main entry of the
conductors, at that nearest service. Telling the personnel that
where each service is located.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel's intent is to require a permanent
plaque or directory at each service.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously' A f f i r m a t i v e .
56
Log # 781
4- 23 - (230-2, Exception NO. 3b.): Reject
SUBMITTER: Thomas E. Trainor, City of San Diego
RECOMMENDATION: 230-2 Number of Services.
Revise E'~-c-eption No. 3 b. to read:
b. "By special permission," buildings of multiple occupancy
"may" be permitted to have two or more separate sets of
service-entrance conductors which are tapped from one service drop
or l a t e r a l .
SUBSTANTIATION: There has been continuing c o n f l i c t regarding this
particular i n s t a l l a t i o n of multiple service entrance conductors.
Such an i n s t a l l a t i o n is unacceptable in the southwestern United
States. Permitting multiple "services" in this manner leads to
unmanageable numbers of "service" disconnects on a building,
excessive lengths of unfused "service" conductors on a building
and the loss of any control over service disconnects being grouped
and/or accessible to f i r e safety personnel in an emergency.
Making this exception subject to special permission w i l l allow the
jurisdictions enforcing this Code to establish conditions where
deemed necessary to address these safety issues.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Proposal 4-24.
OTOTE-ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
NIEDERMEYER: See my comment on Proposal 4-24.
Log # 909
4- 21 - (230-2, Exception No. 2):' Accept
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power
~ATION:
Revise Exception No. 2. Added wording in
quotations.
Exception No. 2: For emergency, legally required stand-by,
optional stand-by~ or "parallel power production" systems where a
separate service IS required.
SUBSTANTIATION: The addition to Exception No. 2 is necessary to
permit a solar photovoltaic, wind or other e l e c t r i c power
production source to be installed in addition to a ( u t i l i t y )
service in a building or other structure.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
~-F#R~L
ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1890
4- 22 - (230-2, Exception No. 3): Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter Van Putten, Holland, MI
~ATION:
Delete part b. of Exception No. 3 and delete
designation a. Also, delete reference in Section 230-71(a) to
Exception No. 3b.
SUBSTANTIATION: Exception No. 3b grants blanket approval to
multiple occupancy buildings and in effect negates the provisions
of and need f o r Exception a.
Few sections of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE have e l i c i t e d as
many f i e l d problems, proposals, comments and arguments as the
matter of service entrance disconnects -- one, two to six, or any
number with as many as six disconnects on each set or subset of
service entrance conductors.
In the preceding four Code changes there Has been no less than
32 proposals dealing d i r e c t l y with the matter of one - - two to six
-- or more. In addition another dozen or so proposals have been
submitted which dealt with periphery issues - - f i r e pumps, height,
covering, etc.
The proposals represent a variety of interests, inspectors,
manufacturers, u t i l i t i e s , code consultants, contractors, insurance
underwriters. The proposers were from the east, the west, the
north, the south and the heartland of America. The concern
therefore is not indigenous to any regional, cultural or climatic
circumstance.
I t is emanating from a desire to express in a
concise manner what a service should consist of. Even Code-Making
Panel 3 in Proposal 34a to the 1981 Code attempted to set the
record straight.
The principal divergence of opinion appears to be with the
articulate voice of the e l e c t r i c light and power group, Mr.
William Bitterman.
His substantiation reference to 1933 is
probably accurate.
I do not have that issue but the 1937 Code
does say exactly the same in A r t i c l e 230 Section 2302 b.
"Buildings of multiple occupancy may have two or more separate
sets of service entrance conductors."
The foregoing is one
exception of three to the general rule which calls f o r one set.
A r t i c l e 230 of the 1937 Code states in Section 2351 b.
disconnecting means), "In a multiple occupancy building supplied
y a service in conformity with 2302 b. and having a common
readily accessible space available, the service shall be
controlled by a single means where there are more than six
separate subdivisions of the service." Further, Section 2371 a. 5
requires the overcurrent protection to be a single set of devices
where there are more than six separate subdivisions of the service
equipment.
As Code enforcement people i t is imperative that we look at all
of the components of the i n s t a l l a t i o n and therefore all of the
applicable Code a r t i c l e s . We w i l l not then be entrapped by the
p i t f a l l s of taking things out of context.
I find Mr. Bitterman's further substantiation comments t h a t ,
"There has been no adverse safety record since that time" to be a
very bland statement coming from a u t i l i t y person who is not
customarily involved with the condition prevalent beyond the
service point or interface of provider and customer. My personal
experiences can attest to many service-entrance conductors
consumed by lack of appropriate (not more than six) disconnects
and overcurrent devices on the service conductors.
4- 24 - (230-2, Exception Nos. 3b and 7, 230-3-(New)): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting dealing with c o n f l i c t .
SUBMITTER: CMP 4
~ATION:
Delete Exception No. 3b. Insert a new Section
230-3 t i t l e d :
"230-3. Number of Service-Entrance Conductor Sets. Each
service drop or lateral shall supply only one set of
service-entrance conductors.
Exception: Buildings of multiple occupancies shall be permitted
to have one set of service-entrance conductors run to each
occupancy or to a group of occupancies."
Add the word "latera.l" at end of the sentence in Exception No. 7.
Renumber the existing Sections 230-3 to 230-4, 230-4 to 230-5,
and 230-5 to 230-6.
SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y the Panel's intent on the number of
service-entrance conductor sets permitted.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOT~ ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NEGATIVE: Cock, Izydorek, Niedermeyer.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
- - I ~ O ~ : - - - I - a g r e e with the concept but feel some r e s t r i c t i o n of
service-entrance conductors is required on buildings over two
stories. I suggest buildings over two stories be limited to not
more than six (6) sets of service-entrance conductors per drop or
lateral.
STANBACK: Word "occupancies" in exception f i r s t line should be
"occupancy."
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
COCK: I am voting against this proposal because i t would be in
c o n f l i c t with Section 230-45 which permits two to six sets of
service-entrance conductors to be run to separate enclosures.
Exception No. 3b should be removed from Section 230-2 and placed
in Part E, Service-Entrance Conductors.
Section 230-2 should be rewritten to permit two or more services
under the conditions listed in the present exceptions and using
the format of Proposal 4-20 but retaining the present wording of
all the seven exceptions pertaining to services.
The number of disconnecting means For each service or for each
sol of service-enLrance conductors can be limited to not more than
six grouped in any one location in Section 230-71(a).
IZYDOREK: Proposal 4-24 (Log CMP) appears to be in c o n f l i c t
with Section 230-45. The new Section 230-3 limits multiple sets
of service-entrance conductors to multiple occupancy buildings.
Section 230-45 does not l i m i t the i n s t a l l a t i o n described therein
to multiple occupancy buildings. I, therefore, am changing my
vote to negative.
This c o n f l i c t can be eliminated be deleting Section 230-45.
Section 230-45 should then be reworded and added as Exception No.
2 to Section 230-3 as follows:
Exception No. 2: Two or more sets of service-entrance
conductors shall be permitted to be run to the service
disconnecting means that are located in separate enclosures and
supply separate loads.
NIEDERMEYER: We r e a l l y didn't reduce the footage of
service-entrance conductors on, or in buildings when we made this
change. My' vote changes to affirmative i f we change Lhe exception
to read: "except by special permission, multiple occupancies
shall be permitted to have up to six sets of service entrance
conductors o r i g i n a t i n g from a service p o i n t . * For a low building
(two stories or l e s s ) , and fed underground, the l i m i t of six sets
of service-entrance conductors shall not apply."
I
We must define the service: a. the drop or l a t e r a l , b. the
service point or interface, c. the service-entrance conductors, d.
the main switch or switches, e. the branch c i r c u i t devices or
feeder(s) to remote panelboards. We can then say with authority
there shall be not more than one service of a class to a building
or f i r e wall division and the service equipment shall be comprised
of not more than six disconnect switches. The multiple occupancy
building can have as many subfeeders as is necessary and
consistent with the a b i l i t y of the service to supply i t .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that i t is necessary to
d i f f e r e n t i a t e between Section 230-2, Exception 3(a) and Section
230-2, Exception 3(b) which provides f o r service-entrance
conductors.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
• I ~ O I ~ - O N ~ ( T r c T. . . .
NIEDERMEYER: See my comment on Proposal 4-24.
57
"Except by special permission, for a multiple occupancy building
exceeding two stories in height, the limit of sets of
service-entrance conductors shall not exceed six. Such multiple
sets of service-entrance conductors shall be permitted to
terminate in a common location which is readily accessible to the
occupants."
The exception, along with another proposal to limit the length
inside a building, should give some positive limitations on the
amount of unfused conductors on and in a building. Presently,
these figures are without any limit.
*See Section 230-200 definition.
Log ~ 918
4- 28 - (230-2, Exception No. 8-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Solar Photovoltaics
RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No. 8 to Section 230-2, as follows:
ExcepT~-6fi No. 8: For Solar Photovoltaic Systems.
SUBSTANTIATION: To permit use of a solar photovoltaic system in
conjunction with another service such as the normal u t i l i t y
service.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
g ~ T :
See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 4-21.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 432
4- 25 - (230-2, Exception No. 3b.): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
~ATION:
230-2 Number of Services
Exception No. 3: Multiple Occupancy Buildings
a. No change
b. "By special permission," buildings of multiple occupancy
"may" be permitted to have two or more separate sets of service
entrance conductors which are tapped from one service drop or
lateral.
.SUBSTANTIATION: There has been continuing c o n f l i c t regarding t h i s
p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a l l a t i o n of multiple service entrance conductors.
Such an i n s t a l l a t i o n is unacceptable in the southwestern United,
States. Permitting multiple "services" in t h i s manner leads to
unmanageable numbers of "service" disconnects on a building,
excessive lengths of unfused "service" conductors on a building,
and the loss of any control over service disconnects being grouped
and/or accessible to f i r e safety personnel in an emergency.
Making t h i s Exception subject to special permission w i l l allow the
j u r i s d i c t i o n s enforcing this Code to establish conditions where
deemed necessary to address these safety issues.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Proposal 4-24.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
COMMENT ON VOTE:
NIEDERMEYER: See my comment on Proposal 4-24.
Log ~ 670
4- 29 - (230-24(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Warren H. Cook, IEEE
RECOMMENDATION: Conductors shall have a v e r t i c a l clearance of not
less than "i0 f e e t " from all points of roofs above which they pass.
SUBSTANTIATION: This brings Section 230-24 into conformance with
Section~
and the National E l e c t r i c a l Safety Code.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
F A I ~ E ' L ~ T : The National Electrical Safety Code and
-S-~-tl~9
of the NEC contain other conditions not mentioned
in the proposal.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log ~ 808
4- 30 - (230-24(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert A. Jutstrom, Westborough, MA
RECOMMENDATION: Change to read as follows:
Ta~ Above'roofs: Conductors shall have a v e r t i c a l clearance of
not less than 10 f e e t from all roof space that is accessible to
pedestrians.
SUBSTANTIATION: Roofs that can be r e a d i l y walked upon by
pedestrians should have the same service clearance as required in
225-1g(a) f o r outdoor feeders.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~E'L~T:
Section 225-19 contains other conditions not
m~tfone-e-d-Tn-the proposal.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 433
4- 26 - (230-2, Exception No. 5): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
RECO~ENDATION: 230-2 Number of Services.
Exception No. 5: Buildings of Large Area, By special
permission, f o r a single building or other structure s u f f i c i e n t l y
large to make two or more services necessary. "All c i r c u i t s from
such separate services shall be r e s t r i c t e d so that no building
area shall contain c i r c u i t s from more than one service disconnect."
SUBSTANTIATION: A building of large area granted two services is
e f f e c t i v e l y tile same as two buildings with single services. The
Code should provide equivalent safety f o r occupants, f i r e service
and maintenance personnel in each case. I t can be extremely
dangerous to have two separate services supplying e l e c t r i c a l
equipment in the same area of a building.
This proposal establishes a minimum standard to eliminate such
hazard and, hopefully, c l a r i f i e s the intent of the Code related to
such i n s t a l l a t i o n s .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~I~dTE'[--~M]~E~N-T: Would negate some of the benefits of the second
service.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 381
4- 31 - (230-24(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Gary Lensch, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: 18 feet (5.49 m)-Over public streets, alleys,
roads, parkTng areas subject to truck t r a f f i c , driveways on other
than residential property.
20 feet (6.10 m)-On land traversed by machinery used f o r
c u l t i v a t i n g , grazing, f o r e s t , and orchard, or where subject to
truck t r a f f i c .
SUBSTANTIATIOIN: Dae to the use of larger machinery I believe that
higher wires are needed to prevent e l e c t r i c a l shocks.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 4-10.
VOTE ~
ACTIDN: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1177
4- 32 - (230-24(c), 230-24(c), Exception-(New)): Accept
SUBMITTER: M.F. Borelis, EEl
RECOMMENDATION: Delete second paragraph and substitute the
following Exception:
Exception. Conductors run above the top level of a window shall
be permitted to be less than the three (3) feet (914 mm)
requirement above.
SUBSTANTIATION: This change is f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n and to be
consistent with the s t y l e manual of the NEC. The basic rule is
three (3) feet (914 mm) so as to be out of reach from windows,
doors, porches, f i r e escapes, etc. The Exception is f o r any
conductors run above window openings which are considered out of
reach.
A corresponding proposal has been submitted f o r Section
225-19(d).
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
~OTE-~L
ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
COMMENT ON VOTE:
- ~ C ) ( ~
(914 mm) should be (.914 m).
STANBACK: For e d i t o r i a l improvement, exception should read
"Conductors run above the top level of a window."
Log # 782
4- 27 - (230-2, Exception No. 5): Reject
SUBMITTER: Thomas E. Trainer, City of San Diego
3TEILTOI~ETTDATION: Revise Exception No. 5 to read:
Exception No. 5: Buildings of Large Area. By special
permission, f o r a single bullding or other structure s u f f i c i e n t l y
large to make two or more services necessary. "All c i r c u i t s from
such separate services shall be r e s t r i c t e d so that no building
area shall contain c i r c u i t s from more than one service disconnect."
SUBSTANTIATION: A building of large area granted two services is
e f f e c t i v e l y the same as two buildings with single services. The
Code should provide equivalent safety f o r occupants, f i r e service
and maintenance personnel in each case. I t can be extremely
dangerous to have two separate services supplying e l e c t r i c a l
equipment in the same area o f a boilding.
This proposal establishes a minimum standard to eliminate such
hazard and, hopefully, c l a r i f i e s the intent of the Code related to
such i n s t a l l a t i o n s .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comnent f o r Proposal 4 - 2 6 .
~ N - - P A N ~ C ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 88
4- 33 - (230-40, Exception a . ) : Reject
SUBMIFER: Rusty Burnham, Fickett E l e c t r i c Co.
~DATION:
Revise Exception a. to read as follows:
a. Bare copper, aluminum, or copper-clad aluminum used in a
raceway or part of a service cable assembly.
58
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
~ ' F f V ~ ~ "-i"4"""
NEGATIVE: Bowles.
COCk'lENT ON VOTE:
-~"F~N~B-A-CITT~'I~6uld correct typographical e r r o r in Panel Action to
change "grounded conductors" to "grounded conductor."
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLES: While some c l a r i f i c a t i o n is needed in Section 230-41, I
think that CMP 4's modification of the proposal confuses more than
i t helps. I suggest that (1) and (2) be reworded as f o l l o w s :
"i00 ampere f o r a 3-wire service to a one f a m i l y . . . " Also, (b)
should be r e w r i t t e n as "Ungrounded Conductor. Ungrounded
conductors shall have an ampacity of not less than:" since (1) and
(2) are r e f e r r i n g to ampacity and not AWG size.
SUBSTANTIATION: As presently written in the 1981 NEC, the miles
of SE cabte containing aluminum conductors would be in violation.
Exception d. appears to apply to underground installations only.
Note: Underground installations should be covered in Part D, not
Part E.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Section 230-40 applies to service-entrance
c ~ s
on e i t h e r overhead or underground services.
See Panel Action f o r Proposal 4-34.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 15
4- 34 - (230-40, Exception d . ) : Accept
SUBMITTER: William O. Andersen, J r . , The Aluminum Association
RECOMMENDATION: Add the word "or" a f t e r "cable assembly" in
Exception d. This section would then read:
Exception: A grounded conductor shall be permitted to be
uninsulated as f o l l o w s :
d. Aluminum or copper-clad aluminum without individual
insulation or covering when part of a cable assembly or i d e n t i f i e d
f o r underground use in a raceway or f o r d i r e c t b u r i a l .
SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording o f Exception d. has been
interpreted to prohibit the use of aluminum SE-U cable. The
phrase "when part of a cable assembly identified for underground
use" requires all aluminum "Service Entrance conductors entering
or on the exterior of buildings or other structures" to be
identified for underground use. SE-U cable is not used
underground. The addition of "or" after "cable assembly".
separates and identifies the SE-U cable construction, eliminates
the current misinterpretation and more clearly demonstrates the
Panel's intent.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
STANBACK: For c l a r i f i c a t i o n d. should read "Aluminum or
copper-clad aluminum without individual insulation or covering
when part of a cable assembly used above ground, or identified for
underground use when used in a raceway underground or for direct
burial."
Log # 68
4- 37 - (230-41(b)(2)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake V i l l a g e , CA
~DATION:
Insert the word "net" before the word "computed."
SUBSTANTIATION: Text is unclear whether "computed" load is
connected load or load with allowable demand f a c t o r s . Chapter 9
Example i indicates loads before application of demand factors as
"computed" loads, and a f t e r application of demand factors as "net
computed" loads, with a statement re: conductors required to have
an ampacity of i00 amperes. This proposal would provide f o r
consistancy between the example and the t e x t .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel f e e l s that the terminology presently
used is proper and in accordance with Section 230-41(a).
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log ~ 212
4- 38 - (230-41(b)(3)): Reject
SUBMI~ER: Charles F. Kramer, Edison Bros. Stores, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Proposed Wording: 30 amperes f o r other 277/480
v o l t , 3-phase, 4-wire loads, and 60 amperes f o r other 120/208
v o l t , 3-phase, 4-wire loads, or other loads.
SUBSTANTIATION: Currently the use of 277/480 v o l t service is
commonplace in most large shopping centers serving hundreds of
small tenant spaces. These small spaces often have t o t a l design
loads (which include 25% f o r long continued load) of 15 to 25
amperes. While the service conductors serving power from the
u t i l i t y company or landlord d i s t r i b u t i o n center is a c t u a l l y branch
c i r c u i t r y and this a r t i c l e should not apply, many times the local
e l e c t r i c a l inspection a u t h o r i t i e s apply i t anyway due to the
branch c i r c u i t being metered.
The resulting problem is that a small space with the
aforementioned 15 to 25 ampere design load is compelled to provide
a disconnect switch and conduit and conductors some 3 to 4 times
larger than said design load and 2 times larger than the very
ample 30 ampere size. This is a punitive unnecessary expense to
the. small shop owner and i t appears to date back to the era when
small shops such as described automatically received 120/208 v o l t
service.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PAN'EI_--~:
The Panel f e e l s that the requirements and the
Exceptions adequately cover services.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1587
4- 35 - (230-40, Exception e.-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter Pollak, The Aluminum Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: e. Aluminum or copper-clad,aluminum without
individual i n s u l a t i o n when part of cable assembly with an outer
overall covering.
SUBSTANTIATION: In a r r i v i n g at the present wording of Section
Z30-4U, the ~de-Making Panel revised Section 230-40 to preclude a
potential shock hazard by eliminating the word "covered." We do
not believe the existing wording properly reflects the intent of
the Code-Making Panel with regard to the use of SER and SEU
constructions and propose that this be c l a r i f i e d as indicated.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action for Proposal 4-34.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 306
4- 36 - (230-41(b)(1) and ( 2 ) ) : Accept in P r i n c i p l e
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee to d i r e c t the Panel to c l a r i f y the Panel Action on this
proposal.
SUBMITTER: H. C. Taylor, Rio Rancho, NM
RECOMMENDATION: Delete 3-wire connotation.
To read: T ~) Ungrounded Conductors. Ungrounded conductors
shall not be smaller than:
(1) lO0-amperefor a one-family dwelling unit with six or more
2-wire branch circuits.
(2) lO0-amperefor a one-family dwelling unit with an i n i t i a l
computed load of lOkW or more.
(3) 60 amperes for other loads.
SUBSTANTIATION: 1. As written inference is made that all wires
are ungrounded.
2. As written i t implies that all conductors are to be of 100
ampere rating without regard to the derating of the third
conductor (neutral) allowed by Section 220-22.
3. Makes item (b)(1) and item (b)(2) compati.ble with item
(b)(3) which does not mention wire numbers.
4. Compatibility is maintained with Example 1, Table 9 i f in
that example the word "ungrounded" is inserted between the word so
and service conductors. . . . . . .
"To read:" so ungrounded service conductors shall be 100
amperes (see Section 230-41(b)(2)).
(9th sentence from bottom of page 70-644 NEC)
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Add "Two" before "lO0-ampere" in the second and third sentences.
Add the phrase "with grounded conductors" between "ampere" and
"for" in the second and third sentences.
PANEL COMMENT: Submitter's proposal would permit 2-wire,
TO-O----ampere services which is not the intent of the Panel.
Log ~ 728
4- 39 - (230-43): Reject
SUBMITTER: Donald L. Gregersen, City of Spokane, WA
RECOMMENDATION: Add to Section 230-43, wiring methods f o r
i n s t a l l i n g service conductors - (13) F l e x i b l e Steel Conduit.
SUBSFANTIATION: There are many places where steel f l e x i b l e
~t'c6Jld'be
used without creating a hazard - but where
aluminum conduit could not be used without creating a hazardous
condition, such as at motors, and where, due to locations of
service equipment to i n s t a l l r i g i d conduit is a real problem. We
seldom had any problem with f l e x i b l e conduit t i l l contractors
started using aluminum f l e x i b l e conduit. The difference between
aluminum and steel deserves special consideration the same as
given to the difference between r i g i d conduit and r i g i d
non-metallic conduit.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
P-ANEL COMMENT: The Panel does not agree with the submitter's
substantiation.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log ~ 1456
4- 40 - (230-43): Reject
SUBMITTERS: Leo Witz, Continental E l e c t r i c Co.
B i l l Hogan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
B i l l Conrardy, The Conrardy Co
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
59
RECOMMENDATION: AmendSection 230-43 so that i t reads as follows:
"230-43. Wiring Methods For 600 Volts, Nominal or Less.
Service-entrance conductors shall be installed in conformance with
all applicable requirements of this Code for the wiring method
being used and shall be limited as follows: ( i ) rigid metal
conduit, (2) intermediate metal conduit, (3) electrical metallic
tubing, (4) busways, I~I type MC cable, (6) mineral-insulated,
metal-sheathed cable,
open wiring on insulators, (8)
service-entrance cable, (9) wireways, (10) auxiliary gutters
(11) rigid nonmetallic conduit, or (12) cablebus. No e l e c t r i c i t y
unprotected service-entrance conductor shall extend inside of a
building or an enclosed structure more than five (5) feet. No
service-entrance conductor or raceway that encloses
service-entrance conductors, which when exposed to temperature
above their rating or flame emits toxic gases or harmful chemicals
shall be installed inside of a building or structure unless i t is
enclosed in a metal raceway or embedded in concrete.
SUBSTANTIATION: The changes that have been made and will be made
in Article 230 regarding the number of services permitted on or in
one building are just beginning to catch up with the real world.
Most services and therefore, service-entrance conductors have for
years been installed under one of the Exceptions to Section 230-2
rather than the basic rule; i.e. one service per building. At the
present time, there is nothing f i n i t e in the Code that limits the
length of e l e c t r i c i t y unprotected service-entrance conductors
inslde of buildings. This in spite of the fact that Article 240
goes to great length to assure that all conductors are provided
with some form of overcurrent protection. With the proliferation
of services on and in buildings, we will be faced with the
possibiity and probability of longer and longer runs of
e l e c t r i c i t y unprotected conductors. There can be no doubt that
such a condition is hazardous and can and will lead to more fires
and injuries i f not regulated.
We have chosen the figure, five (5) feet, simply because that
same figure has been the rule in several major cities for more
than fifteen (15) years and has created a minimum number of
problems. I t is our opinion that the distance must be as short as
IS possible and practical. I f that number becomes a major
stumbling block in the Panel discussion, we would suggest that a
simple answer to such a problem could be the insertion of the
words, "Except by special permission, no electrically unprotected
service-entrance conductor . . . etc." This would provide all the
f l e x i b i l i t y needed by inspectors, contractors, engineers, etc. to
accomplish the solution of any problem. All that would be
necessary is that the problem be presented in writing with good
and sufficient reason for departing from the basic rule and
permission would be granted by the inspector in charge.
Meanwhile, the basic rule prevails and all unprotected
service-entrance conductors must terminate no more than five (5)
feet inside of the building or enclosure. As a further point for
such a discussion, Sections 90-2(c), 90-4 and the definition of
"Special Permission" give the inspector all the tools, he needs to
accomplish any safe electrical installation.
The introduction of this limitation would certainly allay the
concerns that have been expressed by many electrical inspectors
concerning the proliferation of services and unprotected
service-entrance conductors. For those inspectors to whom this
has been no problem, the inclusion of the regulation will create
no new d i f f i c u l t y since they can give permission for anything that
can be j u s t i f i e d .
Additional substantiation for proposals made by William P. Hogan
et. al. on sections: 110-3(a)(8), 230-43, 300-22(b), 300-22(c),
338-2, 338-3, 340-5, 344-2, 347-2, 351-2, 352-21 and 370-23.
I t should be obvious that the thrust of all these proposals is
the limitation or actual elimination of the use of those
MATERIALS, which when exposed either to the enviroement,
temperatures in excess of their ratings, whether from normal or
abnormal causes, or flame emit toxic gases, fumes or harmful
chemicals. For years the electrical industry has not only
permitted but also has encouraged the use of materials that f a l l
into this category. These materials do emit toxic gases and do
result in harmful chemicals when exposed to the varying
atmospheres experienced in everyday living. For instance, i t is
not an uncommon phenomenon to observe hydrochloric acid dripping
out of a rigid steel conduit in which PVC conductors have been
exposed to temperatures higher than their ratings or flame and
water has been used to control the source of that heat or flame.
There are documented experiences of this reaction where the acid
was eating through the switch enclosure. When the inspector
attempted to catch the acid in a t i n can so that he could have i t
analyzed, i t ate right thru the can. What is startling about this
phenomenon is the fact that we are told that the plastic people
have known about i t for years and have never f e l t that this
information should be publicized because the incidence would be so
rare that i t was not worth alerting the electrical industry. In
spite of their lack of concern many people in the industry and out
of i t are aware of this possibility and the other ramifications of
the decomposition of PVC and 'are deeply concerned.
We are told over and over again that the amount of plastics and
polyvinyl chlorides that are introduced in any building by the
electrical installation is infinitesimal when compared with the
total of all the other furnishings and building finishes. There
are two errors in such statements. The f i r s t is corrected by the
reports printed in Modern Plastics based upon the monthly
Sales/Production report issued by SPI's Committee on Resin
Statistics. According to' their figures, published in January of
1981 there were 3,581,000 tons of resins converLed into building
materials in 1979. Of that 1,114,000 tons were PVC Conduit. Is
that to be considered infinitesimal? The figures for 1980 are
just as revealing; 3,078,000 tons total, 938,000 tons in PVC
Conduit. In addition to that there were 841,000 tons of resins
converted into electrical/electronic plastics in 1979 of which
195,000 tons were PVC. Likewise, in 1980 out of a total of
736,000 tons, there were 177,000 tons of PVC. These are NOT
infinitesimal fractions!
The second error is the attempt by the people, who spew forth
this falacious claptrap, to hide the fact that we, who are
responsible for formulating the National Electrical Code, have one
prime responsibility, the safety of the people. We are completely
and solely responsible for the electrical installation. We and
only we must bear the responsibility For what is in the NEC. We
are not in any, shape or form responsible for the furnishings nor
the building finishes. Regardless of what others may introduce
into the building, we are s t i l l responsible for those things that
we permit or require in the electrical installation. We can never
loose sight of the prime purpose of the NEC, " . . . t h e practical
safeguarding of persons and property from the hazards arising from
the use of e l e c t r i c i t y . "
For many years a great number of knowledgeable and highly
respected people in the scientific world have been aware of the
fact that the use of certain materials and wiring methods, which
by the very nature of their chemical composition, are certain to
add significantly to the toxic gases and harmful chemicals in any
f i r e situation. I t has been and s t i l l is their contention that
the use of these materials should be curtailed or prohibited. We
can no longer afford the luxury of sitting back waiting for
someone else to take the f i r s t step. We cannot hide behind a
disclaimer saying we know nothing about'toxicity. I f we don't
know, i t is because we haven't taken the time to read what is
available on the subject or listen to what is being said from
every'direction. The numbers of people being killed in recent
fires is staggering. The ratio of f i r e deaths to f i r e damage is
astounding. I t is completely out of line with historical f i r e
data. The number of people died 20 stories away from the'closest
flame in the MGM is unforgiveable. The number of people who died
in that building after the f i r e was out, but while the hallways
and stairwells were f u l l of toxic gases and smoke will never be
known, but the fact that many did is additional reason for us to
act. We cannot wait until other standards-writing bodies take the
lead. We cannot wait until slow moving committees bring in the
BODY COUNTS!
We can no longer ignore the warnings that havebeen made public
in the form of test results from widely divergent groups,
government, industry, scholastic and testing f a c i l i t i e s . Here is
what just a few highly regarded scientists have to say about this
matter:
A report compiled by the Uniformed Firefighters Association in
1980 five years after the telephone company f i r e shows that of the
194 firefighters who received medical treatment at the time of the
f i r e 71 reported permanent respiratory ailments. The unprotected
cables that burned in that f i r e produced "billowing clouds of
hydrogen chloride smoke." (American Lung Association Bulletin,
(81)).
"Large amounts of hydrogen chloride gas (HCL) are released by
either HEATING or BURNINGPVC" *
"In the case of a rapid electrical overload in PVC insulated
wire, smoke which is usually the First indication of f i r e , is only
noticeable AFTER significant quantities of HCL have been
released." *
"Calculations show that for 100 pounds of PVC pyrolyzed
(chemically decomposed by heat) in an apartment 8 feet X 25 feet X
50 feet (10,000 cubic feet) a concentration of HCL as high as
57,385 ppm could be reached, about 57 times the concentration that
will cause lung edema on very short exposure." *
Referring to the M~ f i r e deaths the Clark County
Coroner-Medical Examiner reports, "The fact that the concentration
of carboxyhemoglobin in most of the victims was not high enough to
have caused death indicates that other toxic gases or smoke
particles MUST also have been involved." * (Carboxyhemoglobin is
the result of carbon monoxide in the blood).
• A Literature Study of the C~nbustion Hazards of PVC and ABS.
Judith E. Hall and Eric L. Tolefson, University of Calgary.
In a discussion concerning the Beverly Hills Supper Club Fire,
Deborah Wallace, who is a Toxicologist and the President of Public
Interest Scientific Consulting Service states the following about
the causes of death at that f i r e , " - - - , the carboxyhemoglobin
levels found during the autopsies showed that all assayed victims
but one had concentrations well below lethal levels. Manywere as
low as 10%." Yet they all died of something that they inhaled.
There was a tremendous amount of PVC in that building!
60
Log # 1117
4- 41 - (230-43): Reject
SUBMITTER: J.H. Richards, Maryland Electrical Inspectors
Association
RECOMMENDATION: Add: "Flexible metal conduit in limited lengths
s~u-ggest six foot maximum) as acceptable wiring method for
services."
Rules for proper bonding is covered in Article 350.
SUBSTANTIATION: This method was permitted in former codes but was
B'ET~-E-d~--.-C~6fd experience has shown that there are times when
deflections are required that are not feasible using other listed
wiring methods.
Further when properly sized grounding and bonding conductors are
run in the limited lengths and properly terminated, no greater
l i f e or f i r e hazard would exist than with use of the listed
accepted methods.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMWENT: See Panel Co(mnent f o r Proposal 4-39.
VOTE ON_PANEL. A C ~ Z Unanimously Affirmative.
Jay A. Young, Ph.D., a Chemical Consultant has this to say,
"Structural disintegration of PVC Conduit in a f i r e situation.
Such disintegration allows the release of hydrogen chloride or
phosgene, or both, formed from the decomposition of PVC insulation
on the wiring inside, the conduit and confined inside the conduit
until the conduit disintegrates." "The thermal decomposition of
PVC has been observed at temperatures below 100 degrees C,
although most studies show that the evolution of HCL in
significant amounts requires temperatures of about 200-300
degrees C. That is, long before the PVC has reached the
temperature at which i t will burn, well in advance of the time
when any combustible structural components near PVC conduit would
be likely to be burning in a f i r e situation."
Dr. Young further states, "Hydrogen Chloride is an i r r i t a t i n g
~as At concentrations in air as low as 5ppm, i t causes choking
in most people."
Dr. Young continues, "Concentrations of lOOppm are rated as,
"Immediately dangerous to l i f e and health" by OSHA and the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Unless
removed immediately from an atmosphere containing a concentration
of lOOppm death by suffocation will follow."
There are no less than 132 books, papers and articles available
to you on this subject. You can rest assured that each will point
out the t o x i c i t y of the products of combustion of PVC and of the
t o x i c i t y of HCL which is produced simply by heating PVC Conduit or
insulation. You may be able to ignore this information, but we
can not. As far as we are concerned, the facts are in front of
you and you must act. We have, - with these proposals.
The problem is not going to go away by i t s e l f . Nor is i t going
to lessen in intensity. You can be absolutely sure that i t and
you will be in the public eye and in every form of mass news media
as long as people are killed in fires. I t will make headlines and
bring more and more court cases, which will further highlight the
shortcomings of the Code. I t seems to be a foolish course of
action, or is i t INACTION, to wait until public furor forces us to
change. I f we in NFPA through the NEC i n i t i t a t e the act, we at
least retain the respect and confidence of the people we serve.
I f we do not, you can be assured that those same people will have
no respect for this organization or us.
I t is f u t i l e to deny~ or attempt to minimize, the presence of
the harmful chemicals in the materials used to manufacture
insulations and raceways that not only can, but do, emit toxic
gases in amounts sufficient to cause instantaneous paralysis when
exposed to temperatures in excess of their ratings, or f i r e . The
peaceful attitudes of so many of their victims is grim testimony
to the speed of these killers and the fact that the victims were
t o t a l l y unaware of their impending Fate.
Our proposals are intended to minimize or eliminate the exposure
of human beings to this peril.
Note: I t is most important to understand that this proposal is
not intended to do away with a l l , nor any, nonmetallic wiring
method. This proposal and all others like i t that we have
submitted for the 1984 edition of the NEC are intended to
eliminate the MATERIALSwhich emit toxic fumes or gases under
various conditions of use. I t is our opinion that the
manufacturers of this equipinent or these MATERIALSmust prove that
their products do NOT emit toxic gases or harmful chemicals under
the conditions specified. I t should not be the responsibility of
the NFPA nor any Code-Making Panel to perform the tests or make
the investigations that are needed to prove the presence of the
toxic gases, fumes or harmful chemicals.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~-~--E-L COMMENT: The Panel feels that the 5 feet is arbitrary.
Furthermore, the submitter has not presented conclusive evidence
that the t o x i c i t y hazard would be eliminated by the use of metal
raceways.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
Log # 1178
4- 42 - (230-43(13)-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: M. F. Borleis, EEl
~ATION:
Add an item to the f i r s t paragraph as follows:
C13) flexible metal conduit not more than 6 feet long between
"raceways, or between raceway and serviceequipment, with equipment
bonding jumper installed around the flexible metal conduit
according to provisions of Section 250-79(a), (b), (c), and (e).
Also see Section 350-2. Second paragraph to remain.
SUBSTANTIATION: Flexible metal conduit had been used safely as a
portion of service-entrance raceway from 1937 until the 1975
edition of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. Former subsection
230-63(c) had been eliminated from the 1975 NEC because the wiring
method was not listed in Section 230-44 (1971). Recent inquiries
at Section meetings of the IAEI indicate flexible metal conduit
continues to be used in short lengths to avoid structural
protrusions. Flexible metal conduit is particularly useful when
making changes or adding to existing service-entrance f a c i l i t i e s .
The bonding requirement assures low impedance along the path of a
possible fault current. Reference to Section 350-2 effectively
limits locations for this use of f l e x i b l e metal conduit.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-39.
V O ~ f E - O N ~ ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 14
NEGATIVE: Cock.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~ - r - a m ~
negative on this proposal because I feel the
Code Panel has not f u l l y considered the substantiation for the
proposal and I feel i t is accurate.
In 1979 the Panel rejected a similar proposal with a statement
that "Bonding accomplishes nothing where a fault occurs within the
flexible conduit." In r e a l i t y , the bonding accomplishes the
purpose exactlyas conduit couplings (threaded or unthreaded)
accomplish bonding integrity in a system of rigid metal conduit or
metallic tubing. I t is also questionable that the impedance of an
arcing fault in 6 feet of metal conduit is substantially different
from a similar fault in a 10-foot length of any of the nonflexible
metal conduits.
I feel that flexible metal conduit should be allowed and that
the limitation of 6 feet in this proposal makes i t the most
desirable proposal from those for this section.
Log # 1230
4- 43 - (230-43, Exception No. 1-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom Morosco, Independent Electrical Inspection Agency,
I-~.
NEGATIVE: Niedermeyer.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
NIEDERMEYER: In keeping with the Panel intent as stated in our
e f f o r t to l i m i t the number and length o f services in multiple
occupancy buildings, I propose we accept this proposal in
p r i n c i p l e in that i t places numbers on the footage inside of a
building.
Instead of 5 feet as stated by the submitter, I propose
15 f e e t , this w i l l allow f o r a flush service and flush meter. I
also propose to delete the l a s t sentence of the submitter as not
being workable with the present knowledge at hand.
Exception: The 15-foot length l i m i t may be waived by special
permission.
The above accomplishes our e f f o r t to both l i m i t the numbers of
services and also the length inside of a.building. The
p r o l i f e r a t i o n of unfused conductors must be limited as to number
o f services and distance inside a building in order to a t t a i n some
degree of safety - at present an unlimited length of total unfused
conductors is acceptable under present wording when on or in a
building.
RECOMMENDATION: Exception No. i : Flexible metal conduit in
lengths not exceeding 6 feet, may be used in dry locations (for
exposed work) following the requirements of Section 250-79 and
Article 350.
SUBSTANTIATION: Service raceways entering structures are many
t~mes confronted with permanent obstructions. These conditions
create serious installation problems. The problem of making jogs,
offsets and excessive use of conduit f i t t i n g s will be eliminated.
Through experience we are not aware of any problems or conditions
involving the use of flexible metal conduit and liquidtight
f l e x i b l e conduit. Presently in their use with ac equipnent, etc.
and proper bonding they have proven to perform safely as
raceways. With this fact and the requirements for their proper
installation they should be considered suitable for service
raceways on the load side of meter equipments to overcome
obstructions.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~NE~I-~T:
See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-39.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
61
Log # 514
4- 48 - (230-53): "Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 230-53.
~[AT[dN:
T h i s requirement dates back to 1937 or earlier
which was prior to moisture-resistant service-entrance conductors
and as such was needed. Today, service-entrance conductors are
moisture-resistant and there is no need for this requirement.
Furthermore, the requirement has been misapplied to the
undernro,,n ~ wiring of gasoline dispensing service stations.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
TFAITEI---L~
' }T~QIEI~T: Section 230-53 covers a broader spectrum than the
submitter's proposal.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1369
4- 44 - (230-43, Exception No. 1-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: M. H. Lounsbury, Eastern Section IAEI
ITE"C:~-M-M-EN
' FOATION: Exception 1: Flexible metal conduit may be used
~n dry locations (for exposed work) following the requirements of
Section 250-79 and Article 350.
SUBSTANTIATION: Service raceways entering structures are many
~n~ronted
with permanent obstructions. Theseconditions
create serious installation problems. The problem of making jogs,
offsets and excessive use of conduit f i t t i n g s w i l l be eliminated.
Through experience we are not aware of any problems or conditions
involving the use of f l e x i b l e metal conduit and liquidtight
flexible conduit. Presently in their use with ac equipment, etc.
and proper bonding they haven proven to perform safely as
raceways. With this fact and the requirements for their proper
installation they should be considered suitable for service
raceways on the load side of meter equipments to overcome
obstructions.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-39.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 2021
4- 49 - (230-54(c), Exception): Reject
SUBMITTER: Idaho Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: RemoveException to Section 230-54(c).
SUBSTANTIATION: The Exception is not clear and there is no reason
the connection cannot be made below the ~eaLherhead ~here the
weatherhead is properly i n s t a l l e d to comply with the basicCode
rules addressing service drop clearances to f i n i s h grade and other
access points.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
#f@[~T:
The exception was introduced to provide r e l i e f for
upgrading e x i s t i n g services.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 2060
4- 45 - (230-43, Exception No. 2-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom Morosco, Independent E l e c t r i c a l Inspection Agency,
Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Exception No. 2: L i q u i d t i g h t f l e x i b l e conduit in
lengths not exceeding 6 f e e t , may be used in dry or wet locations
( f o r exposed work) following the requirements of Section 250-79
and A~ticle 351.
SUBSTANTIATION: Service raceways entering structures are many
times confronted with permanent obstructions. These conditions
create serious i n s t a l l a t i o n problems. The problem of making jogs,
offsets and excessive use of conduit f i t t i n g s w i l ] be eliminated.
Through experience we are not aware of any problems or conditions
involving the use of f l e x i b l e metal conduit and l i q u i d t i g h t
f l e x i b l e conduit. Presently in t h e i r use with ac equipment, etc.
and proper bonding they have proven to perform safely as
raceways. With t h i s f a c t and the requirements f o r t h e i r proper
installation they should be considered suitable for service
raceways on the load side of meter equipments to overcome
obstructions.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-39.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1775
4- 50 - (230-56, FPN-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new fine print note as follows:
FPN: See "Section 384-3(e) and ( f ) for phase arrangement.
SUBSTANTIATION: Correlation is necessary among Sections 215-8,
~ ,
and "384-3(e) and ( f ) and any exceptions or modifications
to these requirements.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PAI~EI_-~~
' I~FME
' -'NT: The Panel feels that a cross reference is not
needed.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log e 1200
4- 51 - (230-70): Reject
SUBMITTER: Olaf G. Ferm, Ferm's Fast Finder Index
RECOMMENDATION: Changethe wording of the f i r s t sentence to read:
Means shall be provided to disconnect all conductors in a
building or other structure from the service-entrance conductors
and the secondary conductors of a separately derived system as
described in Section 250-5(d) i f the separately derived system is
5 kVA or larger and with 120 volts or more to ground.
SUBSTANTIATION: Conductors on the load side of a separately
~-sy{tem
are t r u l y service conductors and should terminate
in service disconnecting means. By l i f n i t i n g this requirement to
5 kVA and larger separately derived systems with 120 v o l t s or
larger to ground we would be excusing the smaller separately
derlved systems such as control c i r c u i t s , etc. from this service
disconnect rule and be catching the separately derived systems
used for premises wiring.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~NEL COMMENT: The Panel does not agree that these are service
conductors.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 2063
4- 46 - (230-43, Exception No. 2-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: M. H. Lounsbury, Eastern Section IAEI
~DATION:
Exception No. 2: Liquidtight flexible conduit
may be used in dry or wet locations (for exposed work) following
the requirements of Section 250-79 and Article 351.
SUBSTANTIATION: Service raceways entering structures are many
~ 6 - 6 ~ n - ~ C e d with permanent obstructions. Theseconditions
create serious installation problems. The problmn of making jogs,
offsets and excessive use of conduit f i t t i n g s w i l l be eliminated.
Through experience we are not aware of any problems or conditions
involving the use of f l e x i b l e metal conduit and liquidtight
flexible conduit. Presently in their use with ac equipment, etc.
and proper bonding they have proven to perform safely as
raceways. With this fact and the requirements for their proper
installation they should be considered suitable for service
raceways on the load side of meter equipments to overcome
obstructions.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL -#(]F~WC~NT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-39.
V-Ol'~-~
ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
4- 52 - (230-71(a)): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the acLion of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given Lo Lhe comments
expressed in the voting.
SUBMITTER: CMP 4
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:
--~a) General. The service-disconnecting means for each service
permitted by Section 230-2, for each set of service-entrance
conductors permitted by the Exception Lo Section 230-3, shall
consist of not more than six switches or six c i r c u i t breakers
mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures,
or in or on a switchboard.
SUBSTANTIATION: To correlate with the changes made by Panel
Proposal 4-24.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
- -ATFTR~A-Fr ~ E ~ : T
NEGATIVE: Cock, [zydorek.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
STANBACK: The word "or" was in the Panel proposal after
"Section 230-2," in the second line. The typographical error of
omission should be corrected.
Log # 1131
4- 47 - (230-47, Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: D. J. Christofersen, United Power Association
RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 2 as follows:
Exception No. 2: Load management conductors having overcurrent
protection.
Load management conductors are control circuit or switch leg
conductors for use with special rate meters, such as water heater
circuits and home heating or air conditioning systems.
SUBSTANTIATION: Present NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODEconsiders time
switch conductors only.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that there is a significant
~ n ~
between class and number of conductors for the present
Exception. Service conductors do not have overcurrent protection
and could subject the smaller conductors to excessive currents in
the event of a fault.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
62
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
COCK: I am voting negative on this proposal to correlate with
my comments on P~posal 4-24. I feel that Section 230-71(a)
should be reworded to read as follows:
Ca) General. The service disconnecting means, grouped in any
one location, for each service or for each set of service-entrance
conductors permitted, shall consist of not more than six switches
or six circuit breakers mounted in a single enclosure, in a group
of separate enclosures, or in or on a swltchboard.
I feel that this will solve the basic problem that was intended
to be solved by Proposal 4-24.
IZYDOREK: To correlate with my negative vote of Proposal 4-24,
i t will be necessary that Proposal 4-52 be revised to add "No. I : "
after exception.
3. The proposed change specifies a multisection service
switchboard construction which will enhance safety and r e l i a b i l i t y
by:
a. Reducing to a minimum the buswork unprotected by the service
disconnect.
b. Bringing more service-entrance boards under the provisions
of Section 230-95, providing ground-fault protection.
c. Making i t possible to deenergize more of the bus for safe
maintenance.
d. Limiting the locations of the service disconnects within a
switchboard and making i t easier for the user, u t i l i t y and f i r e
department personnel to locate the service disconnect under
emergency conditions.
e. The single main minimizes the number of load terminals
exposed to unprotected line bus.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
P-AITE'~--i~-#M~E-N~T: Panel feels this is a design problem and should
not be made mandatory.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
Log # 202
Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the phrase "service-entrance conductors"
to "service conductors."
SUBSTANTIATION: The fine print note after the definition of
"Service-Entrance Conductors, Underground System" in Article 100
indicate there are installations where there are no
service-entrance conductors, per se. The definition of "Service
Conductors" indicate the proposed wording would be more suitable
to apply the requirements of this section.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Submitter is confusing service-entrance conductors
with service conductors.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
4- 53 - (230-71(a)):
NEGATIVE: Stanback.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~{~CKS--f~F~6 with the proposer's substantiation.
4- 57 - (230-72(a)): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 4
RECOMMENDATION: Delete: "for each service."
--~~eption
No. 1.
Reidentify Exception No. 2 to be "Exception."
SUBSTANTIATION: To correlate with the changes made by Panel
oF
rT~-~6~-~l ~ 2 4 .
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 717
4- 54 - (230-71(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Wallace E. Palmer, Johnstown, OH
RECOMMENDATION: Words "or for each set of service entrance
conductors permitted by Section 230-2, Exception No. 3(b)" should
be separated by parentheses or worded similar to 1978 Code.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 230-71(a) as worded in 1981 Code can
~-~TTy be misinterpreted to mean that the "only" condition that
permits the use of six service disconnects is that which is
stipulated in Section 230-2, Exception No. 3(b).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action For Panel Proposal 4-52. Panel
attempted to achieve the s~me purpose as the proposal.
VOTE ON. P A N E L _ ~ L Unanimously Affirmative.
Log ~ 1458
4- 58 - (230-72(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTERS: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
--B-TTI--~6~an, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota State Electrical Bd.
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Conrardy, Tile Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 230-72(a) so as to read as follows:
General. The service disconnects as defined and required
in Section 230-71 for each service as permitted in Section 230-2
shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be marked to indicate the
load that i t serves.
SUBSTANTIATION: I f our proposal for Section 230-2 is accepted
t~re'w{l~F-~-e-no need For the exceptiols.
Even i f our proposal is not accepted, there is no need for the
exceptions since Section 230-72(b) takes care of the material
covered in the two exceptions.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 4-57.
V d f ~
ACTIqN£ Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1457
4- 55 - (230-71(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTERS: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
B i l l Hogan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota State Electrical Bd.
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
RECOMMENDATION: AmendSection 230-71(a) by deleting therefrom the
words, ~xception No. 3b."
SUBSTANTIATION: I f our proposal for Section 230-2 is accepted
te-F~-e-re-~Tl'T-Be-no Exception No. 3b.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Proposal 4-52.
~/'O'InL'-ON--P-~f{L ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 401
4- 59 - (230-72(a), Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ronald S. Ludekens, Visalia, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 2 to read as follows:
~R-~dRE-of
the two to six service disconnecting means
permitted in Section 230-71, when used FOR FIRE PUMPS, OR FOR
EMERGENCY OR LEGALLY REQUIREDSTANDBYSERVICES shall be located
sufficiently remote from the other disconnecting means for normal
service to minimize the possibility of simultaneous interruption
of supply. See Sections 700-12(e) and 701-10(e).
SUBSTANTIATION: Two of the six possible sources of power for
emergency ~dd-legally required standby services mentioned in
Sections 700-12 and 701-10 are separate services or connections
ahead of the service disconnecting means. Separate services per
700-12(d) and 701-10(d) are covered by the paragraph Following
this one (230-72(b)).
This proposed revision is attempting to
c l a r i f y present field confusion and be in harmony with 700-12(e)
and 701-i0(e). The word "permitted" has been revised to
"shall/be" to be in harmony also. I have not included optional
standby systems as defined in Article 702 because 702 does not
require separation. IF the optional standby system is not a
separate service allowed by 230-2, Exception No. 2, brat is frown
the same service as the normal, then i t should be treated as one
of the one to six service disconnects per 230-71(a).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is the Panel's intent that only one disconnect
be remotely located and intended only for f i r e pumps.
VOTE_O_NPANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1801
4- 56 - (230-71): Reject
SUBMITTER: F. K. Kitzantides, NEMA
~NOATION:
Revise as follows:
roposed new text is in quotations)
a) General. The service disconnecting means for each service
or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by
Section 230-2 Exception No. 3(b) shall consist of not more than
six switches or six circuit breakers mounted in a single
enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures or in or on a
"single-section" switchboard. "The service disconnecting means
for a multisection switchboard shall consist of not more than two
(2) switches or circuit breakers."
SUBSTANTIATION: 1. The use of multiple service disconnects often
avoids the requirement for equipment protection by ground-fault
protective equipment thru the use of service disconnects rated
less than 1000 amperes each.
2. The service bus joints for multisection switchboards
presently cannot be readily maintained because i t is generally not
possible for the user to deenergize this bus as i t is not
controlled by the switchboard's service disconnects.
IR
63
until the stools gets so hot until no one can s i t on i t . Whenmy
l i t t l e niece was being trained i t burned her bottom and she was
afraid to go near the stool and is s t i l l afraid to use the
t o i l e t . One of the inspectors told me not to ever leave the heat
on in the bathroom not even for one hour and he is right, but I
have been told by several people and the inspectors that i t is in
the building code the heater can be installed that close to the
stool. I hope you w i l l send someone to see this. We realize i t
is cheaper and easy to i n s t a l l these very needed f i x t u r e s on the
outside. We think of our health and safety. We do hope this code
w i l l be changed although i t w i l l not help us. Please consider our
health and safety. Last sunwller someone turned all the current o f f
in one of our neighbor's home. The police were call and turned i t
back on we Feel that i f the Fuse box and switch box were inside
this would not have happened. The locks can easily be torn o f f
the fuse boxes. I hope to hear from you soon.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that this is not a proposal and is
design problem.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 402
4- 60 - (230-72(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ronaid S. Ludeken, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
~ATION:
Revise as follows:
Additional Service Disconnecting Means. THE ADDITIONAL SERVICES
WITH THE CORRESPONDINGONE TO SIX DISCONNECTINGMEANS for f i r e
pumps or f o r emergency, legally required standby, or optional
standby services permitted by Section 230-2 shall be installed
s u f f i c i e n t l y remote from the one to six service disconnecting
means f o r normal service to minimize the p o s s i b i l i t y of
simultaneous interruption of supply. See Section 700-12(d) AND
SECTION 701-10(d).
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 230-2 discusses more than one service as
~f6~s-~GO-12(d)
and 701-i0(d) but 700-12(e) and 701-10(e)
discuss connections made ahead of the service disconnecting
means. The present wording allows f o r confusion.
I see continued
requests f o r 6 service disconnects f o r one service plus one or
more additional service disconnecting means For emergency from
this same service, There should be a maxim~n of 6 disconnects per
service and no more. My proposed changes to 230-72(a),. Exception
No. 2 should also assist in c l a r i f y i n g the ~nergency disconnects
from the same service.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
COMMENT: The Panel does not intend to l i m i t the number of
disconnects as proposed.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 708
4- 64 - (230-72(c)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert L. Rodecker, Protective Inspectors
RECOMMENDATION: The service disconnecting means "of 200 amperes
~-shal'l"
be installed either (inside) or outside of a
building or structures at a readily accessible location nearest
the point of entry of the service-entrance conductors. Material
to be added in quotations. Material to be deleted in parentheses.
S_U~STANTIATIQN: I would like to suggest NEC Section 230-72(c)be
changed to require a main disconnect on all service installations
200 amperes or less at the meter or point of attachment to the
structure.
This would eliminate the hassle for the electrical inspector, as
well as the contractors, on location of a main of an remodel or
new single-family dwelling. I t would simplify this section of the
Code and provide safety in many instances of~an old structure
where a main was not required or is in an impossible location to
change.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels that 200 amperes is an arbitrary break
point ~ y
do not agree with the substantiation.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 479
4- 61 - (230-72(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: George W. Flach, New Orleans, LA
~ATION:
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of wording to be deleted: ", or
optional standby s e r v i c e s . . . "
SUBSTANTIATION: An optional standby system does not share the
same status as emergency, and l e g a l l y required standby systems.
Optional standby systems are s t r i c t l y f o r the convenience of the
user and are limited to on-site generation. The recognition of an
optional standby service is being used to negate the six
disconnect r u l e .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is the Panel's intent to include optional
standby systems. See Section 230-2, Exception No. 2.
VOTE ON PANEL_ACTION." Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 203
4- 62 - (230-72(c)): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the co~nents
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOM~NOATION: Revise the phrase "service-entrance conductors"
t o "service conductors."
SUBSTANTIATION: The fine print note after the d e f i n i t i o n of
Tr~-ervice-Entrance Conductors, Underground System" in A r t i c l e 100
indicates there are installations where there are no
service-entrance conductors, per so. The definition of "Service
Conductors" indicate the proposed wording would be more suitable
to apply the requirements of this section.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel's intent is to be service-entrance
conductors.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMA'TfVC[ ' - f J - - NEGATIVE: Izydorek, Stanback.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
IZYDOREK: I agree that Proposal 4-62 should be accepted on the
basis of the Panel's Action of Proposal 4-57.
STANBACK: Acceptance of the proposal would be consistent with
the Panel Action on Proposal 4-57 and I agree with the proposer's
substantiation.
Log ~ 974
4- 65 - (230-72(c)): Accept
SUBMITTER: R. L. Hartloff , Southwest Division Ohio Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Delete sub paragraph (c) from Section 230-72,
~-(~-~o-~'#i-6~of'-Disconnects" and reinsert under Section 230-70,
"General," after the f i r s t sentence.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present location of this requirement under
"Gro~isconnects"
implies that this subparagraph applies
to multiple (two to six) service disconnecting means only and not
to a single (one) main service disconnect.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
~-~N--I~-A-N'-E'L ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1617
4- 66 - (230-72(c), Exception-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Richard B. Boyd, Jr., E l l i s Cannady Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENL~TION: Add the following as an Exception to Section
Exception: Where service-entrance conductors are run to each
occupancy of multiple-occupancy buildings, the service
disconnecting means permitted by Section 230-71 shall be located
at or within the occupancy service.
SUBSTANTIATION: To provide c l a r i f i c a t i o n and consistency in the
p ~ C 6 d nd6~er and location of the service disconnecting means.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
COMME'NT: See Panel Proposals 4-24 and 4-52.
VOTE ON PANEL ACT[ON~ Unanifnously Affirmative.
Log # 169
4- 63 - (230-72(c)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Mildred Carlton, Durham, NC
~ATION:
"None"
uBS
' "O-B-STA-NTIATION: I am writing in regards of the Fuse boxes and on
and o f f switches f o r lights and heat in our cofmnunlty. We have
lots of problems with our lights and heat going o f f anytime of the
night and day. We have disabled people in our con~nunity. I have
been in for more than two years and I have been advised by several
doctors not to l i f t more than ten pounds, when my lights and heat
goes o f f I w i l l have to go outside my home and unlock the fuse box
on the outside of my home and unlock my. storage room door in or to
t r i p the on and o f f switch. I can not see with no l i g h t s .
I f the
fuse box and on and o f f was inside maybe [ oDuld feel iny way and I
wouldn't have to unlock my Fuse box and my storage room ~oor.
Last year when the snow was up to our door k~)bs, I had to stay in
my home f o r hours u n t i l one o f my neighbors was kind enough to
send her son to dig the snow f o r me. The snow had to be removed
f o r more than t h i r t y feet and i t took more than t h i r t y minutes to
do so. The heater in my bathroom is so close to the t o i l e t stool
Log # 647
4- 67 - (230-72(d)): Accept
SUBMITTER: J. H. Kassebaum, Eli L i l l y and Company
RECOMM~NDI~T.ION: Add the word "service" between the words "his"
and "disconnecting" so the text would read:
In a multiple-occupancy building, each occupant shall have
access to his service disconnecting means.
SUBSTANTIATION: This change improves c l a r i t y and continuity
within this section.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
64
SUBSTANTIATION: (Wording taken from NEMAStandard K.S. i-4.62.)
--I~66ff~nlca-FcaT-'Tnterlocking systems have been in use f o r many years
on all types of disconnect switches. Even the 115 volt, 30
ampere, two-fuse disconnect associated with the turn of the
century knob and tube system had an interlock which precluded
opening the fuse plug access door while the current was on.
A present day manufacturer insists that interlocking is not
required even though the equipnent is subject to ready access by
the public and of a moderate ampacity (600 amperes) and f a u l t
current potential (15000+).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
g ~ T :
See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-71.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
--AFTTITMATIVI~.'T
NEGATIVE: Niedermeyer.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
---I~TE'~RMEYER: See comment on Proposal 4-71.
Log # 648
4- 68 - (230-74): Accept
SUBMIl-[ER: J. H. Kassebaum, Eli L i l l y and Company
RECOMMENDATION: Add the word "service" between the words "Each"
an--6-d-m~Tsc6n6ecting '' and between the words "ungrounded" and
"conductors" and add the words "from the premises wiring system"
so the text would read:
Each service disconnecting means shall simultaneously disconnect
all ungrounded service conductors from the premises wiring system.
SUBSTANTIATION: This change improves c l a r i t y and continuity with
~ct~6ns
within this Article.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 649
4- 69 - (230-76): Accept
SUBMITTER: J. H. Kassebaum, Eli L i l l y and Company
~-Eq~b~-'N-DATION: Add the word "service" between the words "The"
and "disconnecting" and between "ungrounded" and "conductors" so
the text would read:
The service disconnecting means for ungrounded service
conductors shall consist of . . . (remainder of text remains
unchanged)
SUBSTANTIATION: This change improves c l a r i t y and continuity with
other T6ctFon's with this Article.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE--OIT~L ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 161
4- 73 - (230-79(c)(i)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Insert the word "net" before the word "computed."
SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 9, Example 1 indicates loads before
application of dBnand factors as "computed" loads, and after
application of demand factors as "net computed" loads. This
proposal would provide for consistency between the exanple and the
text.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~ f ~ T E I _ ~ T : See Panel Co~nent for Proposal 4-37.
CO~-~ACTION:
Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 650
4- 70 - (230-77): Accept
SUBMI1-FER: J. H. Kassebaum, Eli L i l l y and Company
RECOM~ZNDATION: Add the word "service" between the words "The"
and "disconnecting" so the text would read:
The service disconnecting means shall plainly indicate whether
i t is in the open or closed position.
SUBSTANTIATION: This change improves c l a r i t y and continuity with
other " ~
of this Article.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTIqN~ Unanimously AFfirmative.
Log # 1459
4- 74 - (230-82): Reject
SUBMITTERS: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
Bill Hogan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
John W. Ericksnn, Boltswitch, Inc.
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
REC~),~MENOATION: Amend Section 230-82 so as to read as Follows:
230-82. Equipment Connected to Service-Entrance Conductors on the
Supply Side of the Service Disconnect. Equipment shall be
permitted to be connected to the supply side of the service
disconnecting means only under the following conditions:
(a) as cable limiters or other similar current-limiting devices;
(b) meters rated no more than 600 volts nominal wheo all p~etal
housings and service equipment are bonded together and grounded as
is required in Article 250;
(c) equipment identified for connection ahead of the service
disconnecting means such as instrument transformers, high
impedence shunts, surge protection devices, time switches and
surge arresters;
(d) as taps supplying time switches as provided for in Section
230-94; and
(e) f i r e and sprinkler alarm systems i f provided with service
equipment and installed in confon~lance with the requirBnents for
service-entrance conductors."
SUBSTANTIATION: This section is another example of one in which
the "Exceptions" continue to grow like "weeds" and we begin to
lose sight of the original rule. Conductors ahead of the service
disconnecting means are generally electrically unprotected. The
available fault current at that particular point can be anything
from a few amperes all the way up to 200,000 amperes. Doing away
with the "Exceptions" will make i t necessary for any additional
provisions For installation ahead of the service disconnection
means to be substantiated by convincing evidence that i t has be~
tested and is identified as suitgble for installation ahead of the
disconnecting means.
We did not mention what is presently "Exception No. 2" since the
material and equipment described and located in that Exception is
really service equipment. As such i t stands on its own merits.
We also did not mention emergency systems, standby power syst~ns
or f i r e pumps since they are more than adequately covered in other
sections of the Code.
We s~uld suggest that as long as Code-Making Panel 3 is
considering this proposal and since i t may get some support that
they also consider doing the s~ne thing in Section 230-94.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
g~E'L--~OI~T~']~T: The intent of the Panel is to state the basic rule
and to permit the Exceptions. See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-20.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 394
4- 7"1 - (230-78): Reject
SUBMITTER: Kenneth L. Gebert, City of Minneapolis, MN
~ATION:
Amend Section 230-78 by adding a second sentence
as follows: '
I f the disconnecting means does not include a dead front device,
the box cover and switch operating mechanism shall be mechanically
interlocked so that the main cover of the cabinet (i) is normally
prevented from being opened when the switch contacts are in a
closed position, and (2) the switch contacts are normally
prevented from being closed when the cover of the switch cabinet
is open.
(wording taken from NEMAStandard K.S. 1-4.62)
SUBSTANTIATION: Mechanical interlocking systems have been in use
f o r many years on all types of disconnect switches. Even the 115
volt, 30 ampere, two fuse disconnect associated with the turn of
the century knob ahd tube system had an interlock which precluded
opening the fuse plug access door while the current was on.
A present day manufacturer insists that interlocking is not
required even though the equipment is subject to ready access by
the public and of a moderate ampacity (600 ampere) and fault
current potential (15000+).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal adds nothing. All externally operable
switches are of the dead front type by definition.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 14
NEGATIVE: Niedermeyer.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~ R N I E ' Y ~ R ~ - - [ - d d n ' t agree that the proposal adds nothing - the
proposal requires an interlock when fuses are not dead when the
door is opened. This proposal requires either dead fronting the
fuse while door is open or provide a mechanical interlock. This
will assure that untrained persons will have to pull the switch
handle before access to the fuses are possible. The existing
"dead front" requirements s t i l l allow'access to live fuses.
Log # 1895, 1277
4- 72 - (230-78): Reject
SUBMI1-FERS: B. Auger/H.B. Love, Michigan Chapter IAE'I (1895)
----~-AL~-I--~77)
RECOMMENDATION~ Amend Section 230-78 by adding a second sentence
as follows:
I f the disconnecting means does not include a dead-front device,
the box cover and switch operating mechanism shall be mechanically
interlocked so that the main cover of the cabinet (1) is normally
prevented from being opened when the switch contacts are in a
closed position,.and (2) the switch contacts are normally
prevented from being closed when the cover of the switch cabinet
is open.
65
Log # 1460
4- 79 - (Section 230-83): Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
~ 1 " ' H ' o g a n , Chicagu, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch, Inc.
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, I~
RECOMMENDATION: AmendSection 230-83 to read as follows:
~30-83. Transfer Switches. Transfer switches shall operate such
that all ungrounded conductors of one source of supply are
disconnected before any ungrounded conductors of the second source
is connected.
Where manual equipment identified for the purpose or suitable
automation equipment is utilized two or more sources shall be
permitted to be connected in parallel through transfer s~itches.
SUdSTANTIATION: I t seems that we ought to set up a POSITIVE
~ n T
as a rule and not start with a hypothetical set of
circumstances.
In the "Exception" we permit what is one of the most common
electrical practices in major electrical installations yet we tell
the local inspector that he has to make the judgement concerning
the most d i f f i c u l t type of parallel operation; that instance where
you must use manual control. Why not make the ;nanufacturer
responsible f~r having his ~qJipmeflt listed for such use?
~'ANEL ,~CTION: Accept in Principle.
In t--h-e-second paragraph, f i r s t sentence, Insert a comma after
"purpose" and before "or."
In the second paragraph, f i r s t sentence, replace the word
"automation" with "automatic."
PANEL COMMENT: Editorial clarification.
VO--TE ON PKNECACTION:
~4ATI3/C~'I~-'"
NEGATIVE: Izydorek, Stanback.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
--I'~YU~ITEl~:-Tam-~-n-c-~anging my vote to negative For Proposal 4-79
since the second paragraph is in conflict with the First
paragraph. Closed transition switching would be needed.
STANBACK: Intent of proposal may be proper; but as written, the
First and second paragraphs conflict with each other. Closed
transition switching may be necessary.
Log # 515
4- 75 - (230-82, Exception No. 4): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Add to the end of the sentence: "rated ikV and
over.~ . . . . . . .
SUBSTANTIATION: The present Exception will permit surge arresters
rat-'at-e-d-Fe-s~'t~an 1000 volts to be located on the supply side of tile
service disconnect. This is in direct opposition to Section
281)-22.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
!~-A]TE'L---CT6~IE~T: Section 280-21 permits connection on the supply
side.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 403
4- 76 - (230-82, Exception No. 5): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ronald S. Ludekens, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
ITE"C'[]]~@L'~OATION: Delete "time switches,"
Add at end of sentence "and in accordance with 700-12(e) or
701-i0(e)."
SUBSTANTIATION: "Time Switches": is the only item listed of a
nonemergency nature. This is inconsistant. The 1981 NEC Handbook
notation on this paragraph tries to ignore the time switch and
then refers the reader to Section 700-12. This is appropos.
Section 700-12(e) and Section 701-10(e) should be o f f i c i a l l y
referenced to provide continuity with requirements For
sufficiently separated connections to prevent simultaneous
interruption of supply.
Section 700-12(e) and Section 701-I0(e) already appropriately
refer back to Section 230-82. I f the need is there for time
switches, then i t should be ,~ne of the regular one to six service
disconnects allowed by Section 230-71(a). A similar change ~ill
be required for Section 230-94, Exceptions Nos. 3 and 4.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
P~-N~NT:
The Panel feels time switches were intended.
~/'OI~--OI~-F#/~EC ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 917
4- 77 - (230-82, Exception No. 6-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Solar Photovoltaics
~DATION:
Add Exception No. 6 to Section 230-82, as follows:
~xception No. 6: Solar photovoltaic systems in accordance with
Section 690-14, Exception No. 2 and Section 690-64."
SUBSTANTIATION: See substantiation for proposed Section 690-14,
~66N'o[-2 and Section 690-64.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 4-78.
~OfE'-~-N--F~NI~-C ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 86
4- 80 - (230-83): Reject
SUBMI~ER: Victor S. Whitcemb, Brooks, ME .
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph to Follow the Exception as
Log # 908
4- 78 - (230-82, Exception No. 6-(New)): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the voting.
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power
(TE-'C~}I~n~EITDATION: Add Exception No. 6 to Section 230-82.
Exception No. 6: Interconnected electric power production
sources. See Article 705.
SUBSTANTIATION: For correlation with proposed Section 705-6. To
permit another electric power production source to be connected to
the supply side of the premises service disconnect as required by
Section 705-6. Additional Ad Hoc Subcommittee discussions related
to not offering an Exception No. 6, but instead expanding
Exception No. 5 as indicated:
"Taps used only to supply timo switches, circuits For emergency
systems, stand-by power systems INTERCONNECTED ELECTRIC POWER
PRODUCTION SOURCES, f i r e pump equipment, and f i r e and sprinkler
alarms i f provided with service equipment and installed in
accordance with the requirements for service-entrance conductors."
Such an Exception, whether within Exception No. 5 or a new No.
6, is needed to accommodate Section 705-6. Other cross references
presupposed that such an Exception would be No. 6 since the
existing Exception No. 5 seems to relate ~nore to occasional usage.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
~ D E ' R ~ f ~ R { - - I am voting affirmative i f the words "See Articles
690 and 705" are included. We rejected Proposal 4-77 by referring
i t to this proposal, but we did not include solar photovoltaics in
the reference.
Means shall be provided to co~npletely isolate the transfer
switch equipment. The use of isolating switches shall not be
required where there are other ways of de-energizing the equipment
for repairs or replacement without loss of power to the building
or structure.
SUBSTANTIATION: Manytimes, specifically hospitals where total
s~uEcf6~ is 1:npossible, ,neans should be. provided to de-energize
transfer switch equipment for maintenance or replacement. In
health care f a c i l i t i e s , by-pass conductors are installed, and
transfer switches are removed and replaced under live and
dangerous conditions.
See co~npanion proposal for Section 700-6.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
COMME'r~T: The Panel feels that this is an installation
specification problem.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1679
4- 81 - (230-84(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOM__~NDATIQN: 230-84(a) Where More than o,le building or other
structure is on the same property and under single management,
each building or other structure served, shall be provided with
means for disconnecting all ungrounded conductors, "installed
either inside or outside of the remote buildings." (Location
shall be in accordance with Section 230-72(e) and (d).) Material
in quotations added and material in parentheses deleted.
SUBSTANTIATION: Disconnect must be on re[note building, however,
by the reference to Sections 230-72(c) and (d)many persons
interpret this to mean the disconnect can be located at original
building with other service equipment.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
g/II~L--C'[FR-r;L[q~T: The Panel feels that i t is clear.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
66
Log # 1658
Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Add (new) paragraph to 230-84(a):
~ o - ~ i x
disconnecting means are used for this purpose,
all shall be grouped and each disconnect shall be marked to
indicate the Ioad served."
SUBSTANTIATION: This section gives the impression that only one
disconnect c~6 be used. At remote buildings by identifying that
two to six disconnecting means can be used, this will provide a
clearer understanding for disconnecting on separate buildings.
PANEL ACTION: R e j e c t .
IIA-NEL COMMENT: See Panel Proposal 4-57. Already covered in
Section 110-22.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
4- 82 - (230-84(a)):
•
Log # 1342
4- 86
(230-90(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Steve Schaffer, Bussmann Division, McGraw Edison
Company
RECOIv~IENDATION: Add the following sentence to the end of
paragraph 230-90(a) Ungrounded Conductors:
Service-entrance conductors that penetrate cembustible walls,
floors, or ceilings shall have overcurrent protection ahead of the
point of penetration.
SUBSTANTIATION: Fires have occurred when unprotected service
conductors penetrate combustible materials. See attached
substantiating data.
(Note: A copy of substantiating data available from NFPA on
request.)
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Insufficient substantiation to support proposal.
.VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 14
NEGATIVE: Edwards.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
--~DWARDS: Believe this subject deserves additional study.
Perhaps formation of a TSC would be in order.
4- 83 - (230-84(a)):
Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the co~nents
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: CMP 4
~DATION:
Change last sentence to read as follows:
Location shall be in accordance with Sections 230-70 and
230-72(c).
SUBSTANTIATION: To c o r r e l a t e with Panel Action on Proposal 4-65.
!rA-RI[[-~CFI-O~ Accept.
~N~-~L
ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 14
NEGATIVE: Bowles.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLES: Reference to Section 230-72(c)should be deleted since
the wording in t h i s section was moved to Section 230-70 by CMP 4's
acceptance of Proposal 4-65.
Log # 651
4- 84 - (230-84(a), Exception-(New)): Accept in Principle
SUBMI1-FER: J. H. Kassebaum, Eli L i l l y and Company
RECOF~IENDATION: Add an Exception after the last sentence to read:
Exception: The provisions of this section shall not apply to
buildings or other structures containing integrated electrical
systems.
SUBSTANTIATION: To correlate with Article 685, allowing for a
safe and orderly shutdown.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise to read:
"Building or other structures qualifying under the provisions of
Article 685."
PANEL COMMENT: Editorial Clarification.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
~'~-~dfE~
MUSKA: This proposal is needed, i f Proposal 4-99 (where primary
is to be considered as the Service rather than the Secondary) is
accepted. In large capacity buildings containing several
transformer vaults, this would require a service disconnect at
outdoor structure, service disconnect at building entrance plus a
service disconnect at high voltage cubicle adjacent to
transformers. This unneeded duplication of service disconnects
was avoided in the past where only the secondary conductors were
considered as the service conductors. This duplication would also
arise on multi-building installations under single management.
However, the original proposal should be preceded with the
following words: "large capacity multi-building installations
under single management, and."
Log # 311
4- 87 - (230-90, Exception No. 5): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Cemnittee refers this
proposal t6 the NFPA Committee ~n Centrifugal Fice Pumps For
information.
SUBMITTER: Samuel S. Levinrad, Veterans Administration
RECOMMENDATION: Correlate the referenced paragraph with NFPA 20
entitled "Centrifugal Fire Pumps." Specifically Paragraph 6-3.3.2.
Proposed wording:
Exception No. 5 Fire Pumps. Where service to a f i r e pump is
provided, no overcurrent protection shall be provided i f
conductors are sized For the locked rotor current of the main
pump, the jockey pump plus auxilaries.
SUBSTANTIATION: The referenced paragraph indicates that when
~s'areoutside
buildings the rating or setting of overcurrenL
devices shall be based on the locked rotor currents of the f i r e
pump, jockey pump and accessories.
The wording suggests that under cerltain circumstances, f i r e i)u,np
feeders ,nay be routed through buildings without tile protection
specified in 230-44 whereas NFPA 20 paragraph 6-3.3.2 requires
this. Consequently, i t is not clear whether the setting should be
based on a,npacity (125% of f u l l load) or locked rotor currents.
Increasing the mnpacity to 600% and eliminating overcurrent
protection will acknowledge the critical nature of the f i r e pump
and c l a r i f y the requirements.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
F~-Cl)l~lqEl]T: The Panel feels that the proposal is contrary to
reco~mnended standards such as NFPA 20.
VOTE ONPA~!KL~GT[qNE Unanimously Affirmative.
.....
STANBACK: First word of Panel text revision should be
"Buildings."
Log # 1797
4- 85 - (230-84(a), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: G. V. Cox, Chemical Manufacturers Association
ITE'CDI~v[E'N~ATION: Add an Exception after the last sentence to read:
"Exception: Where i t is assured that the disconnectin~ can be
accomplished by establishing and maintaining safe switchlng
procedures, the disconnecting means shall be permitted to be
located elsewhere on the premises."
SUBSTANTIATION: In many large f a c i l i t i e s such as medical,
industrial, educational, and research of other cmnpus-type
f a c i l i t i e s , secondary switches or breakers located at a
transformer substation supply power to several buildings. Opening
one of the switches or breakers deenergizes the feeder to one of
the buildings. To require a second disconnecting means at each
building is redundant, and may cause security or safety problems.
This Exception recognizes large capacity, multi-building
installations on premises under single management which have been
operating safely in this manner for many years.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~OM~'NT:
The Panel feels the Exception is too broad.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
Log # 232
4- 88 - (230490, Exception No. 5): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee refers this
proposal to the NFPA Committee on Centrifugal Fire Pumps for
information.
SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
REC__OMMENDATION: Second sentence: Overcurrent protection for f i r e
pump services shall be selected or set to carry locked-rotor
current of the motor(s) "for a period of not less than 20 seconds
and not more than 30 seconds."
SUBSTANTIATION: Manystates have "hi-rise" safety regulations
which require a f i r e pump to be connected to a standby or
emergency syStern as well as all the other l i f e safety equipnent.
A normally sized generator could not stay on the line witb a
f i r e pump on locked rotor current indefinitely and the result
would be loss of power to all other l i f e safety equipment.
I t would not be feasible to provide a generator large enough to
carry locked rotor current of a f i r e pump motor.
The 20 second minimum time on locked rotor, as recommended, is
longer than normal and will provide time for the motor to overcome
a problem with the pump i f i t is possible to do so.
The 30 second maximum time reco}~nended will remove a stalled
pump before the generator has stalled and will preserve the
electrical integrity of the pump motor.
~ ~ T - - ~ - - -
NEGATIVE: Kassebaum, Muska.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
KASSEBAUM: I feel the present wording requiring that a building
disconnect for multi-building occupancies be installed either
inside or outside a building NEARESTTHE POINT OF ENTRANCE of the
conductor is not realistic for tile conditions described in the
substantiation.
B7
The 20 second minimum time is consistent with the requirements
of NFPA 20, Section 7-4.2.7.
See following proposal to NFPA 20:
i . Section/Paragraph:
6-3.4.2 (NFPA 20, Centrifugal Fire Pumps)
2. Proposal (include proposed wording, or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of
wording to be deleted):
Add to the sentence, before the bracket note, as follows:
---accessory current "in less than 30 seconds."
3. Statement of Problem and Substantiation f o r Proposal:
This is consistent with Section 7-4.2.7 and will provide a
measure of protection for a generator when a standby generation
system is used for Life Safety Systems.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~"A'NI~[--(~I~M~EFT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-87.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 798
4- 89 - (230-95(a), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Hy A. Bershad, The Staten Island Hospital
~NI)ATION:
"Add" (New):
# x c e ~ 3 :
The provisions of this section shall not apply
to a service disconnecting means f o r a Health Care F a c i l i t y where
a non orderly shutdown w i l l introduce additional or increased
hazards to patients or s t a f f .
SUBSTANTIATION: Sudden interruptions of e l e c t r i c service to
ITeal~-h-Care-Facility areas such as Operating and Delivery Suites,
Coronary and Intensive Care Units, Cardiac Catheterization Labs,
Clinical Laboratories, e t c . , may cause extraordinary hazards to
patients and s t a f f . Since these f a c i l i t i e s are generally staffed
24-hrs/day, 7 days per week a more appropriate safeguard f o r the
equipment would be a ground-fault indicating device permitting
planned and rational shut-downs.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
COMMENT: The Panel feels i t introduces more of a hazard by
removing the requirement than does the nuisance t r i p p i n g .
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
COMMENT ON VOTE:
BEARD: Alt~ugh I am voting to accept the Panel's action to
reject this proposal, I do not agree with the Panel's comment.
The Panel's comment that the proposal introduces more of a hazard
by removing the requirement than does the nuisance tripping is
t o t a l l y subjective. The Panel should address the concern of
Health Care F a c i l i t y people by commenting that ti~e proposal is
lacking in substantiation, i . e . , lack of specific case histories.
SUBSTANTIATION: Sudden interruptions of electric service to
Ee'aTZ~Icare'F~acility areas such as operating and delivery suites,
coronary and intensive care units, cardiac catheterization labs,
clinical laboratories, etc, may cause extraordinary hazards to
patients and s t a f f . Since these Facilities are generally staffed
24-hrs/day, 7 days per week a more appropriate safeguard for the
equipment would be a ground-fault indicating device permitting
planned and rational shut-downs.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
COM~ME'NT: See Panel Action For Proposal 4-89.
"~df~-~.ACTI.ON:.
Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1337
4- 93 - (230-95(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Paul Friemel, Maryland Heights, MD
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the First Fine Print Note, paragraph
immediately after 230-95(b) Fuses.
SUBSTANTIATION: 230-95 d i s t i n c t l y states "service disconnecting
neans r a ~
IO00A or more."
The rating of the service disconnecting means is the key since a
1200A c i r c u i t breaker or switch can have lower ~pere rated
overcurrent devices such as fuses or t r i p units which could be
changed to a maximum ampere rating that the service disconnecting
means can accommodate.
This will remove the confusion existing in the f i e l d since
230-95 f i r s t paragraph, and the Fine Print Note tu 230-95(b) are
in c o n f l i c t .
PANEL ACTION: "Reject.
F~E'-C-C"O-M--M~'-NT: The fine print note adds c l a r i f i c a t i o n .
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1077
4- 94 - (230-95(c)): Accept
SUBMITTER: Frank K. Kitzantides, NEMA
RECOMMENDATION: Add the words "on site" to the end of the f i r s t
sentence. Delete the word "approved" from tne second sentence to
read: The ground-fault protection system shall be performance
tested when f i r s t installed on site. The test shall be conducted
in accordance with instructions which shall be provided with the
equipment. A written record of this test shall be made and shall
be available to the authority having j u r i s d i c t i o n .
SUBSTANTIAFION: I t has been contended by some that testing by U1e
m a 6 u ~ c C u ~ of ground-Fault pr,)~ectiun eq,Jlpnent prior to
shippin3 satlsFieJ this "performance testing."
Proposal number 45 to CMP-3 for the 1978 N.E.C. clearly
identified the problem as a f i e l d problem. The addition of the
~.mrds "on site" is proposed in the hope tht the text will more
clearly indicate this.
By d e f i n i t i o n "approved" is "acceptable to the authority having
jurisdiction."
More clearly, these instructions,should be a part of listed or
labeled ~luipnent and ~.).Jld F~ll within the sc,~;e of Section
llO-3(b).
By elimination of the word "approved," the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
evaluation and l i s t i n g of the instructions would f a l l to those
q u a l i f i e d to make such judgements, the "Qualified Testing
Laboratory."
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
ON"PANE'L ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1109
4- 90 - (230-95(a), Exception No. 1, Note-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Mary Ann Kelly, American Hospital Association
~r~-c'O-~NDATION: Add Note after Exception No. 1:
Note: Health Care F a c i l i t i e s may u t i l i z e this Exception i f a
nonorderly shutdown will introduce increased hazards to patients.
SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y my submission made to Panel 17
~TI?'ZT4"CaT;~hfEh will allow health care Facilities to be exempted
similarly to other industries.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-89.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1517
4- 91 - (230-95(a), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: George N. Webb, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
R~ATION:
Add a new Exception:
Exception No. 3: The provisions of this section shall not apply
to health care f a c i l i t i e s where such shut down will present a
hazard to patients.
SUBSTANTIATION: There has been sufficient experience with false
~-o-f-G'Fl
equipment in health care f a c i l i t i e s by t r i v i a l
Faults that this requirement should not apply to health care
f a c i l i t i e s where loss of power may produce a l i f e threatening
situati,)n.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-89.
E ~ C
ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1461
4- 95 - (730-95(c)): Reject
SUBMITTER: William P. Hogan, Chicago, IL
RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 230-95(c) by the insertion of the
~fn'g"
"s'en't'ence as the third sentence of the section:
"Such test shall include the actual application of a Fault
current on the sensing devi~es and shall not be merely the
actuati,Jn of a test button which operates the nechalical Features
of the disc,Jnnect."
The re:nainder of the sectiun shall remain the s~ne as i t is.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t should be obvious that there are manufacturers
who are attempting to use the test button as an indication that
the ground-fault protection system is in working order. I t is
also well known that such is not the case. Unless the system is
actually tested in such a way as to duplicate Fault conditions
there is no way to know i f i t will actually work when called upon
to do so. By actual test i t can be determined whether or not the
device will operate within the time or current limits required.
I t seems that everyone is sayin~ that this is the way to test,
but i t is my opinion that safety will best be served i f i t is
written into the Code.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
P ~ :
Panel feels i t would be impractical. See Panel
Action on Proposal 4-94.
VOTE ON P.AN.E.L..A.CTIOI~- Unanimously A f f i m a t i v e .
Log # 996
4- 92 - (230-95(a), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Hy A. Bershad, The Staten Island Hospital
~ATION:
"Add" new Exception No. 3 to (a) Setting as
Exception No. 3: The provisions of this section shall not apply
to a service disconnecting means for a health care f a c i l i t y where
a nonorderly shutdown will introduce additional or increased
hazards to patients or staff.
68
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~:'"r'dd6"t'bel'ieve
the Panel intended to delete the
requirement of ground-fault protection on services rated 277/480
volt, 1000 amperes or more; however, with' the new proposed
wording, the secondary conductors of a 13 kV to 277/480-volt
transformer would no longer be classified as service conductors i f
the service point was on the supply side of the 13 kV disconnect.
In such an installation as described, the primary conductors
w,~ulJ be classified as the service conductors and the secondary
conductors would become Feeder conductors, requiring no ground
fault protection as specified in Section 230-95.
MUSKA: The concept is good, but more work is necessary before
this proposal can be practicable. Because of the requirement in
Section 230-84, that each building must have service disconnect,
multibuilding complexes, such as industrial plants, hospitals and
campuses, would have to qualify both their indoor and outdoor
installations under the rigid requirenents of Article 230. This
~ u l d considerably increase the installation cost and Further
widen the cost differential between an owner owned installation
and a u t i l i t y owned installation.
Log # 1255
4- 96 - (230-95(c)-(New)):
Reject
SUBMII-FER: IAEI
~ATION:
Change (c) to (d) and add a new (c) to read:
--CE~--A~Ie
and audible means shall be provided to detect any
connection or e l e c t r i c a l contact between the grounding and
rounded c i r c u i t on the secondary side of the ground-fault sensor.
UBSTANTIATION: Ground-fault protection is required by Code and
serves as a very necessary device to protect equi~nent from damage
or burn-down only when one is assured that other ground-fault
return paths have not been established either accidentally or
unintentionally.
Just because a service has been tested according to Section
230-95(c) does not assure that the GFP equipment cannot be
rendered ineffective at a later date by additional wiring or
maintenance.
In field testing i t has been found when the grounded conductor
makes grounding contact on the secondary side of the ground-fault
sensor the ground-fault protection equipment will not properly
operate.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that i t is inappropriate and could
~d--~--a-t"aTse sense of security.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 14
NEGATIVE: Niedermeyer.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~t=-~R~--rt-fs
not a false sense of security to have
audible visual i n d i c a t i o n that a ground f a u l t ( i n s u f f i c i e n t to
actuate t r i p p i n g ) has occurred since the o r i g i n a l t e s t . Clearing
the problem, at the time, could r e s u l t in preventing d e s t r u c t i v e
• damage and costly shutdowns at a l a t e r date.
~
Log # 292
4- 100 - (230-201(a)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: J. H. (Jim) Richards, Maryland E l e c t r i c a l Inspectors
X-~s-r6
R_ECOM~ENDATION: Add. Subparagraph "Where the secondary
conductors are considered as the service conductors under parts
( i ) through (5) of Section 230-201(a) disconnecting means shall
not exceed six in number (except as permitted For f i r e pump or
emergency service disconnects.)
Each disconnecting means shall
have an i n t e r r u p t i n g rating equal to or greater than the available
f a u l t current.
On wye-connected systems having more than 150 v o l t s to ground
and not over 600 volts phase-to-phase, disconnecting means of 1000
amperes or more rating shall be provided with ground f a u l t
protection as required by Section 230-95.
SUBSTANTIATION: With e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s raising transmission and
d i s t r i b u t i o n voltages an~ the present practice of bringing median
voltages to step-down transformers of very low impedances within
the b u i l d i n g , in metal clad gear, i t is extremely important that
we provide protection from arcing f a u l t burndowns.
This should be true f o r all sub-station remotely located
separately derived systems.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PN--A'NTL-COMMZNT: Already covered in Section 230-200.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 233, 1076
4- 97 - (230-96): Accept
SUBMITTER: H.K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association,
Inc. C~)
Frank Kitzantides, NEMA(1076)
RECOF~IENDATION: Delete Section 230-96.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present text infers that service equipment
Tovercurrent "Jevices) might deserve special consideration beyond
that required in Section 110-16 without being specific. Section
110-16 does provide for working space and clearances For
electrical equipment including service equipment.
Section 384-2 also provides for "equipment space" when service
equipment is of the configuration recognized as within the scope
of Article 384.
Where language can be eliminated from the Code without
diminished effectiveness, i t should be.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
V~OT~L
ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 646
4- I01 - (230-201(ai):
Reject
SUBMII-FER: J. H. Kassebaum, Eli L i l l y and Company
RECOMME_NDATION: Add "for the building proper" so that the revised
~ e ' a ~ s " a s Yollows:
(a) SecondaryConductors. The secondary conductors shall
constitute the service conductors for the building proper where
the step-down transformers are located as follows: . . .(rBnainder
of text remains unchanged)
SUBSTANTIATION: This clarifies the conditions which differentiate
a building supply from a large capacity outdoor industrial
substation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
F ~ :
See Panel Action for Proposal 4-99.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1353
4- 98 - (230-98, FPN-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Add Fine Print Note:
See Section 110-9 for other than service requirements.
SUBSTANTIATION: Manytimes service equipment is selected for the
short-circuit current available at its supply terminals, and then
all other downstream equipment is ignored in terms of selecting
components to withstand short-circuit currents available at their
respective installed locations.
This would insure coordination of all components.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Reference to other than service equipment should
be covered in the appropriate article.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1798
4- 102 - (230-201(a), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-[ER: G. V. Cox, Chemical Manufacturers Association
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following Exception:
~e#t'iodC"
The primary conductors shall be permitted to
c o n s t i t u t e the service conductors in any of the above cases i f the
primary load i n t e r r u p t e r switch or c i r c u i t breaker is capable of
being opened or closed from a point either inside or outside of a
building or other structure at a r e a d i l y accessible l o c a t i o n . "
SUBSTANTIATION: This Exception recognizes large-capacity
s~ngle-building i n s t a l l a t i o n s which have been operating safely
according to this Exception f o r many years. The Exception
a c t u a l l y provides greater safety f o r the person operating the
switch.
PANEL ACTION: Reject:
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action f o r Proposals 4-99 and 4-107.
~
~
ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
4- 99 - (230-201): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the co~mnents
expressed in the negative voting and that the Panel be directed to
c l a r i f y the Panel Action on this proposal.
SUBMITTER: CMP 4
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the existing Section 230-201 and replace
1-Tt-h--C~
w
-F6TI-6wi ng :
230-201. Classification of Service Conductors. All conductors
on the load side of the service point which supply power to the
service disconnecting means shall be classified as service
conductors, regardless of whether they are on the primary or
secondary side of a step-down transformer,
SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies the intent.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
ON PANEL ACTION:
NEGATIVE: Cock, Muska.
6g
Log # 415
4- 103 - (230-201(b), Exception No. 2-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Donald H. Mclntosh, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
RECOMMENDATION: Exception No. 2: The primary conductors shall be
~6~'to'constitute
the service conductors in any of the
conditions of Section 230-201(a) i f the primary load interrupter
switch or circuit breaker is capable of being opened or closed
from a readily accessible location either inside or outside of the
building or other structure served nearest the point of entrance
of the service-entrance conductor, and meeting the other
requirements of Part H.
SUBSTANTIATION: Part K is worded in such a way as to cause widely
~ng'~nterpretations
by the various inspection authorities.
I t must be clarified so the Code can be equitably applied in all
jurisdictions.
The intent of Section 230-72(a) is to limit the number of
service disconnect devices that must be operated, to six, in case
of an emergency. This can be accomplished by any of the following:
(a) Not more than six switches or circuit breakers mounted in a
single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a
switchboard.
(b) A single main switch or circuit breaker having adequate
continuous current rating, interrupting rating, and capable of
being closed on a fault equal to or greater than the maximum
available short circuit current in the circuit at its supply
terminals.
(c) A single main switch or circuit breaker on the primary of
the main transformer provided this device has adequate continuous
current rating, capable of interrupting transformer f u l l load
current, and capable of being closed on a Fault equal to or
greater than the maximum available short circuit current in the
circuit at its supply terminals.
These disconnecting devices can be manually operated when they
are in the same building as the transformer and secondary
disconnect devices and qualified personnel are available to
operate these devices.
Where the primary disconnecting devices are remote from the
secondary disconnects or where there are no qualified persons
available to operate them, the primary disconnect device shall be
of the stored energy type and capable of being tripped
electrically from a reliable energy source such as a shunt t r i p
supplied from a readily accessible pushbutton location.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
FAITE~---(TOMNIE'NT: See Panel Action on Proposals 4-99 and 4-107.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
P ~ :
See Panel Action for Proposal 4-99.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
- "~'FIR-M~TfI V ' E ' : T
NEGATIVE: Cock.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
COCK: This proposal should be accepted to c l a r i f y the existing
wording of Section 230-201 because i t clearly identifies the
service conductors of high voltage installations. In a
high-voltage installation where the service point is upstream from
the transformer which steps down the voltage to an excess of 600
volts, i t is clear that the primary conductors, on the load side
of the service point, are the service conductors and all other
Code sections apply as to disconnect and overcurrent devices. The
secondary conductors then become feeder conductors requiring all
the rules of overcurrent protection until they reach another
transformation to utilization voltage less than GO0 volts. Part
(b) of this proposal then specifies that the secondary conductors
then become service conductors too and require disconnecting
means, overcurrent devices, and ground-fault protection providing
the service :Beets the requirements of Section 230-95.
This proposal keeps all present Code requirements plus the
additional coverage for all conductors and equipment on the load
side of the service point. The proposal accepted by the Panel
(new Proposal 4-99) would change the requirement For ground-fault
protection, Section 230-95 (see negative comment on Proposal 4-99.)
Log # 1019
4- 105 - (230-202(b)): Accept
SUBMITTER: H. F. Van der Voort, Carlon An Indian Head Company
RECOMMENDATIONi ChangeSection 230-202(b) by eliminating "where
encased in not less than 2 inches (50.8 mm) of concrete" following
"(3) in rigid nomnetallic conduit" in the third line of this
paragraph.
SUBSTANTIATION: Other sections of the National Electrical Code
were changed in the 1981 edition to permit rigid nonmetallic
conduit to be used in over 600 volt applications without
encasement in 2 inches of concrete. The elimination of this
requirement was based on a number of tests that prove Schedule 40
rigid PVC conduit is suitable in applications where the potential
exceeds 600 volts. High voltage, high current short-circuit tests
were conducted on 4 inch Schedule 40 Rigid PVC Conduit under a
wide range of conditions.
The results prove that the conduit
exhibits l i t t l e or no signs of deterioration or physical damage
due to the explosions and high temperatures. The report of the
results of this work at General Electric Company's Short-Circuit
Laboratory at P i t t s f i e l d , Mass. is attached. Additional
supporting data is included in the report "Normal and Short
Circuit Operating Characteristics of Metallic Shielded Solid
Dielectric Power Cable" on page 5 of which paragraph 7 states
that: "The Carlo'n PVC Conduit (6 in O.D. (15.2 c,n) .165 inches
(3.94 cm (thick)) exhibited l i t t l e or no signs of deterioriation
or i)hy~ical d~nage d~Je to explosh~ns or high temperatures
resulting from high voltage arcing faults." A number of these
tests were performed in open trenches. A copy of the complete
paper is attached. Test work done by the Dept. of Water and
Power, City of Los Angeles in October 1966, further supports this
proposed amendment. A copy of this report is attached.
(Note: A copy of attached material available from NFPAon
request.)
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
--AFFrgMATFV~-T
NEGATIVE: Bowles.
EXPLANATION qEZQIEE
BOWLES: The old CMP 3 resisted efforts in the past to eliminate
the concrete encasement requirement for nonmetallic conduit. CIvP
4 should continue to resist these efforts. The data submitted by
Allen Hubble in the Technical Committee Documentation for the 1981
NEC gives valid reasons for rejecting this proposal.
Log # 1179
4- 104 - (230-201): Reject
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs the Panel
to reconsider this proposal in view of further consideration of
Proposal 4-99.
SUBMITTER: M. F. Borleis, EEl
RECOMMENDATION: Delete existing 230-201 and replace with the
TCFFd~T6~ ....
230-201. Classification of Service Conductors
(a) Primary Conductors. In all cases, the conductors connected
to the load side of the service point shall be classified as
service conductors.
(b) Secondary Conductors. Where a transformer steps down the
voltage from above 600 volts to 600 volts or less, the secondary
conductors of such a transformer shall also be classified as
service conductors.
SUBSTANTIATION: Part K of Article 230 should apply to high
voltage serwce f a c i l i t i e s on the load side of the service point.
We believe that this was the original intent of the high voltage
code as o r i g i - a l l y proposed for the NEC 1975.
However, the present wording of Section 230-201(a) excludes
v i r t u a l l y all high voltage service f a c i l i t i e s on the load side of
the service point from compliance with Article 230. The only
instances when Article 230 would apply to these f a c i l i t i e s is:
1. When there are no stepdown transformers.
2. When, as stated in the Exception following Section
230-201(b), the installation involves an intermediate voltage
above 600 volts and i t is elected to call the primary conductors
the service conductors.
The provisions of Part K of Article 230 provide the minimum
safety requirements fo~ high voltage services and should be
applied to all such installations.
Also, since installations above 600 volts are, as required by
Part B of Article 110, accessible only to qualified persons, we
concur with the present intent of Section 230-201(a) that low
voltage systems derived from these high voltage installations to
be classified as services. However~the present wording of the
Exception following Section 230-201(b) allows confusion as to how
secondary conductors below 600 volts would be classified where
derived from a system with an intermediate voltage above 600
volts. This lack of c l a r i t y has allowed interpretations that the
ground-fault provisions of Section 230-95 do not apply to the low
voltage f a c i l i t i e s i f i t is elected to have the primary conductors
considered the service conductors.
The proposed wording would apply Article 230 to the high voltage
service f a c i l i t i e s and also to any low voltage service f a c i l i t i e s
supplied from such an installation. This revision would remove
the confusion and misinterpretation that has been occurring since
this section was revised in the 1975 NEC.
Log # 1067, 1388
4- 106 - (230-203): Reject
SUBMITTERS: Frank K. Kitzantides. NEMA(1067)
~. N~le,
Baltimore, MD (13881
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:
"Precautionary signs shall be posted where unauthorized persons
might come in contact with live parts."
Add a fine print note:
FPN: See Section 110-23.
SUBSTANTIATION: See Section 110-23(New).
I~(N-E'[--KC'FI-()N:'" Reject.
FA]~ET~NT: Present wording is more appropriate in high
voltage areas.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 14
NEGATIVE: Stanback.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
"S~A~CK: A new ANSI Z635 standard for the use of precautionary
signs ,nay be available before the next Panel 4 meeting, and
correlation may be desirable.
70
ARTICLE 240 -- OVERCURRENT PROTECTION
4- 107 - (230-205): Accept
SUBMITTER: C~ 4
RECOMMENDATION: Revise and renumber Section 230-205(b) as follows:
230-205. Disconnecting Means.
(a) Location. The service disconnecting means shall be located
in accordance with Section 230-72(c) or Section 230-208(b).
Exception: Where under single management, the service
disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located in a separate
building or structure on the same premises. In such case the
service disconnecting means shall be capable of being e l e c t r i c a l l y
opened by a readily accessible control device located as near as
practicable to where the service conductors enter the building
served. The control device shall be permanently marked to
identify its function and shall provide visual indication of the
On or Off status of the remote service disconnect.
FPN for (a). See Sections 230-3, 230-44, 230-70, 230-71(a) and
230-200.
Renumber existing Section 230-205(a) to read Section "230-205(b)."
SUBSTANTIATION: To correlate with Sections 230-72(c) and
230-208(b), and to provide an Exception.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Bowles, Muska.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
COCK: Change "230-72(c)" to "230-70" i f Proposal 4-65 is
accepted.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLES: The text should refer to Section 230-70 instead of
230-72(c) since the text of Section 230-72(c) was moved to Section
230-70 by Proposal 4-65.
MUSK/~: Samereason as for Proposal 4-99.
Log # 1975
4- 110 - (Article 240): Reject
SUBMITTER: Richard Reddy, Rochester, NY
RECOMMENDATION: Circuit breaker protection b u i l t into the cord
cap of all lamps and small appliances that have'a wire size with
less capacity than the circuit into which i t will be connected.
SUBSTANTIATION: This will in all probability be a 20 ampere
circuit. I have been a volunteer fireman for 40 years and chief
for 3 years and have seen many fires that have been started by
small wires shorting and burning and not being capable of tripping
a 20 ampere circuit breaker because of the small wire size not
drawing enough current to open the c i r c u i t .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
Ffu~'L--C~-MMTNT: See Substantiation for Proposal 4-116.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 916
4- 111 - (240-2): Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee to direct the Panel to c l a r i f y the Panel Action on this
proposal with respect to reference to Article 690.
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Solar Photovoltaics
RECOMMENDATION: In tabulation, after "Over 600 Volts, Nominal General...710," add: "Solar Photovoltaic Systems...690."
SUBSTANTIATION: For correlation with proposed Article 690.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
I n s e r t "Solar Photovoltaics Systems" after "Services" in article
tabulation.
PANEL COMMENT: To correlate with the alphabetical l i s t i n g .
VOTE ON ~
ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1180
4- 108 - (230-205(b)): Accept
SUBMII-FER: M. F. Borleis, EEl
RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 230-205(b).
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 230-200 presently states that service
conductors and equipment over 600 volts shall also comply with all
applicable provisions of the preceding sections of Article 230.
The location of the service disconnecting means is adequately
covered by 230-72(c).
Section 230-205(b) in conjunction with 230-72(c) could be
construed to require two separate service disconnecting means on
essentially the same set of service entrance conductors.
In addition, the present wording of Section 230-205(b) provides
an ambiguous situation in that the service disconnecting means may
be located ahead of the service point. Section 230-205(a)
describes the type of service disconnecting means that is
required. However, Section 230-205(a) would not apply to a
service disconnect ahead of the service point because Section
230-200 clearly states that in no case shall the provisions of
this article apply to equipment on the supply side of the service
point.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1133
4- 112 - (240-3, Exception No. 1): Accept
SUBMIl~FER: H.-I. Stanback, Lexington, Ky.
~ T I O N :
Add at the end of the present text:
" . . . . and the conductor is not part of a multioutlet branch
circuit supplying readily accessible receptacles."
SUBSTANTIATION: A conflict has existed in 1981 and previous Codes
between Sections 210-19(a) and 240-3 Exception No. 1: Section
240-3 Exception 1: allows the next highest ampere rating of fuse
or circuit breaker when conductor ampacity does not correspond
with a standard rating. Section 210-19(a) now requires conductor
ampacity not less than the rating of the branch circuit (which
Section 210-3 indicates is the ampere rating or setting of the
fuses or circuit breaker). Taken l i t e r a l l y , Section 210-19(a)
would prevent using Section 240-3 Exception No. 1: for any branch
circuit.
The more restrictive requirement of Section 210-19(a) is only
needed for multioutlet branch circuits supplying readily
accessible receptacles. The loading of such branch circuits
supplying readily accessible receptacles. The loading of such
branch circuits is unpredictable and, therefore, the branch
circuit overcurrent protection should be selected or set no higher
than the ampacity of the conductors.
Correlating changes are proposed for Sections 210-19(aI and
240-3 txceptlon No. I to eiimnate the conflict and retaln the
more restrictive requirement for multioutlet branch circuits
supplying readily accessible receptacles.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
---AFF'i-R-F~'Tg~ ~- - 1 1 ~
NEGATIVE: Muska.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
MUSKA: This proposal, when piggy-backed on to Proposal 4-116
regarding fusing of extension cords, will require that No. 14 AWG
extension cords have internal overcurrent protection in order to
be used on a 20-ampere multioutlet branch circuit. Number 14 AWG
cord has an ampacity of 17 amperes which, when used with present
Section 240-3, Exception No. 1, would allow its use on a 20-ampere
c i r c u i t . Proposed change would require a 15-ampere overcurrent.
Present wording has withstood the test of time and any conflict
should be resolved in Section 210-19(a).
Log # 234
4- 109 - (230-212-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: H.K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Switches and Circuit Breakers in Parallel
(Multiple): When the load of an existing service entrance
switching device increases beyond its continuous current rating, a
second service entrance device of identical rating may be
connected in parallel with i t , provided:
(a) Each device has interrupting capacity equal to or greater
than the maximum f a u l t current that can occur at its location.
(b) Each device has its own overcurrent protection arranged to
t r i p both devices automatically.
(c) Both devices have a common electrical or mechanical
tripping arrangement.
(d) Both switches can be locked in the open position.
SUBSTANTIATION: There is nothing in the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
today coverln~ this type of installation above 600 volts. This
method is a practice in large high-voltage installations and
should be covered in the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~
:
Panel feels that this is a design problem.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
4- 113 - (240-3, Exception No. 2): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 4
RECOMMENDATION: Delete "and" between 5 and 8. Add "9 and 10u
after 8.
SUBSTANTIATION: Correlation with Section 240-21. Changesmade in
the 1981 edition of the NEC.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VO'F~-~PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
71
ARTICLE 240 -- OVERCURRENT PROTECTION
4- 107 - (230-205): Accept
SUBMITTER: C~ 4
RECOMMENDATION: Revise and renumber Section 230-205(b) as follows:
230-205. Disconnecting Means.
(a) Location. The service disconnecting means shall be located
in accordance with Section 230-72(c) or Section 230-208(b).
Exception: Where under single management, the service
disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located in a separate
building or structure on the same premises. In such case the
service disconnecting means shall be capable of being e l e c t r i c a l l y
opened by a readily accessible control device located as near as
practicable to where the service conductors enter the building
served. The control device shall be permanently marked to
identify its function and shall provide visual indication of the
On or Off status of the remote service disconnect.
FPN for (a). See Sections 230-3, 230-44, 230-70, 230-71(a) and
230-200.
Renumber existing Section 230-205(a) to read Section "230-205(b)."
SUBSTANTIATION: To correlate with Sections 230-72(c) and
230-208(b), and to provide an Exception.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Bowles, Muska.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
COCK: Change "230-72(c)" to "230-70" i f Proposal 4-65 is
accepted.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BOWLES: The text should refer to Section 230-70 instead of
230-72(c) since the text of Section 230-72(c) was moved to Section
230-70 by Proposal 4-65.
MUSK/~: Samereason as for Proposal 4-99.
Log # 1975
4- 110 - (Article 240): Reject
SUBMITTER: Richard Reddy, Rochester, NY
RECOMMENDATION: Circuit breaker protection b u i l t into the cord
cap of all lamps and small appliances that have'a wire size with
less capacity than the circuit into which i t will be connected.
SUBSTANTIATION: This will in all probability be a 20 ampere
circuit. I have been a volunteer fireman for 40 years and chief
for 3 years and have seen many fires that have been started by
small wires shorting and burning and not being capable of tripping
a 20 ampere circuit breaker because of the small wire size not
drawing enough current to open the c i r c u i t .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
Ffu~'L--C~-MMTNT: See Substantiation for Proposal 4-116.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 916
4- 111 - (240-2): Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee to direct the Panel to c l a r i f y the Panel Action on this
proposal with respect to reference to Article 690.
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Solar Photovoltaics
RECOMMENDATION: In tabulation, after "Over 600 Volts, Nominal General...710," add: "Solar Photovoltaic Systems...690."
SUBSTANTIATION: For correlation with proposed Article 690.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
I n s e r t "Solar Photovoltaics Systems" after "Services" in article
tabulation.
PANEL COMMENT: To correlate with the alphabetical l i s t i n g .
VOTE ON ~
ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1180
4- 108 - (230-205(b)): Accept
SUBMII-FER: M. F. Borleis, EEl
RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 230-205(b).
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 230-200 presently states that service
conductors and equipment over 600 volts shall also comply with all
applicable provisions of the preceding sections of Article 230.
The location of the service disconnecting means is adequately
covered by 230-72(c).
Section 230-205(b) in conjunction with 230-72(c) could be
construed to require two separate service disconnecting means on
essentially the same set of service entrance conductors.
In addition, the present wording of Section 230-205(b) provides
an ambiguous situation in that the service disconnecting means may
be located ahead of the service point. Section 230-205(a)
describes the type of service disconnecting means that is
required. However, Section 230-205(a) would not apply to a
service disconnect ahead of the service point because Section
230-200 clearly states that in no case shall the provisions of
this article apply to equipment on the supply side of the service
point.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1133
4- 112 - (240-3, Exception No. 1): Accept
SUBMIl~FER: H.-I. Stanback, Lexington, Ky.
~ T I O N :
Add at the end of the present text:
" . . . . and the conductor is not part of a multioutlet branch
circuit supplying readily accessible receptacles."
SUBSTANTIATION: A conflict has existed in 1981 and previous Codes
between Sections 210-19(a) and 240-3 Exception No. 1: Section
240-3 Exception 1: allows the next highest ampere rating of fuse
or circuit breaker when conductor ampacity does not correspond
with a standard rating. Section 210-19(a) now requires conductor
ampacity not less than the rating of the branch circuit (which
Section 210-3 indicates is the ampere rating or setting of the
fuses or circuit breaker). Taken l i t e r a l l y , Section 210-19(a)
would prevent using Section 240-3 Exception No. 1: for any branch
circuit.
The more restrictive requirement of Section 210-19(a) is only
needed for multioutlet branch circuits supplying readily
accessible receptacles. The loading of such branch circuits
supplying readily accessible receptacles. The loading of such
branch circuits is unpredictable and, therefore, the branch
circuit overcurrent protection should be selected or set no higher
than the ampacity of the conductors.
Correlating changes are proposed for Sections 210-19(aI and
240-3 txceptlon No. I to eiimnate the conflict and retaln the
more restrictive requirement for multioutlet branch circuits
supplying readily accessible receptacles.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
---AFF'i-R-F~'Tg~ ~- - 1 1 ~
NEGATIVE: Muska.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
MUSKA: This proposal, when piggy-backed on to Proposal 4-116
regarding fusing of extension cords, will require that No. 14 AWG
extension cords have internal overcurrent protection in order to
be used on a 20-ampere multioutlet branch circuit. Number 14 AWG
cord has an ampacity of 17 amperes which, when used with present
Section 240-3, Exception No. 1, would allow its use on a 20-ampere
c i r c u i t . Proposed change would require a 15-ampere overcurrent.
Present wording has withstood the test of time and any conflict
should be resolved in Section 210-19(a).
Log # 234
4- 109 - (230-212-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: H.K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Switches and Circuit Breakers in Parallel
(Multiple): When the load of an existing service entrance
switching device increases beyond its continuous current rating, a
second service entrance device of identical rating may be
connected in parallel with i t , provided:
(a) Each device has interrupting capacity equal to or greater
than the maximum f a u l t current that can occur at its location.
(b) Each device has its own overcurrent protection arranged to
t r i p both devices automatically.
(c) Both devices have a common electrical or mechanical
tripping arrangement.
(d) Both switches can be locked in the open position.
SUBSTANTIATION: There is nothing in the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
today coverln~ this type of installation above 600 volts. This
method is a practice in large high-voltage installations and
should be covered in the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~
:
Panel feels that this is a design problem.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
4- 113 - (240-3, Exception No. 2): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 4
RECOMMENDATION: Delete "and" between 5 and 8. Add "9 and 10u
after 8.
SUBSTANTIATION: Correlation with Section 240-21. Changesmade in
the 1981 edition of the NEC.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VO'F~-~PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
71
In the 4-year period from 1976 to 1979, 5,803 incidents of f i r e
involving electric products in homes were reported to UL via a
newspaper clipping service. Of these f i r e incidents, 5.7 percent
involved flexible cord. 51 percent of the incidents involving
flexible cords, involved extension cords. This supports the
indication given by the IAEI data.
The UL newspaper clipping data were analyzed to determine the
percentage of incidents that could have been averted i f the
flexible cord(s) involved in each incident were protected against
overcurrent in accordance with the cord ampacity. Judgment was
used to categorize the incidents in those situations where the
reported details were either sparse or incomplete. The results of
the analysis were as follows:
75 percent of the incidents involving appliance cords (without
extension cords) could have been averted; 93 percent of the
incidents involving extension cords could have been averted.
Among those f i r e incidents that were considered unable to be
averted by protecting against overcurrent in accordance with the
cord mnpacity were incidents in which no undersized extension
cords were reported to be used, and in which appliances that draw
high current (e.g., heaters and air conditioners) were involved.
In this case, any new overcurrent protection would, by necessity,
be of about the same size as the branch-circuit protection.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
~
L
ACTION:
Log # 126
4- 114 - (240-3, Exception No. 5): Reject
Secretary's Note: This Comment (No. 70-5, CMP 4) on Proposal 4
was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See
NEC-TCD-1980 Annual Meeting. The following was the Secretary's
Note with this comment.
"The Correlatlng Committee will set up an ad hoc committee to
consider protection of conductors and transformers for boost and
buck applications.
SUBMITTER: Ray L. Olson, Boise, ID
~ATION:
Recommendthe panel reconsider Proposal 4 as
written with~he addition of Paragraph (d) from the panel's
revised recommendation.
SUBSTANTIATION: As revised:
(a) Is covered by original proposal and is also required for
three phase.
(b) Is impossible because the excitation windings are not heavy
enough to carry a phase to neutral load.
Covered by original proposal
To be included with original proposal above.
This recommendation is with respect to included proposal to
Panel 13, Section 450-3(b), Exception-(New).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
P~NEL COMMENT: Based on insufficient technical information
~ c o n s i d e r this proposal.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
STANBACK: Panel 4 should repeat the request for technical
information from an Ad Hoc Committee in order to properly consider
this proposal.
NEGATIVE: Beard, Cock, Kassebaum, Stanback.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BEARD: My reason for casting a negative vote on the Panel's
action on this proposal is as follows:
The data presented, by the NEC Correlating Committee Ad Hoc
Subcommittee on Control Circuit Protection, Ampacities and Use of
No. 16 and No. 18 Conductors, in substantiation of the proposal
i s , at best, marginal. Even i f the data could be accepted as
being reasonably valid, the numbers quoted (less than three
percent of all electrical fires reported were attributable to
extension cords) can in no measure j u s t i f y the added cost that
would be imposed on the public as a result of this proposal.
Aside from the lack of solid substantiation, the proposal f a i l s
to recognize that safety could be compromised rather than
enhanced. Consider that because of economic necessity the average
family is attempting to do more things for themselves. Once a
protected cord becomes inoperable, the handyman/handywoman around
the house may attempt to convert i t to the conventional
unprotected type. Only now the converted cord may have serious
flaws, depending on the s k i l l of the f i x e r .
This proposal borders on subscribing to the unrealistic notion
that any problem can be mandated out of existence. I urge the
Panel to reconsider its action on the proposal.
COCK: I do not agree that the substantiation j u s t i f i e s the
fusing of every No. 16 and No. 18 extention cord. Newspaper
clippings of "incidents" are of l i t t l e value when a profile of "the
damage caused by the "incidents" is not made.
KASSEBAUM: I disagree that the substantiation j u s t i f i e s fusing
of every No. 16 and No. 18 extension cord. I have d i f f i c u l t y
believin9 "data" that is based on newspaper clippings, judgement
and opinlon.
STANBACK: While NEMAagrees that the subject merits further
consideration, i t is f e l t that the proposal as worded could lead
to abuses which could create more serious safety hazards than i t
would solve.
NEMA feels that the proposed requirements are too broad. The
substantiation with the proposal addresses basically extension
cords. NEMAis investigating the subject of extension cords
within its related product sections and in a Joint Sections
Committee. Also, i t was not the intent of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee
to require this protection for lamp cords.
The approval process for i n i t i a t i n g any product changes which
might be indicated already exists.
-
Log # 1827
4- 115 - (240-3, Exception No. 5): Reject
SUBMITTER: Paul E. Phelan, Trade Education Inc. and New Hampshire
~
l
Contractors Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Changethe f i r s t sentence to read: "Conductors
supplied by the secondary side of a single phase transformer
having, a.27wire (single-voltage~ secondary shall be considered as
protecteo Dy overcurrent protection on the primary (supply) side
of the transformer provided "primary" protection is in accordance
with Section 450-3 and "secondary conductor ampacity is determined
by secondary kva rating at transformer full-rated secondary
voltage."
Transformer secondary conductors (other than 2-wire) are not
considered to be protected by the primary overcurrent protection."
SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording requires ~hat secondary
conductors ampacity be based on the rating of the primary
overcurrent protection which is at least 125 percent of the
transformer primary current ratin~. This results in oversizing
secondary conductors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The secondary conductors would not be protected at
~ e i r rated ampacity unless they are oversized.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 891
4- 116 - (240-4): Accept
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Control Circuit Protection
~ATION:
240-4. Protection of Fixture Wires and Cords.
Flexible cord, including tinsel cord and extension cords, shall be
protected against overcurrent in accordance with their ampacities
as specified in Table 400-5. Fixture wire shall be protected
against overcurrent in accordance with its ampacity as specified
in Table 402-5.
Exception No. 1: When a flexible cord or a tinsel cord approved
for and used with a specific listed appliance is connected to a
branch circuit of Article 210 in accordance with the following:
20-ampere circuits, tinsel cord or No. 18 cord and larger.
30-ampere circuits, No. 16 cord and larger.
40-ampere circuits, cord of 20-ampere capacity and over.
50-ampere circuits, cord of 20-ampere capacity and over.
Exception No. 2: When fixture wire is connected to 120-volt or
higher branch circuit of Article 210 in accordance with the
following:
20-ampere circuits No, 18 up to 50 feet of run length.
20-ampere circuits No. 16 up to 100 feet of run length.
20-ampere circuits. No. 14 and larger.
30-ampere circuits No. 14 and larger.
40-ampere c i r c u i t s No. 12 and larger.
50-ampere circuits No. 12 and larger.
SUBSTANTIATION: In the 10-year period including 1970 to 1979,
~
t
s
of electrical f i r e were reported to IAEI and were
included in the IAEI annually published tabulation. Of these f i r e
incidents, 7.8 percent involved flexibIe cords. 38 percent of the
incidents involving flexible cords, involved extension cords. '
Since almost every use of an extension cord is in conjunction with
the use of an appliance cord, and since there are probably far
more appliance cords in use without extension cords, the 38
percent figure mentioned above seems to indicate a
disproportionately high frequency of f i r e incidents among
extension cords, relative to other applications of flexible cord.
Log # 312
4- 117 - (240-7-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: R. A. Niedermeyer, City of Portland, OR
RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 240-7 to read:
with'{enewable links. Fuses using renewable links shall
not be installed.
SUBSTANTIATION: Class H fuses s t i l l are being made using :
renewable links. Experience has shown this type of device to be
misused in that two or three links are often found inside of the
fuses. These fuses are dangerously overlinked, overheated, and
also the IC rating is only 10,000 amperes. The majority of use of
this type of fuse is in industrial and conlnercial application.
The fault currents available in such locations most generally are
much higher than the rating of the renewable fuse.
Also, this type of fuse is very d i f f i c u l t to check for proper
linking after they are installed, as the fuse must be pulled and
taken apart to de~ermine its actual rated current links.
Proper fuses, of class and rating, are available on the market
to f i l l any specific need.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I}'AITE'[--C~N'T: Proposal lacks sufficient documentation to
substantiate the need for exclusion.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
NEGATIVE: Beard, Cock, Herbert, Kassebaum, Niedermeyer,
VanTassel.
72
Log # 263
4- 121 - (240-20(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN
~ME'N[}ATION: C i r c u i t breakers shall open all ungrounded
conductors of a c i r c u i t except f o r l i g h t i n g c i r c u i t s .
For
l i g h t i n g c i r c u i t s only, single-pole c i r c u i t breakers shall be used.
(Exception wording to remain as w r i t t e n . )
SUBSTANTIATION: The wording in the 1931 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
permits the use of multipole breakers on l i g h t i n g c i r c u i t s which
w i l l shut o f f all normal l i g h t s whenever a f a u l t occurs in one
phase. The proposed would keep on 2/3 or even 1/3 of the normal
l i g h t s should a f a u l t occur in a three phase c i r c u i t .
This would
c e r t a i n l y be more desirable than resorting to emergency l i g h t i n g
as is required due to the wording in the 1975 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL
CODE.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Exception permits the use of single-pole
breakers in l i g h t i n g c i r c u i t s .
The Panel feels that i t is
unnecessary to make t h i s mandatory.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BLARD: I agree w-Tth the submitter's proposal and substantiation.
COCK: I agree with the submitter.
HERBERT: I agree with the submitter's comments. I also have
noted many instances of severe overheating and damage to the fiber
fuse housing. The repeated replacement of blown links combined
with the continued use of the same housing creates a structurally
unsound interrupting device. The common installation of this link
style fuse in circuits over 10,000 AIC combined with the
possibility of a p a r t i a l l y damaged housing is dangerous and should
be prevented.
KASSEBAUM: I agree with the substantiation of the submitter.
Renewable link fuses should not be allowed f o r installation below
600 watts.
NIEDERMEYER: The substantiation speaks for i t s e l f - the fear
that some fuse manufacturer will be put out of business is not a
valid argument in defending the continued use of these devices
which have a historic background of misuse and damage to
equipment. Manymanufacturers will not warrant their equipment i f
protected with renewable fuses - must be a reason.
VANTASSEL: Regardless of the "documentation" available to
substantiate the need for the proposal, one has to question the
use of these fuses. The potential for abuse is real, is l i k e l y
being practiced, and not l i k e l y to be documented voluntarily.
Log # 516
4- 122 - (240-20(b)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
~ATION:
Insert "simultaneously" between "shall" and
"open" in the ist and 2nd lines.
SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y the intent of this requirement.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal adds a requirement not intended by
the present rule.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 42
4- 118 - (240-10): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Insert the words "or to comply with equipment
labeling or listing" after the word "equipment."
SUBSTANTIATION: Unclear whether overcurrent devices required by
equipment labeling or listing (therefore required by Code) are
considered supplementary. In the absence of a definition,
supplementary overcurrent devices could be interpreted as those
not required by Code; such device fie]d-installed to comply with
equipment labeling or listing could be interpreted as being
required by Code (Section 110-3) even when other branch circuit
devices are installed. This raises the question of the intent of
this section regarding ready access to such field-installed
devices.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that the additional wording is
unnecessary. I t is not the intent of the Panel to require
supplementary overcurrent devices to be readily accessible
regardless of whether factory or f i e l d installed.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1494
4- 123 - (240-20(b)): Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: John A. Pfau, National Conference of States on
Bul1~FdT~Codes and Standards
RECOMMENDATION: 240-20. Ungrounded Conductors.
C i r c u i t breakers as overcurrent device. C i r c u i t breakers
shall open all ungrounded conductors of the c i r c u i t .
DELETE: The "exception" in i t s e n t i r e t y .
SUBSTANTIATION: Failure to have p o s i t i v e opening of both poles of
a breaker serving a 220 v o l t o u t l e t and/or load is a f i r e hazard
and a danger to personnel through possible shock.
This also involves NEC Section 550-4(c).
Please see following additional supporting information.
THE DANGEROF SUPPLYING 240 VOLT
LOADS FROMTIED SINGLE-POLE BREAKERS
Log # 1555
4- 119 - (240-11): Reject
SUBMITTER: Rich Wideman, Novato, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add another paragraph 240-11 to read:
For a device to be applied as a current limiting device, i t
shall have industry recognition as being current limiting.
SUBSTANTIATION: There is confusion as to whether an overcurrent
device is current limiting or not when not marked accordingly,
making i t d i f f i c u l t to enforce system integrity.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that the present definition of
current-limiting overcurrent devices is preferable.
The Panel feels that the present l i s t i n g , labeling and
identification requirements are adequate.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1338
4- 120 - (240-13-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Martin Smith, Bussman Division, McGraw-Edison Co.
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following section/
240-13. Series listing of combination overcurrent devices for
higher interrupting capacity ratings.
Only current limiting devices shall be permitted to be used in
series to protect loadside overcurrent devices that do not have
adequate interrupting capacity ratings for the available fault
current at the lineside of their terminals.
Other equivalent
device(s) capable of limiting the current shall also be permitted.
SUBSTANTIATION: There is a misunderstanding and confusion in this
area. To assure integrity of the systems, the overcurrent devices
must have independent testing laboratory published 12t and Ip
values.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that requirements for listing
should not be included in the Code.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 11
NEGATIVE: Gubany.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
GUBANY: I am voting negative on Panel Action since I agree with
the submitter's substantiation that all overcurrent devices to be
used to protect other de~ices should have individual (device)
established I peak and I~t published values recognized by
industry standards and/or independent laboratories. Someproducts
(overcurrent devices) have published values others do not and
therein lies the hazard.
I
73
1. From the standpoint of possible f i r e and/or personnel safety
i t is essential that in the case of a two-pole breaker supplying a
230 volt load, that both poles be certain to open Jnder f a u l t or
overload conditions.
2. Two single-pole breakers, externally coupled with a t i e bar
and serving a 240 volt load, do not assure positive tripping of
both poles under fault or overload conditions.
Single-pole
tripping is even more l i k e l y when using the compact
single-position breakers housing 2 single-pole breakers,
externally coupled, and supplying a 240 volt load.
3. For example, consider an energized 2,000 watt, 240 volt
baseboard heater which develops a phase-to-ground fault at one end
of the heater element. The instanteous magnetic element in the
single-pole breaker in that leg will t r i p the breaker. The
failure of the other.single-pole breaker to t r i p will result in
120 volts being impressed across the heater element with the
resultant current returning through the equipment ground. This
could continue indefinitely until detected, during which time i t
would present a possible f i r e or shock hazard.
4. A faulty 240 v o l t device or load should be completely
protected through the use of a single 2-pole breaker. There are
numerous conditions of potential dangers in 240 volt loads that
demand proper protection of property and equipment in addition to
providing safety from f i r e or shock. I t is significant to note
that the exception under Section 240-20(b) Exception permits the
use of tied breakers serving 230 volt loads, expressly prohibits
the practice when the phase-to-ground voltage exceeds 150.
5. The electrical industry is aware of the inherent danger and
hazard of failure to have both circuit breaker poles open on a
faulted or overloaded 230 volt load or device. A single 2-pole
breaker with a single operating handle should serve to supply 230
v o l t ungrounded loads. Someleading manufacturers have or are
taking steps in the design to incorporate - sitive tripping of
both poles. This problem should be solved by requiring that
circuit breakers serving 230 volt, ungrounded loads or devices,
clear both poles on fault or overload conditions.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part.
D e l e t e"each conductor of ungrounded 2-wire circuits," from the
Exception.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel f e l t that the supporting data only
applied to deleting the Exception for ungrounded 2-wire circuits.
SUBSTANTIATION: A~Dacity of feeder conductors do not always match
~--ratlngs"-~gs--ol~ their overcurrent protective devices. Relating the
size of tap conductor to feeder overcurrent protection more
accurately defines the protection required and brings the logic
associated with the protection of Feeder taps in line with
Exception No. 10.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~A]TE'[--Ci~RII~mlSF: The Panel intended Exception No. 10 to be more
restrictive.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
~OMMENT ON VOTE:
NIEDERMEYER: I agree with the requirement that ungrounded
2-wire circuits be required to have a double-pole breaker,
however, I'm concerned that the phrasing l e f t , i.e. "each
ungrounded conductor of 3-wire direct-current or single-phase
circuits" will lead someone to believe that this means 2-wire
ungrounded circuits when reading "or single-phase circuits."
I'm voting affirmative conditioned that we c l a r i f y by adding "or
3-wire single-phase c i r c u i t s . " This would then remove any
confusion as to Panel intent.
Log # 1367
4- 124 - (240-21, Exception No. 2b(2a)): Reject
SU~MITTER: Paul Hoh, Ralston Purina
ITE'-C~Q~E'lq~ATION: Delete Exception No. 2a.
SUBSTANTIATION: Sentence 2(a) of Exception No. 2b(1) is in
conflict with 240-3, Exception No. 5, last sentence which states
that transformer secondary conductors are not considered to be
protected by primary overcurrent, other than by 2-wire primary and
secondary.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel believes that there is no conflict. The
secondary conductors are not required to be protected by primary
overcurrent devices i f they meet the 10 foot tap rule.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 11
NEGATIVE: Gubany.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
GUBANY: I am voting negative on Panel Action since I agree with
this substantiation. 2b(2a) is in conflict with the last sentence
of Section 240-3, Exception No. 5. 2b(2a) tap would permit a
400-ampere device (as a motor control center) to be fed by a
10-fo~t, 400-ampere feeder, tapped to the secondary of a
transformer without any protection for the tap conductors
transformer or the 400-ampere device i t feeds. Primary protection
of the transformer which meets Section 450-3 is not recognized as
providing protection for secondary conductors when the primary is
more than 2-wire and the secondary is more than 2-wire.
Log # 1672
4- 128 - (240-21, Exception No. 3 b . ) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RE~J~-O-B-M~-'N-DATION: 240-21 Exception No. 3b. (The ampacity of the
tap conductors is not less than I/3 that of the feeder conductors
from which they are supplied.) "The ampacity of the tap
conductors have an ampacity of not less than 1/3 that of the
conductors or overcurrent protection from which they are tapped."
Material to be deleted in parentheses, new material in
quotations.
SUBSTANTIATION: Provide consistency in sizihg tap conductors to
compyly--wiTh Exception No. 8.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise to read as follows:
"The ampacity of the tap conductors is not less than i/3 that of
the feeder conductors or overcurrent protection from which they
are tapped,"
PANEL COMMENT: Editorial change.
V~-ONPANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1675
4- 129 - (240-21, Exception No. 8a.): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 240-21, Exception No. 8a. The conductors
~ j i ' 6 ~ h 6 - p r i m a r y of a transformer have an (ampacity)
"current-carrying capacity" of at least 1/3 that of the conductors
or overcurrent protection from which they are tapped. Material to
be deleted in parentheses, new material in quotations.
SUBSTANTIATION: This exception makes reference that the
conductors have a given ampacity. I t is very possible that the
ampacity of the conductor used in Table 310-16 needs to be
adjusted by Note 8 correction factors or ambient temperature
correction factors, and the current-carrying capacity will not be
the same as the ampacity. By replacing these words with
current-carrying capacity i t will be clearly understood that i t
must have the capacity to carry these loads, not the ampacity,
because the ampacities will not change after applying correction
factors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject,
I~-AITEL--i~'OI~IRL'~T: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-125.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1673
4- 125 - (240-21, Exception No. 2b.): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~ATION:
240-21 Exception No. 2b. The (ampacity) "current
carrying capacity" of the tap conductor i s . . .
Wording to be deleted in parentheses, new material is in
uotations.
UBSTANTIATION: This exception makes reference that the
conductors have a given ampacity. I t is very possible that the
ampacity of the conductor used in Table 310-16 needs to be
adjusted by Note 8 correction factors or ambient temperature
correction factors. AND the current carrying capacity will not
the same as the ampacity. By replacing these words with current
carrying capacity i t will be clearly understood that i t must have
the capacity to carry these loads, not the ampacity, because the
ampacities will not change after applying correction factors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that i t is not necessary to
replace a word by its defined meaning.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
~
Log # 1676
4- 130 - (240-21, Exception No. 8b.): Reject
SUBMIIT[ER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 240-21 Exception No. 8b. The conductors supplied
~-y-~-6"sedd6dary of the transformer have an (ampacity)
"current-carrying capacity" that, when multiplied by the ratio of
the secondary-to-primary voltage, is at least i / 3 the (ampacity)
"current-carrying capacity" of the conductors or. overcurrent
protection from which the primary conductors are tapped. Material
to be deleted in parentheses, new material in quotations.
SUBSTANTIATION: This exception makes reference that the
~ t - o - F C ~ g e a given ampacity. I t is very possible that the
ampacity of the conductor used in Table 310-16 needs to be
adjusted by Note 8 correction factors or ambient temperature
correction factors, and the current-carrying capacity will not be
the same as the ampacity. By replacing these words with
current-carrying capacity i t will be clearly understood that it
must have the capaclty to carry these loads, not the ampacity,
because the ampacities will not" change after apply correctlon
factors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-125.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1674
4- 126 - (240-21, Exception 3b.): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~ATION:
240L21, Exception 3b. The (ampacity of) "current
carrying capacity of" the tap conductors is not less than i/3 that
of the feeder conductors from which they are supplied.
Material to be deleted in parentheses, new material in
quotations.
SUBSTANTIATION: This exception makes reference that the
conductors have a given ampacity. I t is very possible that the
ampacity of the conductor used in Table 310-16 needs to be
adjusted by Note 8 correction factors or ambient temperature
correction factors, and the current carrying capacity will not be
the same as the ampacity. By replacing these words with current
carrying capacity i t will be clearly understood that i t must have
the capacity to carry these loads, not the ampacity, because the
ampacities will not change after applying correction factors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 4-125.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 498
4- 131 - (240-21, Exception No. 8e.): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ernest E. Cannon, Tempe, AZ
RECOMMENDATION: Add at the end of present e. Or terminate in a
~ l ~ o - ~ d - - o r panelbeard which serves a computed load not
exceeding the transformer secondary FLA and equipped with
overcurrent devices with a total value not exceeding 150 percent
of the transformer FLA. Each overcurrent device shall be 2-pole
for single-phase transformers and 3-pole for 3-phase
transformers. The secondary conductors, switchboard, and the
panelboard shall be rated not less than 125 percent of the
transformer secondary FLA.
Log.# 1335
4- 127 - (240-21, Exception No. 3b.): Reject
SU~MI~ER: Lawrence R. Walsh, Lizardos Engineering Associates
ITE-COI~IEI~ATION: ChangeException No. 3b. to read:
The ampacity of the tap conductors is not less than 1/3 that of
the overcurrent device from which they are supplied.
74
Log # 1462
4- 136 - (240-21, Exception No. lOg.-(New)): Accept
SUBMITTERS: Leo Witz, Continental E l e c t r i c Co.
~-T~i Hogan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
B i l l Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Chief E l e c t r i c a l Inspector, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Leo Nagel, North Dakota
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch, Inc.
Homer M. L e f l e r , Chicago, IL
RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 240-2], Exception No. 10, by adding
thereto a new subsection as follows:
"g. The tap shall be made no less than 35 f e e t from the f l o o r . "
SUBSTANTIATION: As i t is presently w r i t t e n the tap made under
x-l~-x-ception No. i0 can be made anywhere in the building as long as
the c e i l i n g is 35 feet high at the walls. There is nothing to
prevent you from making the tap two inches o f f the ground or any
distance between the f l o o r and the c e i l i n g or f o r t h a t matter in
the basement or up on the r o o f . We assume that i t was the
i n t e n t i o n of the Code-Making Panel to place some r e s t r i c t i o n upon
the location of the permitted tap and since the Panel indicated a
35 foot c e i l i n g , we assume that t h a t ' s where they intended that i t
be made.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
SUBSTANTIATION: NEC does not appear to address this'arrangement.
Multi-taps to multi-disconnects with each tap ending in a set of
overcurrent devices is addressed. The propose~ arrangement
permits a design which is sound and acceptable in our
j u r i s d i c t i o n s even though not s p e c i f i c a l l y according to NEC.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is intended that the taps terminate in a single
overcurrent device.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 508
4- 132 - (240-21, Exception No. 9): Reject
SUBMITTER: James L o f f l i n , She]don, IA
C
RO ~ D A T I O N : Conductors from generator terminals to the f i r s t
overcurrent device as covered in Section 445-5. When generator is
used for normal supply, not emergency supply.
SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification.
FAN-ET~
Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Section 445-5 is not limited to normal supply
generators.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 2015
4- 133 c (240-21, Exception No. 9): Reject
SUBMITTER: Idaho Chapter IAEI
ITE'-C-O-~-E~-OATION: Change Exception No. 9 to read:
Generator feeder taps not over 25 feet long where all the
following conditions are met:
(a) conductors have an ampacity of at least 115 percent of the
generator rating, and (b) the total length of the tap conductor
from the generator terminal to the f i r s t overcurrent device sh~ll
not be over 10 feet long, and (c) the tap conductor is protected
from suitable damage, and (d) the generator tap conductors
terminate in a single circuit breaker or set of fuses which will
limit the load to that allowed in Tables 310-16 through 310-19.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 240-3 requires an overcurrent device
shall be connected at the point where the conductors to be
protected receive their supply. Under this present Code wording,
an overcurrent device would have to be located at the generator
terminal. Tap distances have been provided for transformers,
therefore generators should be afforded the same consideration.
Inherent generator design is not recognized as overcurrent
protection as required by Section 240-21.
These generators can be changed in the f i e l d to a larger
generator without any knowledge of conductor ampacity of
overcurrent requirements thereby causing an overload on the
conductors and creating a f i r e hazard.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~#~MIE:--NT: The proposal would create a conflict with Section
445-5.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log #1767
4- 137 - (240-22, Exception No. 2): Accept
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: In the second l i n e , delete the word "running."
b'-O~-STANf/Af/dN: CMP 11 has deleted the word "running" where i t
appeared with "overload p r o t e c t i o n " throughout A r t i c l e 430 and,
e d i t o r i a l l y , i t should be deleted in the exception and throughout
the NEC where i t appears in t h i s manner.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
V ~ L
ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1685
4- 138 - (240-23): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Section 240-3 would best serve i t s purpose i f
eliminated e n t i r e l y .
Delete Section 240-23.
SUBSTANTIATION: I f 240-23 were deleted e n t i r e l y as a Code section
and added as a f i n e p r i n t note to Section 240-21 inasmuch as i t is
not a requirement but a statement of information.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~ E L COMMENT: See Panel Action f o r Proposal 4-139.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1697
4- 134 - (240-21, Exception lOa.): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
ITE'C~NXI~ATION: 240-21, Exception 10a. The ampacity of the tap
conductors is not less than 1/3 that of the "conductors or" the
overcurrent device from which they are supplied.
SUBSTANTIATION: Provide consistency in sizing tap conductor to
comply with Exception No. 8. Exception No. 3 states size on
conductors. Exception No. 8 states size on conductors or device.
Exception No. i0 states size on overcurrent device.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 4-127.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1502
4- 139 - (240-23): Accept
SUBMITTER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
ITE~C~FI~;~-(~)ATION: Revise to read as follows:
Change in Size of Grounded Conductor. Where a change occurs in
the size of the ungrounded conductor, a similar change "shall be
permitted to be" made in the size of the ungrounded conductor.
SUBSTANTIATION: The word "may" does not lend i t s e l f to positive
enforcement, and does not conform to the Sectio# 110-i where shall
is the preferred wording.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1677
4- 135 - (240-21, Exception No. iOb.): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 240-21 Exception No. lOb. The tap conductors
terminate with a single c i r c u i t breaker or a single set of fuses
t h a t w i l l l i m i t the load to the (ampacity) " c u r r e n t - c a r r y i n g
capacity" of the tap conductor...Material to be deleted in
arentheses, new material in quotations.
UBSTANTIATION: This exception makes reference t h a t the
conductors have a given ampacity. I t is very possible that the
ampacity of the conductor used in Table 310-16 needs to be
adjusted by Note 8 correction factors or ambient temperature
correction f a c t o r s , and the c u r r e n t - c a r r y i n g capacity w i l l not be
the same as the ampacity. By replacing these words with
c u r r e n t - c a r r y i n g capacity i t w i l l be c l e a r l y understood that i t
must have the capacity to carry these loads, not the ampacity,
because the ampacities w i l l not change a f t e r applying correction
factors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Cogent f o r Proposal 4-125.
VUlb UIw PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 93
4- 140 - (240-24(a), Exception No. 1): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee t h a t f u r t h e r consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: Don L. Gregersen, Spokane, WA
~iV~NDATION:
Exception No. i should be deleted.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 240-24, Exception No. 1 is in c o n f l i c t
~Et{6~-230-72(c).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Not in c o n f l i c t with Section 230-72(c).
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
~
NEGATIVE: Beard, Niedermeyer.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
I agree with the submitter's proposal and substantiation.
NIEDERMEYER: Section 230-72(c) d e f i n i t e l y requires " r e a d i l y
accessible l o c a t i o n " and is in c o n f l i c t .
No place in either
A r t i c l e 240 or 230 allows an overcurrent device to be other than
"Readily Accessible." Current l i m i t e r s are not regarded as
overcurrent devices in t h i s sense.
This Exception No. I should be eliminated as i t has no
application.
~RD:
75
Exception: In c i r c u i t s supplied by a system having a grounded
neutral and having no conductor at over 300 volts to ground.
(c) Fuseholders for c u r r e n t - l i m i t i n g fuses shall not permit
insertion of fuses that are not current l i m i t i n g .
(d) Marking. Fuses shall be plainly marked, either by printing
on the fuse barrel or by a label attached to the barrel, showing
the following:
(1) Ampere rating,
(2) Voltage rating,
I~
Interrupting rating where other than I0,000 amperes,
"Current l i m i t i n g " where applicable,
(5) The name or trademark of the manufacturer.
Exception: Interrupting rating markings shall not be required
on fuses used for supplementary protection.
SUBSTANTIATION: Part "F" as presently written has had the effect
~CgfEtfng
development resulting from new technology. This
revision would allow the NEC requirements for fuses and
fuseholders to be more compatible with the requirements of this
"era of space age" technological developments.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~ANEL COMMENT: The submitted proposal is too broad. See Panel
r-~-~Ega-l--4-L-l~
P
6.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1768
4- 141 - (240-24(a), Exception No. i ) : Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting.
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
~ATION:
Delete Exception No. 1 - or revise as follows:
Exception No. I . For services as provided in Section 230-82.
SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification of what appears in the 1981 NEC.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel does not feel that i t clarifies.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 11
NEGATIVE: Niedermeyer.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
---ITiIL'l}~:R-C-e-S'ee-comment on Proposal 4-140.
Log # 1666
4- 142 - (240-24(a), Exception No. 4-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y Inc.
~ATION:
240-24(a), Exception No. 4. "Overcurrent devices
installed adjacent to motors, appliances, or other equipment which
they supply shall be permitted to be located higher than specified
in the foregoing and to be accessible by portable means."
SUBSTANTIATION: Since Section 380-8(a), Exception No. 2 makes
reference to location of switches - i f fusable disconnect or
c i r c u i t breaker disconnect is used as a switch, Section 240-24(a)
would require i t to be readily accessible, but i f a no fuse switch
is used, Section 380-8(a) would not require that i t be readily
accessible.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: We disagree with the proposal and feel that in the
interest of safety, this exception should not be added.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
4- 146 - (240-61): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 4
RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 240-61 to read as follows:
Classification. Cartridge fuses and fuseholders shall be
classified according to voltage and amperage ranges.
Fuses rated 600 v o l t s , nominal, or less, shall be permitted to
be used for voltages at or below t h e i r ratings.
Delete: Exception Nos. i and 2.
SUBSTANTIATION: Part "F" as presently written has had the e f f e c t
of r e s t r i c t i n g development resulting from new technology. This
revision would allow the NEC requirements for fuses and
fuseholders to be more compatible with the requirements of this
"era of space age" technological developments.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
4- 143 - (240-33 and Exception-(New)): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 4
RECO~ATION: Add a period after the word "position" and delete
~t~--t-~e
sentence.
Add a new exception to read as follows:
"Exception: Where this is shown to be impracticable and
complies with Section 240-81."
SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial change to c l a r i f y that this is an
exception.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1505
4- 147 - (240-60(b), FPN-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
REC
M~ATION:
Add Fine Print Note:
See'SeEtf~-llO-9 f o r interrupting requirements.
SUBSTANTIATION: This w i l l make f o r more e f f e c t i v e coordination
~ usageof c u r r e n t - l i m i t i n g fuses and the need to have a
large enough interrupting c a p a b i l i t y .
Until I read a response to a question covered by an a r t i c l e in
the IAEI News magazine, I was not aware of the c o r r e l a t i o n , and
have used i t to require contractors and designers to provide
properly rated equipment.
Many are aware of the need to provide protection at the service,
but are not aware of the need to take care of the downstream
equipment also.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~'CO~NIME-NT: Already included as a FPN under Section 240-1,
Scope.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1203
4- 144 - (240-42-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles J. Hart, NECA
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following section:
240-42. Indicating. Disconnects shall clearly indicate whether
they are in the open " o f f " or closed "on" position. Where
disconnect handles are operated v e r t i c a l l y rather than
r o t a t i o n a l l y or horizontally, the up position of the handle shall
be the "on" position.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is ingrained in electricians and other
operating personnel that l i g h t switches and disconnects in the
"up" position are "on" and in the "down" position are " o f f . "
During emergencies, people tend to act from habit and do not have
time to read which direction is o f f .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~E-NT:
Proposal needs exceptions and additional work f o r
acceptance.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 10
NEGATIVE: Herbert, Niedermeyer.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
HERBERT: I a g - ~ w i t h the submitter. Vertically mounted
disconnects, switches and circuit breakers should follow the up
"on" and down "off" convention. I t is now time to standardize on
this practice so that i t also becomes a safety feature.
NIEDERMEYER: I agree with the supporting comment.
Log # 1708
4- 148 - (240-61): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 240-61. Cartridge fuses and fusehelders not over
~"O-O--#oT-{s"shall be classified as follows:
0-30; 31-60; 61-100; 101-200; 201-400; 401-600; 601-800;
801-1200; 1201-1600; 1601-2000; 2001-2500; 2501-3000; 3001-4000;
4001-5000; 5001-6000.
Remove the three columns and provide just one paragraph since
they are all the same.
SUBSTANTIATION: Since not over 250 volts not over 300 volts and
not over 600 volts values are all the same, and since this section
applies to under 600 volts only, with a reference to the voltage
l i m i t a t i o n , one paragraph would suffice and be clearer than three
separate columns which l i s t the same information.
PANEL ACTION: Reject~
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Proposal 4-146.
ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1556
4- 145 - (240-60 and 240-61): Reject
SUBMITTER: W. A. Mathews, Bussmann Division, McGraw Edison
RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:
240-60 General, Delete 240-61.
240-60. General.
(a) Voltage. Fuses rated 600 v o l t s , nominal, or less, shall be
permitted to be used for voltages at or below ~heir voltage
ratings.
(b) MaximumVoltage. 300-volt type. Cartridge fuses and
fuseholders of the 300-volt type shall not be used in c i r c u i t s of
over 300 volts between conductors.
Log # 434, 1243
4- 149 - (240-81): Accept
SUBMITTERS: Southwestern Section IAEI (434)
--I-AET-(-I-243)
RECOMMENDATION: Amend 2nd paragraph to read: Where c i r c u i t
breaker handles on switchboards "or in panelboards" are operated
v e r t i c a l l y rather than r o t a t i o n a l l y or horizontally, the "up"
position of the handle shall be the "on" position.
7B
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
F~N-E-C--C~;F#~'-NT: The Panel feels that this proposal would rule out
all adjustable breakers. The submitters have not provided
adequate substantiating data to warrant such action.
VOTE ON PANELACTIqNE
AFFIRMATIVE: 11
NEGATIVE: Gubany.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
GUBANY: I am voting negative on Panel Action on this proposal
since I support the submitter's substantiating comment, and I
disagree that this proposal would rule out all adjustable CB's.
"For other than intended adjustments" negates the intent of
noninterchangeability.
SUBSTANTIATION: Manypanelboards have been installed having main
breakers with the up position being " o f f . " Present Code terms are
not effective in requiring the change when a panelboard is
involved. The majority of disconnecting means installed in this
above approved manner.
By having panelboards also conform, i t may save an accident. To
be indicating is s t i l l a requirement.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1205
4- 150 - (240-81): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles J. Hart, NECA
~ATION:
Delete the two words "on switchboards" from
second sentence of Section 240-81.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is ingrained in electricians and other
operating personnel that light switches and disconnects in the
"up" position are "on" and in the "down" position are " o f f . "
During emergencies, people tend to act from habit and do not have
time to read which direction is off. Although this safety feature
has been recognized for switchboards, the same principle should
apply to all vertical mounted breakers.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action for Proposal 4-149.
iTO-?-E~-ON--PK
' N-EC
' ACTION:
AF RMATI :
NEGATIVE: Herbert.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~ R ' F T - - % e 6 - C 6 ~ e n t on Proposal 4-144.
Log # 1733
4- 153 - (24D-83(a)): Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~ATION:
240-83(a). Circuit breakers shall be ma~ked with
their "ampere" or "interrupting" rating in a manner that will be
durable and visible after installation.
SUBSTANTIATION: This section does not c l a r i f y the rating they are
talking about; i.e. ampere rating of the circuit breaker,
interrupting rating. I am not qualified to make'a proposal as to
the specific rating required, but this section needs to be more
clearly detailed.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part.
~{-e-.'~-'~6r interrupting."
PANEL COMMENT: Interrupting rating is already covered in Section
~4o
--O-:~-c.T:--VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 779
4- 151 - (240-81, Second Paragraph): Reject
SUBMITTER: Chester Flanagan, San Diego, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:
~ I n d i c a t i n g . Circuit breakers shall clearly indicate whether
they are in the open "off" or closed "on" position.
"Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically rather
than rotationally or horizontally, the up position of the handle
shall be the "on" position."
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal would standardize
vertically-operated breaker handle operating procedures to promote
safety, uniformity and ease of breaker status verification.
In some cases, in the local area, vertically operated breaker
handles in panelboards have been noted that are "on" while in the
down position and " o f f " while in the up position. On the other
hand all v e r t i c a l l y operated breaker handles noted in switchboards
were " o f f " while in the down position and "on" in the up
position. These d i f f e r e n t breaker handle operating methods could
lead to confusion and/or error and possible endangerment of l i f e
and property.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action f o r Prop6sal 4-149.
~VOTE~ON PANEL
- - ACTION:
Log # 113
4- 154 - (240-83(d)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Michael Tango, Plymouth, MA
RECOMMENDATION: SWD should be marked on circuit breakers and
visible after installation.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 240-83(d) reads: Circuit Breakers Used
as Switches. SWD circuit breakers used For lighting fixture of
120 volt. SWD circuit breakers shall be approved for switching
duty.
Circuit breaker has to be marked with SWD on i t .
I t doesn't say
visible after installation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The very limited space available on the breaker
sh6uT~d
for higher p r i o r i t y markings.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1256
4- 155 - (240-83(d)): Accept
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~ATION:
In the second line following 120-volt add, (and
2 7 T ~ l t T . The second line would then read:
120-volt and 277-volt fluorescent lighting circuits, (the rest
of the section to remain unchanged.)
SUBSTANTIATION: The 277-volt circuit breaker hearing a mark SWD
l " - ~ - - 6 ~ - ~ f ~ e t and cannot be installed without violating the
Code unless i t is also included in this section.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel disagrees with the substantiation, but
believes that the requirement should be extended to 277-volt
flourescent lighting circuits.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
NEGATIVE: Herbert.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~-HER~ERT: %ee comment on Proposal 4-144.
Log # 1463
4- 152 - (240-82): Reject
SUBMITTERS: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
Bill Hogan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
B i l l Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch, Inc.
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
RECOMMENDATION: AmendSection 240-82 by deleting therefrom the
TasT-f-f~o-r-ds, i . e . , "for other than intended adjustments."
SUBSTANTIATION: I f a circuit breaker is to be NONTAMPERABLE as
~ l n ~ - n d - T c a t e s is the safest condition, then we shouldn't
insert the "Mickey Mouse" phrase at the end which will permit the
construction of all circuit breakers with provisions for making
"intended adjustments." There is no limitation placed upon the
manufacturer in this section of the Code. I t means absolutely
nothing as presently written. All a manufacturer has to say is
that "I am leaving this dial on the side of the circuit breaker so
that the intended adjustments may be made without breaking a seal
or dismantling the device."
I t is obvious that there are some breakers manufactured and used
quite widely and quite safely that have provisions for making
adjustments in the f i e l d without dismantling the breaker or
breaking a seal, when such breakers are installed where there is
competent maintenance and where such breakers are under careful
and constant supervision. However, there is nothing in Section
240-82 that would indicate that any such supervision or competence
of maintenance be present. All breakers are covered by this
section of the Code and the intent of the section can be
circumvented easier than this proposal has been written.
Log # 235
4- 156 - (240-100, Exception-(New)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception at end of sections:
~ptio'n:"Taps
need not have separate fault protective
devices, provided that the conductors are capable of withstanding
the maximum short-circuit current that can occur for the time
necessary for a fault protective device on the source side of the
conductors to operate.
SUBST_ANTIATION: I t is common practice in high-voltage systems to
protect tapped feeder circuits with one protective device.
The feeder protective device tripping time is coordinated with
the available system f a u l t current to open the circuit at less
than the conductor short-circuit rating.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Add the words "and their taps" in the f i r s t sentence after
"feeder" and before "shall" in Section 240-100.
PANEL COMMENT: Taps should have the same protection as the
~ers.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
77
Log # 236
4- 157 - (240-101, Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception at end of section:
Exception: Taps need not have separate fault protective
devices, provided that the conductors are capable of withstanding
the maximum short-circuit current that can occur for the time
necessary for a fault protective device on the source side of the
conductors to operate.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is common practice in high-voltage systems to
protect tapped feeder circuits with one protective device.
The feeder protective device tripping time is coordinated with
the available system fault current to open the circuit at less
than the conductor short-circuit rating.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Branch circuits do not have taps.
VOTE ON PANE[ ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
NIEDERMEYER:--I'm voting to reject, but do not agree with t h e
Panel Comment.
Branch circuits do have taps (fixtures, ranges, motors, etc.).
However, those apply only to 600 volt or less. When getting down
to the branch-circuit level we s t i l l are getting short-circuit
protection only in this section, and i t could result in actual
overloading of a "tap."
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
FANEL COMMENI: The proposal is a contradiction because i t
establishes an exception for a system which is not separately
derived.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Mclntosh.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
MCINTOSH: The fundamental problem remains--a misunderstanding
of the intent of this confusing section. Present wording provides
a defintion of "separately derived systems" in the same sentence
with the "rule" for application. Clarity would be enhanced by
separating the "definition" from the "rule"--:
"250-5(d) Separately Derived Systems. Where required to be
grounded as in (a) or (b) above, a separately derived system shall
be grounded as specified in Section 250-26."
"Defintion of Separately Derived System: A premises wiring
system whose power is derived from generator, transformer, or
converter windings and has no direct electrical connection,
including a solidly connected grounded circuit conductor, to
supply conductors originating in another system."
Precedent for this writing style has been established in other
sections of the NEC, e.g. Sections 430-71 and 430-81.
Log # 517
5- 19 - (250-6(b)(2)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: J . K . Daugherty, F l i n t , Ml
~NDATION:
Delete " / o r " and add " f o r use on or o f f the
ve-~-TcTe'r-~etween "equipment" and "through" in the 2nd l i n e .
SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y the i n t e n t of t h i s requirement and to
avo-'vo-T-d-the use of "and/or" per Section 5-2 of the Manual of Style
f o r NFPA Technical Committee Documents 1978.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is the intention that the provisions apply to
both items. S t r i c t adherence to the Style Manual by introduction
of the term "or both" appears to make the rule unclear.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
ARTICLE 250 -- GROUNDING
Log # 915
5- 16 - (250-2): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Solar Photovoltaics
~ATION:
In f i r s t column of tabulation, add: "Solar
Photovoltaic Systems." In last column of tabulation add:
N690.41,,
"690-42"
"690-43"
"690-44"
SUBSTANTIATION: For correlation with proposed Sections 690-41,
-42, -43 and -44. See substantiation for these proposed Sections.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 5-2.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 497
5- 20 - (250-23(a), Exception No. 5): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ernest E. Cannon, Tempe, AZ
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "be permitted to" after "shall"
~ - T a s t - s e n t e n c e so that i t reads "shall be connected."....
SUBSTANTIATION: All ground-fault protection equipment sensors
will perform i f the "connection of the grounding electrode
conductor is made to the grounding terminal bar." Somesensors,
specifically the window-type which enclose all phases and neutral
( i f existing) will not sense properly under ground-fault
conditions i f the grounding electrode conductor is connected in a
manner which allows the grounding electrode conductor to be
included in the window.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~N~NT:
I t is the intent that the provisions be optional.
The proposal would exclude, or make ineffective, sensors operating
on the main bonding jumper.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 718
5- 17 - (250-2): Reject
SUBMITTER: James F. Jackson, Carlisle, IN
~ATION:
Add to l i s t : Agricultural Buildings Article 547
SUBSTANTIATION: Agricultural buildings have some special
grounding problems that should be covered in Article 547.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: There are no special requirements in Article 547
and reference is unnecessary.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 237
5- 18 - (250-5(d), (250-5(d), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: (d) Separately Derived Systems. A premises
wiring system which is required to be grounded as in (a) and (b)
above and whose power is derived from generator, transformer or
converter windings shall be grounded as specified in Section
250-26.
Exception: A separate system grounding electrode per Section
250-26(c) is not required when the grounded circuit conductor of
the derived system is solidly connected to a suitably sized
rounded circuit conductor of another supply system.
UBSTANTIATION: This section was revised in the 1978 Code to
" c l a r i f y " its intent and permit separately derived systems,
specifically transferrable alternate power sources, to be grounded
solidly to the grounded circuit conductor of the normal service or
power supply system. This concept was accepted by the Panel (see
Proposal 41, Section 250-23(c), page 82 of NFPA70 PR78).
Unfortunately, a Technical Subcommittee adopted a "simple"
solution which simply aggravated the problem. They doctored up an
existing section instead of trying to really make a clear,
definitive statement.
Section 250-5(d), at best, only says that separately derived
systems shall be grouped as specified in Section 250-25 when there
is NO electrical connection-it DOES NOT say how to ground the
system if there is an electrical connection. In fact the section
does not even hint at the possibility that such a connection is
permissible. Therein lies the problem.
This recommendation to modify the section does not change the
intent, i t merely states the facts clearly. The Panel seems to
agree that the Code permits a common grounding electrode and
grounded circuit conductor for the normal service premises wiring
system and the premises wiring system supplied by a separately
derived system. We urge the Panel to accept this recommendation
and let the Code section say what we all want i t to say.
Log # 471
5- 21 - (250-23(a), Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Darrell Hazel wood, J. M. Perry I n s t i t u t e
~ T I O N :
Delete 250-23(a), Exception No. 2,
SUBSTANTIATION: The problem with Section 250-24(a) is the
required association of the AC system grounded conductor with
earth ground in too many places. The more times that a system is
connected to the earth, the more potential f o r hazard exists, I f
three buildings are fed from a single service equipment, there
w i l l be f i v e connections made with the earth to the grounded
c i r c u i t conductor. I f any one of the grounded c i r c u i t conductor
connections from the service equipment to any of the b u i l d i n g ' s
disconnecting means f a i l , the neutral current w i l l reenter the
system by the grounding electrode connection at the building,
through the earth, to the service equipment or the supply
transformer. This current flow sets up a voltage gradient from
the building to the point of return to the system. This gradient
presents a hazard to personnel. The NEC should not require supply
system's connections that increase a potential, f o r hazard.
Section 250-24(a) is l i k e l y to be used mainly on farm or ranch
locations.
These types of occupancies commonly have many types of
livestock present. There have been cases of c a t t l e being k i l l e d
because of current flow from the grounding electrode connections
at the various buildings,
Each of the above buildings should have a properly sized
equipment grounding conductor ran to each building from the
service equipment. Any grounded c i r c u i t conductor connection t h a t
may f a i l w i l l simply cause the c i r c u i t to open and not operate.
No current flow in the earth w i l l be present, no voltage gradient
w i l l be present, and there w i l l be no danger to personnel.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 5-24.
VI~InE'-ON-P~A-N~C ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
~
78
Log # 236
4- 157 - (240-101, Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception at end of section:
Exception: Taps need not have separate fault protective
devices, provided that the conductors are capable of withstanding
the maximum short-circuit current that can occur for the time
necessary for a fault protective device on the source side of the
conductors to operate.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is common practice in high-voltage systems to
protect tapped feeder circuits with one protective device.
The feeder protective device tripping time is coordinated with
the available system fault current to open the circuit at less
than the conductor short-circuit rating.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Branch circuits do not have taps.
VOTE ON PANE[ ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
NIEDERMEYER:--I'm voting to reject, but do not agree with t h e
Panel Comment.
Branch circuits do have taps (fixtures, ranges, motors, etc.).
However, those apply only to 600 volt or less. When getting down
to the branch-circuit level we s t i l l are getting short-circuit
protection only in this section, and i t could result in actual
overloading of a "tap."
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
FANEL COMMENI: The proposal is a contradiction because i t
establishes an exception for a system which is not separately
derived.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Mclntosh.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
MCINTOSH: The fundamental problem remains--a misunderstanding
of the intent of this confusing section. Present wording provides
a defintion of "separately derived systems" in the same sentence
with the "rule" for application. Clarity would be enhanced by
separating the "definition" from the "rule"--:
"250-5(d) Separately Derived Systems. Where required to be
grounded as in (a) or (b) above, a separately derived system shall
be grounded as specified in Section 250-26."
"Defintion of Separately Derived System: A premises wiring
system whose power is derived from generator, transformer, or
converter windings and has no direct electrical connection,
including a solidly connected grounded circuit conductor, to
supply conductors originating in another system."
Precedent for this writing style has been established in other
sections of the NEC, e.g. Sections 430-71 and 430-81.
Log # 517
5- 19 - (250-6(b)(2)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: J . K . Daugherty, F l i n t , Ml
~NDATION:
Delete " / o r " and add " f o r use on or o f f the
ve-~-TcTe'r-~etween "equipment" and "through" in the 2nd l i n e .
SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y the i n t e n t of t h i s requirement and to
avo-'vo-T-d-the use of "and/or" per Section 5-2 of the Manual of Style
f o r NFPA Technical Committee Documents 1978.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is the intention that the provisions apply to
both items. S t r i c t adherence to the Style Manual by introduction
of the term "or both" appears to make the rule unclear.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
ARTICLE 250 -- GROUNDING
Log # 915
5- 16 - (250-2): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Solar Photovoltaics
~ATION:
In f i r s t column of tabulation, add: "Solar
Photovoltaic Systems." In last column of tabulation add:
N690.41,,
"690-42"
"690-43"
"690-44"
SUBSTANTIATION: For correlation with proposed Sections 690-41,
-42, -43 and -44. See substantiation for these proposed Sections.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 5-2.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 497
5- 20 - (250-23(a), Exception No. 5): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ernest E. Cannon, Tempe, AZ
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "be permitted to" after "shall"
~ - T a s t - s e n t e n c e so that i t reads "shall be connected."....
SUBSTANTIATION: All ground-fault protection equipment sensors
will perform i f the "connection of the grounding electrode
conductor is made to the grounding terminal bar." Somesensors,
specifically the window-type which enclose all phases and neutral
( i f existing) will not sense properly under ground-fault
conditions i f the grounding electrode conductor is connected in a
manner which allows the grounding electrode conductor to be
included in the window.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~N~NT:
I t is the intent that the provisions be optional.
The proposal would exclude, or make ineffective, sensors operating
on the main bonding jumper.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 718
5- 17 - (250-2): Reject
SUBMITTER: James F. Jackson, Carlisle, IN
~ATION:
Add to l i s t : Agricultural Buildings Article 547
SUBSTANTIATION: Agricultural buildings have some special
grounding problems that should be covered in Article 547.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: There are no special requirements in Article 547
and reference is unnecessary.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 237
5- 18 - (250-5(d), (250-5(d), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: (d) Separately Derived Systems. A premises
wiring system which is required to be grounded as in (a) and (b)
above and whose power is derived from generator, transformer or
converter windings shall be grounded as specified in Section
250-26.
Exception: A separate system grounding electrode per Section
250-26(c) is not required when the grounded circuit conductor of
the derived system is solidly connected to a suitably sized
rounded circuit conductor of another supply system.
UBSTANTIATION: This section was revised in the 1978 Code to
" c l a r i f y " its intent and permit separately derived systems,
specifically transferrable alternate power sources, to be grounded
solidly to the grounded circuit conductor of the normal service or
power supply system. This concept was accepted by the Panel (see
Proposal 41, Section 250-23(c), page 82 of NFPA70 PR78).
Unfortunately, a Technical Subcommittee adopted a "simple"
solution which simply aggravated the problem. They doctored up an
existing section instead of trying to really make a clear,
definitive statement.
Section 250-5(d), at best, only says that separately derived
systems shall be grouped as specified in Section 250-25 when there
is NO electrical connection-it DOES NOT say how to ground the
system if there is an electrical connection. In fact the section
does not even hint at the possibility that such a connection is
permissible. Therein lies the problem.
This recommendation to modify the section does not change the
intent, i t merely states the facts clearly. The Panel seems to
agree that the Code permits a common grounding electrode and
grounded circuit conductor for the normal service premises wiring
system and the premises wiring system supplied by a separately
derived system. We urge the Panel to accept this recommendation
and let the Code section say what we all want i t to say.
Log # 471
5- 21 - (250-23(a), Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Darrell Hazel wood, J. M. Perry I n s t i t u t e
~ T I O N :
Delete 250-23(a), Exception No. 2,
SUBSTANTIATION: The problem with Section 250-24(a) is the
required association of the AC system grounded conductor with
earth ground in too many places. The more times that a system is
connected to the earth, the more potential f o r hazard exists, I f
three buildings are fed from a single service equipment, there
w i l l be f i v e connections made with the earth to the grounded
c i r c u i t conductor. I f any one of the grounded c i r c u i t conductor
connections from the service equipment to any of the b u i l d i n g ' s
disconnecting means f a i l , the neutral current w i l l reenter the
system by the grounding electrode connection at the building,
through the earth, to the service equipment or the supply
transformer. This current flow sets up a voltage gradient from
the building to the point of return to the system. This gradient
presents a hazard to personnel. The NEC should not require supply
system's connections that increase a potential, f o r hazard.
Section 250-24(a) is l i k e l y to be used mainly on farm or ranch
locations.
These types of occupancies commonly have many types of
livestock present. There have been cases of c a t t l e being k i l l e d
because of current flow from the grounding electrode connections
at the various buildings,
Each of the above buildings should have a properly sized
equipment grounding conductor ran to each building from the
service equipment. Any grounded c i r c u i t conductor connection t h a t
may f a i l w i l l simply cause the c i r c u i t to open and not operate.
No current flow in the earth w i l l be present, no voltage gradient
w i l l be present, and there w i l l be no danger to personnel.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 5-24.
VI~InE'-ON-P~A-N~C ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
~
78
Log # 158
5- 22 - (250-23(a), Exception No. 5): Reject
SUBMITTER: Hal Knight, San Jose, CA
~ATION:
"Where a ground-return type sensor is used for
ground-fault protection of service equipment" the main bonding
jumper specified in Sections 250-53(b) and 250-79 is a wire or
busbar, and is installed from the neutral bar or bus to the
equipment grounding terminal bar or bus in the service equipment,
the grounding electrode conductor shall be permitted to be
connected to the equipment grounding terminal bar or bus to which
the main bonding jumper is connected.
SUBSTANTIATION: Article 250-23(a), Exception No. 5, as currently
written, can lead to confusion and misapplication of Exception No.
5 in the f i e l d . Manyelectricians and other users of the NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODEare t o t a l l y unaware of the intent expressed in the
1980 Preprint of the Proposed Amendments for the 1981 NEC
concerning the reason for the introduction of Exception No. 5. To
minimize confusion or misunderstanding in the f i e l d I believe the
NEC should be as " e x p l i c i t , " or implicit, as is possible, in
showing the intent of any given Exception that is established to a
basic rule.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels that the proposal is unduly
restrictive and that. the connection permitted in Exception No. 5
is acceptable irrespective of the use of ground sensors.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
5- 24 - (250-24): Accept
SUBMITTER: CMP 5
RECOMMENDATION: (1) Revise as follows:
250-24. Two or More
Bu~T~tructures
Supplied from a Common Service.
(a) Grounded Systems. Where two or more buildings or
structures are supplied from a common service, the grounded system
in each building or structure shall have a grounding electrode as
described in Part H connected to the ac system grounded c i r c u i t
conductor on the supply side of the building disconnecting means.
(b) Ungrounded Systems. Where two or more buildings or
structures are supplied by a common service from an ungrounded
system, each building or s t r u c t u r e shall have a grounding
electrode as described in Part H connected to the metal enclosure
of the building disconnecting means."
(2) Add the following as Exception No. 1 to (a) and Exception
to
(b):
"A grounding electrode at separate buildings or structures shall
not be required where only one branch c i r c u i t is supplied and
there is no equipment in the building or structure that requires
grounding."
(3) Add Exception No. 2 to (a) as follows:
"Exception No. 2: A grounded circuit conductor connection to
the grounding electrode shall not be required i f an equipment
grounding conductor is run with the circuit conductors for
grounding any noncurrent-carrying equipment, interior metal piping
systems or building or structure metal frames and the equipment
rounding conductor is bonded to a grounding electrode described
n Part H."
(4) Delete Exception for (a) and (b).
SUBSTANTIATION: (1) Added "or structures" in order to
accommodate electrical equipment not housed in buildings.
Replaced "single service equipment" with "common service" in order
to accommodate Proposal 5-26.
(2) Repeated Exception No. I to prevent misinterpretation and
to accommodate Proposal 5-27.
(3) Corrected Exception No. 2 (formerly Exception (b)) to apply
only to Section 250-24(a), to delete "No livestock is housed in
the building," and to require that the equipment grounding
conductor be bonded to a grounding electrode described in Part H
in order to accommodate Proposal 5-28.
(4) Delete present Exceptions (a) and (b) in accordance with
the above.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
~IIT~A~T
--17--NEGATIVE: Cohen, Mclntosh.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
SESSLER: The-wording in "(a) Grounded Systems" does not make i t
clear that the grounding electrode is connected to BOTH the
grounded c i r c u i t conductor and the metal enclosure of the
disconnecting means. I t is suggested the f i r s t sentence be worded
as follows:
"Where t w o . . . Part H connected to the metal enclosure
of the building disconnecting means and to the ac system..."
In Exception No. 2, a more r e l i a b l e equipment grounding
conductor such as is required in A r t i c l e s 555 and 680, should be
considered f o r livestock buildings instead o f , f o r example, a
m e t a l l i c conduit buried under a barnyard.
SKUGGEVIG: In order to improve the c l a r i t y of Exception No. 2
to (a), the words "at the second building" should be inserted
before the words " i f an equipment grounding conductor is r u n . . . "
A comma should f o l l o w the word "systems." In addition, the word
"and" should be preceded by a comma, and followed by the word
"if."
The wording of the exception would then read as follows:
Exception No. 2: A grounded c i r c u i t conductor connection to the
grounding electrode shall not be required at the second building
i f an equipment grounding conductor is run with the c i r c u i t
conductors f o r grounding any noncurrent-carrying equipment,
interior metal piping systems, or building or structural metal
frames, and if the equipment grounding conductor is bonded to a
grounding electrode described in Part H.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
COHEN: I t is unclear i f proposed Exception No. 2 to Ca) was
intended to require the equipment grounding conductor to be bonded
to a grounding electrode at the second building as is required by
the present part Ca) to the exception, or just back at the f i r s t
building. I f the intent is to require this connection at the
second building, I suggest that "which exists at the building" be
added to the end of Exception No. 2 to Ca). This wording is the
same as at the end of the present exception except that the verb
is change from plural to singular.
MCINTOSH: The words "or structure" need to be inserted between
the word "building" and "disconnecting means" at the end of
Section 250-24(a), and at the end of Section 250-24(b), for
consistency with the SUBSTANTIATION.
My "negative" vote will automatically become "affirmative" if
the above change is accepted.
~
Log # 1003
5- 23 - C250-23(b), Exception Nos. i and 2-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. S. Dudor, Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Renumber existing exception as Exception No. 1
and add:
Exception No. 2: In industrial establishments, when (i) the
grounded conductor is not used as a circuit conductor, (27 the
equipment ground bus in the service equipment is connected to a
grounding electrode by a grounding electrode conductor that
complies with parts H and J of Article 250; (3) this grounding
electrode is connected to the additional grounding connection
required by Section 250-23(a) by a grounding electrode conductor
that complies with Part J of Article 250: then the grounded
conductor shall not be required to be run with the phase
conductors from the source of supply to the service equipment.
SUBSTANTIATION: In industrial establishments a 480 volt solidly
grounded wye-connected system is the most prevalent electrical
system. A common source of supply in a large plant which has its
own high voltage distribution system is to have outdoor o i l - f i l l e d
transformers feeding 480 v o l t switchgear in an electrical
switchgear building or room. Many times the incoming conductors
consist of busduct or busway, but could be multiple runs of cable
in conduit. The system generally feeds a large group of motors
and the neutral or grounded conductor is "not" a circuit
conductor. The transformer neutral is grounded properly to a
grounding electrode outside the building, the switchgear equipment
ground bus is grounded to a grounding electrode inside the
building and the separate grounding electrodes are connected by
grounding electrode conductors sized per Section 250-94.
In the above installation we are treating the 480 volt
switchgear as service equipment because of Section 230-201(a)
which defines the secondary conductors of this transformer as
service conductors. I f Section 250-23(b) is now applied the
neutral (grounded) conductor must be brought to the switchgear.
This requires four-wire busduct, or i f wire in conduit is used,
requires an insulated or bare neutral conductor be run to the
switchgear. As the grounded conductor is not used in any c i r c u i t ,
its only function is to act as a grounding electrode conductor.
I f all of the conditions described in the proposed exception are
f u l f i l l e d , there is no reason to require the grounded conductor to
be run with the phase conductors. For large installations that
are typical with 500-3000 KVA transformers, the busduct is
generally 50 feet or less in length and the slight increase in
impedence caused by not routing the ground conductor near the
phase conductors does not effect the performance of the
overcurrent protection in the service switchgear. In fact, i f
4-wire busduct is not deliberately specified in equipment
procurement documents, equipment vendors will not specify or
supply 4-wire busduct for the above installation as there is no
neutral bus to connect to in the switchgear equipment.
I f this exception is not believed necessary due to the fact the
Panel does not believe a service is involved in the problem
statement, I would request the Panel or Correlating Committee
consider redefining or rewriting Section 230-201 to state that
only one service can exist on a large complex system consisting of
high and low voltages and that the low voltages should be
classified as feeders.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal could add a substantial inductive
reactance to the ground-fault return path which could inhibit
operation of ground-fault devices.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 605
5- 25 - (250-24(a)): Reject
SUBMIII"ER: Darrell Hazel wood, J. M. Perry I n s t i t u t e
~DATION:
250-24(a). Delete the requirement of having
separate buildings connect t h e i r ac system grounded c i r c u i t
conductor to a grounding electrode on the supply side of the
building disconnecting means when the buildings are fed by a
grounded system and a single service equipment.
79
SUBSTANTIATION: The problem with Section 250-24(a) is the
required association of the ac system grounded conductor with
earth ground in too many places. The more times that a system is
connected to the earth, the more potential for hazard exists. I f
three buildings are fed from a single service equipment, there
will be five connections made with the earth to the grounded
circuit conductor. I f any one of the grounded circuit conductor
connections from the service equipment to any of the building's
disconnecting means f a i l , the neutral current will reenter the
system by the grounding electrode connection at the building,
through the earth, to the service equipment or the supply
transformer. This current flow sets up a voltage gradient from
the building to the point of return to the system. This gradient
presents a hazard to personnel. The NEC should not require supply
system's connections that increase a potential for hazard.
Section 250-24(a) is l i k e l y to be used mainly on farm or ranch
locations. These types of occupancies commonly have many types of
livestock present. There have been cases of cattle being killed
because of current flow from the grounding electrode connections
at the various buildings.
Each of the above buildings should have a properly sized
equipment grounding conductor run to each building from the
service equipment. Any grounded circuit conductor connection that
may f a i l will simply cause the circuit to open and not operate.
No current flow in the earth will be present, no voltage gradient
will be present, and there will be no danger to personnel.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 5-24.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
IFAITE'IZ-COMME'N'F: Same as Proposal 5-24.
V--OT~
ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Cohen.
EXPLANATION Of VOTE:
-7~-FTC-N~.'~W-F/ITe-we agree in p r i n c i p l e , we are voting negative
because we disagree with the wording in Proposal 5-24.
Log # 2010
5- 28 - (250-24, Exception No. 1-(New)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Alvin C. Bierbaum, Iowa Association of Electric
Cooperatives
RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No. 1 preceding the Exception for
(a) and (b). Changethe wording "Exception for (a) and (b) above"
to Exception No. 2.
Proposed Exception No. 1.
When livestock are housed in Building No. 2, and when a separate
equipment grounding conductor is run from Building No. 1 to
Building No. 2 for the purpose of grounding all metal equipment
and parts, i t shall be permissible to isolate the grounding
conductor from the neutral in Building No. 2 i f neutral-to-earth
voltages cause distress to the confined livestock.
SUBSTANTIATION: Neutral-to-earth voltages (stray voltages) are
caused by many factors. One of the primary causes is voltage drop
on secondary circuits due to circuit imbalance and long circuits.
Secondly, voltage drops are imposed on neutral busbars in a
building service entrance which is in turn transmitted to metal
grounding conductors, oonduit or panel grounding to a metallic
water system. Livestock, particularly dairy and swine, are very
sensitive to ac voltages that can occur when part of their body
makes contact with the described metal equipment and part of their
body is in contact with true earth, ac voltages over one volt are
known to cause dairy animals to go out of milk production and to
inhibit the growth rate of swine.
(Note attached paper on stray voltage problems, page 11, item
7.) You will note that an alternate solution to resolving stray
voltage problems is to isolate the neutral from the grounding
conductors in the barn panel and run a separate fourth wire either
back to the transformer or metering location (main farm service
entrance).
By adding the proposed exception to NEC Section 250-24, i t would
make i t legal or permissible to run the fourth wire and isolate
the neutral and grounding wires at to farm service entrance panel
(Building No. 2) which is assumed to be a grounded system having a
grounding electrode connected to the neutral.
(Note: A copy of attached paper available from NFPAon request.)
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 5-24.
ON PA~L ACTION:
--A~'FrRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Cohen.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
COHEN: While we agree in principle, we are voting negative
because we disagree with the wording in Proposal 5-24.
Log # 226
5- 26 - (250-24(a) and (b)): Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that the
Panel Action on this proposal be changed to "Accept in Principle."
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~ E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:
Two or More Buildings Supplied From a Common Service.
(a) Grounded Systems. Where two or more buildings are supplied
from a common service, the grounded system in each building shall
have a grounding electrode connected to the ac system grounded
circuit conductor on the supply side of the building disconnecting
means.
(b) Ungrounded Systems. Where two or more buildings are
supplied from a common service, each building shall have a
grounding electrode connected to the metal enclosure of the
building disconnecting means.
SUBSTANTIATION: Buildings may have more than one service, per
Section 230-2. I f the separate buildings are served from more
than one service, they are not l i t e r a l l y supplied from one
(single) service equipment. I f a building contains service
equipment but does not supply a system within that building
(serving only systems in other separate buildings) i t appears the
rounding requirements of (a) and (b) do not apply, i f interpreted
iterally.
An ungrounded system for a separate building, derived from a
transformer adjacent to, and supplied from a grounded system
service equipment in another building does not appear to be
e x p l i c i t l y covered in the present wording. (And also, a grounded
system derived from an ungrounded system service equipment.)
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal is incorporated in Proposal 5-24.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Cohen.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
COHEN: The Panel Action should have been Accept in Principle.
While we agree in principle, we are voting negative because we
disagree with the wording in Proposal 5-24.
I
Log # 108
5- 29 - (250-24(c), (d), and (e) (New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~DATION:
Add the following paragraphs:
Grounding Electrode. The grounding electrode shall be in
accordance with Section 250-81, Section 250-83, Section 250-84,
and Section 250-86.
(d) Grounding Conductor. A grounding conductor sized in
accordance with Section 250-94 and installed in accordance with
Section 250-92(a) and (b) shall be used to connect the grounded
conductor or the metal enclosure of the building disconnecting
means to the grounding electrode, as specified in (a) and (b)
above.
(e) Bonding Jumper. A bonding jumper, installed in accordance
with Section 250-53(b) and Section 250-79(a) through (c) shall be
used to connect the equipment grounding conductor to the grounded
conductor.
SUBSTANTIATION: Does not specify grounding electrode conductor
size, or type of grounding electrode, and does not require a
grounded conductor bonding jumpeC.
Bonding jumpers, grounding conductors, and grounding electrodes
are clearly specified for services and separately derived systems,
but are not clearly specified in this section. Systems and
disconnecting meant in remote (separate) buildings are in some
instances larger than many services or separately derived
systems. I t is possible to ground the grounded conductor without
providing a low impedence fault current return path or an equal
potential condition between metallic equipment and the grounded
conductor. For example: an unenclosed (open) insulated grounding
electrode conductor entering an enclosure through a cable
connector, with no metallic connection to the enclosure, or a
grounding conductor installed in non-metallic conduit. I f the
only grounding electrode is a driven pipe or rod the impedence of
the ground fault current return path could be quite high. Since a
grounded conductor bonding jumper may be the most critical single
component in the fault current return path and for equipment
grounding, this should be a clear requirement. I t would bring
this section into conformance with similar requirements such as
Section 250-6, 250-26, and 250-53.
Log # 1713
5- 27 - (250-24(a) and (b), Exception-(New)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~DATION:
Exception: A grounding electrode at a separate
building shall not be required where the conditions of either (a)
or (b) below are met:
(a) Only one branch circuit is supplied and there is no
equipment in the building that requires grounding.
(b) No livestock is housed in the building, an equipment
grounding conductor is run with the circuit conductors for
grounding any noncurrent-carrying equipment, interior metal piping
systems or building metal frames and the equipment grounding
conductor is bonded to grounding electrodes described in Sections
250-81 and 250-83 which exist at the building.
SUBSTANTIATION: Repeating the Exception in f u l l will prevent
misinterpretation. Manypeople reading this article assume the
exception to apply to paragraph (b) only even though the Code
clearly states i t s intent. But this is the only article that
lists an exception in two preceding paragraphs. Although i t would
add bulk, i t would eliminate confusion.
80
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~
:
The supply to the second building is a feeder and
not a service as confirmed by a Formal Interpretation 70-78-7,
therefore, the sizing for the grounding conductor and bonding
jumper is inappropriate. Selection of the grounding electrode is
addressed in Proposal 5-24.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 351
5- 34 - (250-42(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: John Breuklander, Schaller, IA
~NDATION:
Delete 5 feet horizontally.
Section 250-42(a) where within 8 feet (2.44 m) v e r t i c a l l y or
horizontally of ground or grounded metal objects and subject to
contact by persons.
SUBSTANTIATION: 5 feet horizontally is well within reach of
persons who may be using wrenches or other current-carrying
objects. A distance of 8 feet would be more acceptable.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMME-NT: The Panel recognizes that the adult
fingertip-to-fingertip span is in excess of five feet, but the
Five-foot dimension is a reasonable working space to avoid
inadvertant contact.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1661
5- 30 - (250-26(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~DATION:
250-26(a). " Except as permitted by Exception
No. 4 of Section 250-23(a), this connection shall be made "only
once" on the separately derived system from the source to the
f i r s t system disconnecting means or overcurrent device; or i t
shall be made at the source of a separately derived system which
has no disconnecting means or overcurrent devices."
SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of 250-26(a) is to permit this
connection at either the transformer or disconnect but not at
both. As now worded, nothing prevents such a connection at both
locations simultaneously.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The intention is that multiple connections be
~ w e e n
the equipment grounding conductor and the
grounded circuit conductor for these locations.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
,
Log # 1444
5- 35 - (250-45(d), Exception No. 1): Accept
SUBMITTER: William R. Drake, Daniel Woodhead Company
RECOMMENDATION: Add "and portable handlamps" between "tool" and
~TT~i~.7
.....
SUBSTANTIATION: Portable handlamps, like most tools, are
low-power devices that can be conveniently used on isolated
circuits. When used on an isolated circuit and at 50 volts or
less, grounding the handlamp serves no purpose.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 46
5- 31 - (250-26(a), Exception and (b), Exception}: Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Omit from both Exceptions the words "remote
control or signaling."
SUBSTANTIATION: Exceptions do not include Class 1 Power Limited
~~My--original
proposal in the Preprint of the 1981 NEC
was revised by the CMP by adding the words "remote control or
signaling c i r c u i t s . " The same transformer could be used for
either of these types of circuits or a power-limited c i r c u i t .
When used to provide power for damper motors in air-conditioning
systems the Exceptions would not apply. There does not appear to
be a valid reason for excluding this particular Class 1 system
transformer from the Exceptions.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Power-limited circuits have rated currents of up
to thirty-three amperes and should not be grounded with No. 14 AWG
copper conductors or'No. 12 AWG aluminum conductors.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 340
5- 36 - (250-45, FPN): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: John L. Bennett, Towson, MD
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the fine print note which is at the end of
~-to"read:
"With reference to (c) and (d), portable tools
are not intended to be used in damp, wet or conductive locations
unless they are properly grounded, double insulated or supplied
through an isolating transformer."
SUBSTANTIATION: The term "special insulating" in the current
wording has been misinterpreted.
The proposal wording will
c l a r i f y the intent.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
e~-evise by adding the words:
"or appliances" after "portable tools" in (d) and delete the
word "properly."
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels appliances should be included as
they are in the present FPN and to delete the vague term
"properly."
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1680
5- 32 - (250-26(b)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 250-26(b}. Grounding Electrode Conductor. A
grounding electrode conductor, sized in accordance with Section
250-94 for the derived phase conductors, shall be used to connect
the grounded conductor of the derived system to the grounding
electrode as specified in (c) below. Except as permitted by
Exception 4 of Section 250-23(a), this connection shall be made
(any point on the separately derived system) at the same location
as the bonding jumper required in 250-24(a) from the source to the
f i r s t system . . . " .
SUBSTANTIATION: Sections 250-26(a) and (b) as worded would permit
the bonding jumper in the transformer and the grounding electrode
conductor in the disconnect. By adding the words "at the same
location as the bonding jumper required in Section 250-24(a)" i t
would give the direction that both connections shall be together
at either of the selected locations.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~ R T :
I t is the intention that the bonding jumper and
rounding electrode conductor are permitted to be connected at
ifferen{ locations.
VOTE ON PANELACTION~ Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 518
5- 37 - (250-46, FPN): Accept
SUBMII-TER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2nd line "NFPA 78-1977" to "NFPA78-1980."
~NTIATI'dN:
In order to reference current Lightning
Protection Code date.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative~
Log # 317
5- 38 - (250-50 Exceptions for (a) and (b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Chester Flanagan, San Diego, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Exception for (a) and (b) above: For
~ { r ~ F t
extensions only in existing installations that do
not have an equipment grounding conductor in the branch circuit,
the grounding conductor of a grounding-type receptacle outlet
shall be permitted to be grounded to a grounded cold water pipe
near the equipment "provided that the pipe is of continuous metal
that extends a minimum of 10 feet into the soil."
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is for the safety of
life/property. Accordingly, the intent here is to ensure that the
grounding c i r c u i t r y will have the capacity to safely conduct fault
current as required since, in many cases, water pipes are replaced
with plastictubing (pipes); visible metal pipe does not
necessarily mean that i t is continuous as required for safety.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
g/~CEl_-~Ol~I~"~T: The effective grounding of the water pipe requires
that i t be bonded to the service and is not related to its length
in soil.
The Panel does recognize that the grounding requirement of the
water pipe needs to be strengthened. See Proposal 5-40.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
~
Log # 1681
5- 33 - (250-26(c)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E l e c t r i c i t y Inc.
~C)ATION:
250-26(c). Grounding Electrode. Delete: "The
grounding electrode shall be as near as practicable to and
preferably in the same area as the grounding conductor connection
to the system."
Add: "The grounding electrode shall be as short as practicable
and in the same area as the bonding jumper connection required in
Section 250-24(a)." The grounding electrode shall be: (1) the
nearest available effectively grounded . . . " .
SUBSTANTIATION: Existing wording is confusing as to intent. What
is grounding conductor connection to system? This section is to
indicate that the electrode should be as close as possible to
reduce the length of the conductor and shall be at the same
location as the bonding jumper that is required.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COFV4ENT: The intent of the submitter's recommendation is
not clear.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
81
Log # 470
5- 39 - (250-50, Exceptions for (a) and (b)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Darrell HazeIv~od, J. M. Perry Institute
RECOMMENDATION: Include the phrase: "The replacement of a
nongrounding-type receptacle with a grounding type receptacles
before the existing phrase" "For branch circuit extensions only in
...,,
SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the exception seems to be plain:
to allow the electrician an easy means to pick up a grounded point
to provide an equipment grounding conductor connection for a
grounding-type receptacle being supplied by a circuit that does
not have an existin 9 equipment grounding conductor. The
Exception, though, limits the connection of the receptacle's
grounding terminal to a grounded cold water pipe for the extension
of an existing circuit. The exception needs to beexpanded to
include the situation where a grounding-type receptacle is used to
~eplace a receptacle of the nongrounding-type on a nongrounding
circuit.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COP~4ENT: Sameas Proposal 5-40.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Remove this definition from Article 250-53(b) and use i t to
replace the less complete definition for Main Bonding Jumper found
in Article 100.
SUBSTANTIATION: This section provides a more accurate definition
of the Main Bonding Jumper than the one found in Article 100.
Since two definitions are unnecessary, 250-53(b) should be moved
to Article 100 to replace the definition that is listed there.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMME~N~F: Section 250-53(b) is a rule and not a definition.
~OTEON_PANEL.ACTION£ Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1888
5- 44 - (250-53(b)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Earl W. Roberts, General Electric Company
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new sentence as follows:
~oni-c
coupling devices in combination with a bonding Jumper
shall be permitted when listed for the application.
SUBSTANTIATION: The coupling devices will make i t possible to
extend ground fault protection to other portions of the electrical
system without jeopardizing the integrity of the bonding jumper.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
COMMENT: A current transformer on the main bonding jumper
is not prohibited and connection of the grounding electrode
conductor to the service ground bus is permitted, therefore, this
proposal is not necessary to accomplish the stated purpose.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Lo~ # 1229
5- 40 - (250-50, Exception for (a) and (b)): Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be correlated with Proposal 2-18.
SUBMITTER: R. A. Niedermeyer, City of Portland, OR
RECOI~MENDATION: For replacement of nongrounding-type receptacles
with grounding-type receptacles and for branch-circuit extensions
only in existing installations that do not have an equipment
grounding conductor in the branch c i r c u i t , the grounding conductor
of a grounding-type receptacle outlet shall be permitted to be
rounded to a grounded cold water pipe near the equipment.
UBSTANTIATION: The Code now provides that i f you extend a
circuit (maybe only a few inches) you can, by exception, run a
wire to a cold water pipe, but i f you wish to install a
grounding-type receptacle to replace a nongrounded receptacle at
an existing outlet you can not do i t . Examples of where we
continuously require grounding of the outlet is at refrigerator
plugs and washing machine outlets.
I t is inconceivable that because the outlet is existing, i t is
not safe to ground in the fashion provided by the exception, but
i f you extend the outlet, i t is okay.
In order to make refrigerators, washing machines, etc. safe, the
exception needs to provide for existing outlets.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise the proposal to read after "outlet":
"shall be permitted to be grounded to a water pipe which is
bonded in accordance with Section 250-80(a)."
PANEL COMMENT: To strengthen the grounding requirements of the
water piping system and to include both hot and cold water pipes.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 310
5- 45 - (250-57): Accept
SUBMITTER: Dwight Durham, Southwire Co.
RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to paragraph (c) in Section
~
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 250-57 makes reference to paragraph (c)
and there is no paragraph (c).
CMP 5 accepted a proposal to delete Section 250-57(c) which was
implemented in the 1981 Code. Apparently they forgot to delete
the reference contained in Section 250-57.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOT~-~IT-!~-AITEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1836
5- 46 - (250-57): Accept
SUBMITTER: Paul E. Phelan, Trade Education Inc. and New Hampshire
E ~ l
Contractors Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: In the opening sentence, delete reference to
"(c)."
SUBSTANTIATION: There is no subparagraph (c).
~C-~CT."
Accept.
~TOTC-ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 519
5- 41 - (250-51(3)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Delete " s u f f i c i e n t l y . "
SUBSTANTIATION: The NEC should avoid vague and indefinite terms
per Section 4-7 of the Manual of Style for NFPATechnical
Committee Documents 1978.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Deletion of the word does not c l a r i f y the meaning.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 520
5- 47 - (250-57, Exceptions Nos. 2 and 3): Reject
SUBMII-FER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RE-'C~O-#{I~-~-DATION: Relocate Exception No. 2 as No. 3 and Exception
No. 3 as No. 2.
SUBSTANTIATION: For improved continuity. Both Exception Nos. 1
and 3 are referring to ac circuits while Exception No. 2 refers to
dc circuits.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: No useful purpose is served by such a
rearrangement.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1693
5- 42 - (250-53(a)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 250-53(a). Grounding Electrode Conductor. A
grounding electrode conductor shall be used to connect the
equipment grounding conductors, the service-equipment enclosures
and, where the system is grounded, the grounded service conductor
to the grounding electrode.
Re~ve definition from Section 250-53(a) since ~t is duplicated
in Article 100.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a repetition of the definition of
Grounding Electrode Conductor found in Article 100 ~herefore i t is
unnecessary.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Section 250-53(a) is a rule and not a definition.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 521
5- 48 - (250-57{b)): Reject
SUBMII-rER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the 6th line from "green, or green with
one or more yellow stripes" to "green, or yellow with green."
SUBSTANTIATION: The Verband Deutscher Elektrotechniker (VDE)
~ s
do not state stripes because they could be convolutions
and the yellow could be more predominate than the green in order
to provide f l e x i b i l i t y .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: A convoluted stripe is s t i l l a stripe.
~
~
ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1204
5- 49 - (250-57(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles J. Hart, NECA
R_ECOMMENDA!IQN: Revise Section 250-57(b) to read: (b) With
Circuit Conductors. By an equipment grounding conductor run with
circuit conductors. In busways and factory-assembled cords or
cables the equipment grounding conductor shall be permitted to be
bare. In all other cases the equipment grounding conductor shall
be provided with an individual covering or insulation with an
outer finish that is either green or green with one or more yellow
stripes.
Log # 1694
5- 43 - (250-53(b)): Reject
SUBMII-TER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~DATION:
250-53(b). Main Bonding Jumper. For a grounded
system, an unspliced main bonding jumper shall be used to connect
the equipment grounding conductor and the service-equipment
enclosure to the grounded conductor of the system within the
service equipment or within the service conductor enclosures. A
main bonding Jumper shall be a wire, bus, screw, or similar
suitable conductor.
82
Log # 89
5- 53 - (250-60): Accept
SUBMITTER: Joseph F. Pinachio, Revere, MA
ITE-'C~O-M-ME-NDATION: Retain Section 250-60 as i t is in the 1981 NEC.
SUBSTANTIATION: Thousands of ranges and clothes dryers have been
grounded to the neutral. Despite all the theorizing about the
dire consequences of an open neutral, there appears to be a
complete lack of evidence to support the concern that has been
expressed.
I t is extremely naive to believe that the buyer of a replacement
range or dryer will have his circuit to the appliance changed to
provide a fourth wire for grounding.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOT-E~--O-N--F-A-N~L ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 11
NEGATIVE: Brown, Nagel, Neiswender.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
--B'~O~N-~." These proposals deal with grounding the Frames of ranges
and dryers to the neutral.
Proponents, including NEMA, of grounding equipment by means of
an equipment grounding conductor base their position on these
arguments:
(1) From a system standpoint the proper method of grounding
equipment is by use of an equipment grounding conductor.
(2) The "neutral" is only neutral at the transformer.
Any
current flow in this conductor raises its voltage above ground.
(3) The increasingly common practice of providing for alternate
energy sources gives rise to dryers "grounded" to the neutral and
pushed back against a GROUNDEDgas pipe.
(4) Dryers and washers mounted side by side can have a voltage
between them i f one is bonded to the neutral. As microelectronic
controls become increasingly important, these voltages will invite
control failures, some of which will be safety related.
(5) Basing opposition to grounding by means of an equipment
grounding conductor on fear of misinstallation by electrical
contractors and suspicion of inadequate attention by the
inspectors is unwarranted.
(6) This exception in the Code invites petitions from others
who would misground to the neutral.
NAGEL: Same as Proposal 5-58.
NEISWENDER: The presently permitted practice of allowing the
noncurrent-carrying metal frames and enclosures of ranges,
range-top cooking units, wall-mounted ovens and clothes dryers to
be grounded by using the grounded circuit conductor (neutral)
should be discontinued. Known electrical hazards can result from
this practice and the fact that numerous documented cases do not
apparently exist due mainly to the variety of different state
reporting systems, does not condone further use of this grounding
method.
The Code has been in the forefront of the establishment of the
third wire as a grounding conductor for equipment grounding for
many years. This one major area of exception, regardless of
whatever reasons are used to j u s t i f y i t , should be deleted from
this Code and all future Codes.
Retain Exception Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the two Fine Print Notes.
SUBSTANTIATION: The grounding conductor is an essential safety
element of a circuit under ground-fault conditions.
A wide
variety of raceways and f i t t i n g s now in use have no specified
r e s i s t i v i t y , ampacity, or I CT performance, and therefore
raceways cannot be relied upon to provide the effective grounding
path required by Section 250-51. Bare conductors may damage
insulated conductors where both are installed together in conduit.
For marinas and boatyards (Section 555-7) and swimming pools
(Section 680-25), NEC requires an insulated equipment grounding
conductor run with the circuit conductors, recognizing that a
raceway system is not inherently a reliable electrical conductor.
Also, many electrical designers recognize the inadequacy of the
raceway system as a suitable grounding conductor for modern wiring
systems and specify the installation of an insulated grounding
conductor in raceways. At intervals of 10 feet and less
throughout its length, a raceway system has joints or
terminations, often not accessible f o r inspection, that may and on
occasion do become loose, rusted, or corroded so as to impair
electrical conductivity. The intent of this proposal is to
provide the same level of equipment-grounding r e l i a b i l i t y for all
installations as is now required for marinas and swimming pools.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal would eliminate all raceways as a
grounding conductor. Submitter has not supplied adequate support
for such a proposal as requested when previous similar proposals
were made.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 287
5- 50 - (250-57(b), Exception No. 1): Accept
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that t h i s
proposal be referred to CMP 6 f o r information.
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake V i l l a g e , CA
~ATION:
Add the words "or covered" a f t e r the word
"insulated" in the f i r s t sentence; and add the words "or covering"
a f t e r the word " i n s u l a t i o n " in a, b, and c.
SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph (b) permits "covered" grounding
conductors but Exception No. i addresses only "insulated"
conductors..
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: Accept and refer to CMP 6 for correlation.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 659
5- 51 - (250-58(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: George C. Gingher, Association of Iron and Steel
]~-6-glneers
RECOMMENDATION: Change the last sentence of paragraph (a) to
read: "The structural metal frame of a building shall not be used
as the required equipment grounding conductor for ac equipment
"except" in high-bay manufacturing buildings equipped with
embedded ground loop structural bonding."
SUBSTANTIATION: The disallowance of structural metal building
frames for grounding was placed in the 1977 Code on the basis that
steel members "may" have too high an impedance to operate
overcurrent devices. However, more than a century of experience
with high-bay industrial buildings, such as those used in the
steel industry, has shown that such f a c i l i t i e s "do," in fact, have
a s u f f i c i e n t l y low impedance path to operate protective devices.
The restriction has a substantial economic impact on installation
costs because of the additional conductors required under the
present language for large electrical systems. There is no
j u s t i f i c a t i o n to have an exclusive disallowance of using
structural building frames for grounding; the Code should disallow
only those systems that f a i l to provide the required protection,
such as prefabricated metal buildings, light structural
construction, etc.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The suhmitter does not provide enough technical
information to contradict previous studies which have shown that
structural building steel is not adequate as an equipment
grounding conductor.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 284
5- 54 - (250-60): Reject
SUBMITTER: Maurice C. Wagner, Contra Costa Electrical Code
Research and Development Committee
RECOMMENDATION: Delete: Entire Section 250-60
SUBSTANTIATION: Refer to 250-61(b), Exception No. 1 proposal.
recent f i r e investigation in the c i t y of Martinez, California,
revealed that a NEMA, 3-pole, 3-wire, 10-30R dryer receptacle
grounded (neutral) conductor was connected to the ungrounded
terminal by mistake. The ungrounded (black) conductor was
mistakenly connected to the ("L" slot) grounded (neutral)
terminal. The Appliance Mechanic then installed an equipment
grounding jumper in the dryer from the case to the grounded
(neutral) terminal that was mistakenly connected to the ungrounded
conductor. The result was that the dryer case was energized to a
potential of 115 to 120 volts above ground condition. The owner
complained two or three times that the dryer Look such a long time
to dry a load of clothes. The Appliance Mechanic did not
determine that the machine was connected incorrectly and was
operating i n e f f i c i e n t l y in a low 115 volt condition instead of 230
volts. A fault path through the f l e x i b l e plastic exhaust duct,
steel spiral wire, caused the plastic to burst into flames behind
the dryer located in the garage area resulting in a f i r e loss. I f
a four-wire receptacle had been installed, the clothes dryer
supplied with a four-wire cord set and the dryer case grounded to
the equipment grounding conductor instead of to the grounded
(neutral) conductor, this Fire loss would have no doubt been
averted.
The practice of permitting by Code the grounding of
noncurrent-carrying metal frames, enclosures and cases of ranges,
clothes dryers, range top cookin9 units and wall-mounted ovens,
with the grounded (neutral/white) current-carrying conductor of a
branch circuit should be abolished and discontinued. This wnuld
afford a higher standard of electrical safety and allow the
electrical industry to have a uniform, standard, straight-forward
procedure of grounding noncurrent-carrying metal parts of " a l l "
equipment without exception and comply.with the provisions of the
Code as already outlined in Sections 250-57-59-61(b) (excluding
Exception No. 1) and 91(b).
Log # 522
5- 52 - (250-59(b)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, F l i n t , MI
~ T I O N :
Revise the 6th line from "green or green with one
or more yellow stripes" to "green, or yellow with green."
SUBSTANTIATION: The Verband Deutscher Elektrotechniker (VDE)
Standards do not state stripes because they could be convolutions
and the yellow could be more predominate than the green in order
to provide f l e x i b i l i t y .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-48.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
83
The provisions of Section 250-60 to ground noncurrent-carrying
metal frames and enclosures, as listed, with the grounded circuit
load conductor is not limited to dwelling unit occupancies. This
system of grounding is not restricted for commercial and
industrial occupancy applications. Therefore, the specified
equipment frames and noncurrent-carrying metal parts could be
grounded to the (neutral) grounded current-carrying conductor of a
coin-operated laundry located in a commercial occupancy, adjacent
to a high ampacity electrical service where fault and circulating
currents are considered objectional and undesirable from the
standpoint of electrical safety.
The practice of grounding nonelectrical parts of appliances
using the branch circuit grounded (neutral) conductor~ has
evidently been deemed an unsafe practice for the reason that the
1981 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODESection 250-60 excludes this
practice of grounding metal frames of equipment installed in
mobile homes and recreational vehicles. This maximum safety
should be extended to all wiring systems by deleting the
provisions of Section 25~)-60, including Section 250-61(b)
Exception No. 1.
There was a period of time that cable assemblies were not
manufactured with an inherent equipment grounding conductor in the
cable assembly listed by a recognized testing laboratory. This is
not the case today. There are available adequate supplies of
listed cable assemblies provided with equipment grounding
conductors, such as nonmetallic sheathed cable, service entrance
cable Type "R" and armored cable Type AC, to mention a few, that
complies with grounding requirements as set forth in Sections
250-57-59-61(b) (excluding Exception No. 1) and 91(b).
Field inspections have revealed washing machine cases grounded
with an equipment grounding conductor as part of the cable
assembly and the clothes dryer case grounded with an aluminum
grounded (neutral) current-carrying conductor. High resistance
aluminum connections of the grounded circuit conductor of the
dryer has caused from 15 to 20 volts potential difference between
the dryers and washer cases in a number of instances. Inspections
also revealed that NEMAnumber 10-30R regular type receptacles
installed in nonmetallic outlet boxes l e f t the device mounting
yokes and the metal cover plates not grounded and in an above
ground potential. Therefore, Line No. 10 of the NEMA
configuration chart should be eliminated.
3 POLE.
3 WIRE
Log # 389
5- 55 - (250-60): Reject
SUBMITTER: R. G. DeLuca, Maricopa County, AZ
RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire section. New wording as follows:
250-60(a) FP4~MESOF RANGESAND C]_OTHES DRYERS.
Frames of electric ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted
cooking units, clothes dryers, and outlet or junction boxes which
are part of the circuit for these appliances shall be grounded in
the manner specified by Section 250-57 or Section 250-59. ,
Exception No. 1. Ranges, clothes dryers, etc. may be ground to
the f u l l y insulated grounded conductor when the voltage is 115/230
V 3-wire, single-phase or 120/208, 3-wire, single-phase tapped
from a 4-wire, 3-phase wye-connected system. The grounded
conductor shall be not less than No. 10 CU or No. 8 AL.
Exception No. 2. (a) Existing system where grounded to the
uninsulated conductor. (b) The circuit originates at the service
equipment panelboard that contains the equipment jumper described
in 250-79 and is grounded as required by 250-5(b) to the electrode
conductor.
Exception No. 3. Mobile homes and travel trailers shall be
grounded according to Section 550-9 or Section 551-21.
Add new paragraph.
(c) Panelboards with insulated neutral (sub panels).
Grounding of electrical and nonelectrical equipment shall be
through connection to a grounding bus in the panelboard. The
grounding bus shall be grounded through the grounding c i r c u i t
supplying the panelboard.
Grounded circuit conductor (neutral) and the neutral bus shall
be insulated from equipment enclosures and other grounded parts.
Grounding o~ ranges, ovens, cook tops and dryers from sub panels
may be grounded according to i or 2 below.
1. 250-60(a), Exception No. 1.
2. As described in (c) above.
SUBSTANTIATION: 250-60 as now written in the Code is too complex,
covers too much ground, and is easily misunderstood. See
Webster's Dictionary, quote: "semicolon, links main clauses not
joined by coordinating conjuctions." Not only does one need an
understanding of the art, he must also ha~e a degree in English
with "great" understanding of punctuation marks.
This proposal is intended to prohibit further use of uninsulated
grounded conductors, and
To preserve the grounding philosophy for equipment grounding.
i . This proposal is intended to inform or alert that ranges,
dryers, etc. may be grounded as in 1 and 2 above.
2. Will prevent the use of uninsulated grounded conductors.
3. Will s t i l l permit ranges and dryers to be grounded to the
grounded conductor from remote panels.
4. Prevent current flowing in grounding conductor.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~COM~E'N'T: With some editorial corrections as covered in
Proposal 5-56, Section 250-60 adequately conveys the intent of the
requirements. Field experience has not shown problems with the
use of the uninsulated grounded conductor when i t is part of SE
cable and originates at the service equipment.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
2 POLE.
3 WIRE
N ( M A Rqlfetence:
3 pole. 3 wlrll dwwcos
Receptacle: 10-30R
P1ui: ~,O-30P
REGULAR
STARREDITEMS ARE
"FOR REPLACEMENT USE ONLY"
t GROUNO(O
Line No. 14 of the NEMAconfiguration chart should be used because
separate terminals are provided for each conductor of a 125/250
volt, 3-wire with ground branch circuit cable.
NEGATIVE: Brown, Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BROWN: See comment on Proposal 5-53.
NAGEL: Same as Proposal 5-59.
ALL 3 POe( 4 WlR(
w
w
GI
~
GI
N(MA reference
Log # 400
5- 56 - (250-60): Accept
SUBMITTER: Kenneth L. Gebert, City of Minneapolis, MN
RECOMMENDATION: Revise line 5 to read, "250-59; or, except for
~------Bi~le-h~nes-and recreational vehicles, shall be permitted, etc."
Provide comma after "or."
Provide comma after "vehicles."
Change "recreation" to "recreational."
Change "or" to "and" between homes-recreation.
SUBSTANTIATION: The insertion of a comma before "Except" and
aTr~Ve~'icl'6s '' sets the two mentioned units off as an exclusion
to the rule. Without the comma, specifically the one after
vehicle, the rule would permit that which the exception was
e x p l i c i t l y inserted for.
The lack of punctuation contributes to confusion as to the
meaning and the interpretation of .intent.
The addition of "al" to recreation is to keep i t in line with
the terminology of Article 551.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
~
L
ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Receptacle L4.60R
14-60P
] 0 A I2$J2$OV
$OA 1251250V
60a I Z $ / 2 ~ V
N(MA ~ l e r e ~ 4
RecepCacJ4 |4-soa
~4.soe
Laundry equipment is often located in the garage area and by
Code, we find washer outlets grounded to an equipment ground
conductor, the dryer grounded to the neutral (white) conductor.
Then, adjacent to the dryer we find a receptacle that must be GFCI
protected with an equipment grounding conductor. I t is time
consuming for the inspector to explain the reasons for all these
requirements to an electrical installer or a frustrated homeowner
who has decided to be an electrician because of today's economy.
For these reasons i t is highly recommended that Section 250-60
be deleted entirely, including Exception No. 1 of Section
250-61(b) and Line No. 10 for 125/250V receptacle devices of the
NEMAconfiguration chart.
PA/WEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as substantiation in Proposal 5-55.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 11
NEGATIVE: Brown, Nagel, Neiswender.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BROWN: See comment on Proposal 5-53.
NAGEL: Same as Proposal 5-58.
NEISWENDER: Refer to comment for Proposal 5-53.
Log # 435
5- 57 - (250-60): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
~OMMENDATION: Delete entire section - new wording as follows:
~-6"6(-a~'Frames of Ranges and Clothes Dryers. Frames of
electric ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted cooking
units, clothes dryers, and outlet or junction boxes which are part
of the circuit for these appliances shall be grounded in the
manner specified by Sections 250-57 or 250-59.
Exception No. 1. Ranges, clothes dryers, etc., may be grounded
to the f u l l y insulated grounded conductor when the voltage is
115/230-volt, 3-wire, single-phase or 120/208-volt, 3-wire,
single-phase tapped from a 4-wire, 3-phase wye-connected system.
84
Field inspections have revealed washing machine cases grounded
with an equipment grounding conductor as part of the cable
assembly and the clothes dryer case grounded with an aluminum
grounded (neutral) current-carrying conductor. High resistance
aluminum connections of the grounded circuit conductor of the
dryer has caused from 15 to 20 volts potential difference between
the dryers and washer cases in a number of instances. Inspections
also revealed that NEMAnumber I0-30R regular type receptacles
installed in nonmetallic outlet boxes l e f t the device mounting
yokes and the metal cover plates not grounded and in an above
ground potential. Therefore, Line No. 10 of the NEMA
configuration chart should be eliminated.
(Note: See Proposal 5-54 for configuration chart.)
Line number 14'of the NEMAconfiguration chart should be used
because separate terminals are provided for each conductor of a
125/250-volt, 3-wire-with-ground branch-circuit cable.
(Note: See Proposal 5-54 for configuration chart.)
Laundry equipment is often located in the garage area, and by
Code, we find washer outlets grounded to an equipment ground
conductor, the dryer grounded to the neutral white conductor.
Then, adjacent to the dryer we find a receptacle that must be GFCI
protected with an equipment grounding conductor. I t is time
consuming for the inspector to explain the reasons for all these
requirements to an electrical installer or a frustrated homeowner
who has decided to be an electrician because of today's econO~lY.
For these reasons i t is highly recommended that Section 250-60
be deleted entirely, including Exception No. I of Section
250-61(b) and Line No. 10 for 125/250V receptacle devices of the
NEMAconfiguration chart.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 5-55.
~/'OTI~--~N"P'~NEL" ACTION:
--~FF-rR--M~Tf/~C.'---I'i~
NEGATIVE: Brown, Nagel, Neiswender.
EXPLANATI ONOF .VOTE
BROWN: See comment on Proposal 5-53.
NAGEL: Usually the electric clothes dryer is located next to
the washer which is grounded to the grounding conductor in the
3-wire cord. The electric dryer is grounded to the branch circuit
grounded (neutral) conductor. This could present a real shock
hazard i f the neutral conductor becomes disconnected. The
question often raised is, i f i t is safe to ground the dryer to the
grounded (neutral) conductor, why not the washer?
There was some indication in the report by the Ad Hoc
"Subcommittee on Grounding of Ranges and Clothes Dryers that these
appliances should be grounded by means of an equipment grounding
conductor.
I f and when these appliances should become co,nputorized, we may
find ourselves in a real dilemma because of our present grounding
practices.
NEISWENDER: Refer to comment for Proposal 5-53.
The grounded conductor shall be not less than No. 10 copper or No.
8 aluminum.
Exception No. 2: (a) Existing system where grounded to the
uninsulated conductor.
(b) The circuit originates at the service equipment panelboard
that contains the equipment jumper described in Section 250-79 and
is grounded as required by Section 250-5(b) to the electrode
conductor.
Exception No. 3: Mobile homes and travel trailers shall be
grounded according to Sections 550-9 or 551-21.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 250-60, as now written in the Code, is
too complex, covers too much ground and is easily misunderstood.
See Webster's Dictionary, quote: "semicolon, links main clauses
not joined by coordinating conjunctions." Not only does one need
an understanding of the art, he must also have a degree in English
with "great" understanding of punctuation marks.
This proposal is intended to prohibit further use of uninsulated
grounded conductors and - to preserve the grounding philosophy for
equipment grounding.
Have supported Section 250-60 to delete grounding to neutral.
This is a companion proposal in case the other proposal is not
accepted and will help to eliminate part of the hazards that now
exist.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
hANEL COMMENT: Same as substantiation in Proposal 5-55.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NEGATIVE: Brown, Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BROWN: See comment on Proposal 5-53.
NAGEL: Same as Proposal 5-59.
Log # 436
S- 58 - (250-60): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
~ATION:
Delete: Entire Section 250-60.
SUBSTANTIATION: Refer to 250-61(b), Exception No. 1 proposal.
recent f i r e investigation in the' City of Martinez, California,
revealed that a NEMA3-pole, 3-wire, 10-30R dryer receptacle
grounded (neutral) conductor was connected to the ungrounded
terminal by mistake. The ungrounded (black) conductor was
mistakenly connected to the (L-slot) grounded (neutral) terminal.
The appliance mechanic then installed an equipment grounding
jumper in the dryer from the case to the grounded (neutral)
terminal that was mistakenly connected to the ungrounded
conductor. The result was that the dryer case was energized to a
potential of 115 to 120 volts above ground condition. The owner
complained two or three times that the dryer took such a long time
to dry a load of clothes. The appliance mechanic did not"
determine that the machine was connected incorreGtly and was
operating i n e f f i c i e h t l y in a low 115 volt condition instead of 230
volts. A f a u l t path through the flexible plastic exhaust duct,
steel spiral wire, caused the plastic to burst into flames behind
the dryer located in the garage areas, resulting in a f i r e loss.
I f a 4-wire receptacle had been installed, the clothes dryer
supplied with a 4-wire cord set and the dryer case grounded to the
equipment grounding conductor'instead of to the grounded (neutral)
conductor, this f i r e loss would have no doubt been averted.
The practice of permitting by Code the grounding of
noncurrent-carrying metal frames, enclosures and cases of ranges,
clothes dryers, range-top cooking units and wall-m~unted ovens,
with the grounded (neutral/white) current-carrying conductor of a
branch c i r c u i t , should be abolished and discontinued. This would
afford a higher standard of electrical safety and allow the
electrical industry to have a uniform, standard, straight-forward
procedure of grounding noncurrent-carrying metal parts of " a l l "
equipment, without exception, and comply with the provisions of
the Code as already outlined in Sections 250-57-59-61(b)
(excluding Exception No. 1) and 91(b).
The provisions of Section 250-60 to ground noncurrent-carrying
metal frames and enclosures, as listed, with the grounded circuit
load conductor is not limited to dwelling unit occupancies. This
system of grounding is not restricted for commercial and
industrial occupancy applications. Therefore, the specified
equipment frames and noncurrent-carrying metal parts could be
~rounded t 9 the (neutral) 9rounded current-carrying conductor of a
o~n opera~eo ~aunary ~ocaced in a commercial occupany, adjacent
to a high ampacity electrical service where fault and circulating
currents are considered objectionable and undesirable from the
standpoint of electrical safety.
The practice of grounding nonelectrical parts of appliances
using the branch-circuit grounded (neutral) conductor, has
evidently been deemed an unsafe practice for the reason that the
1981 NEC Section 250-60 excludes this practice of grounding metal
frames of equipment installed in mobile homes and recreational
vehicles. This maximum safety should be extended to all wiring
systems by deleting the provisions of Section 250-60, including
Section 250-61(b), Exception No. I .
There was a period of time that cable assemblies were not
manufactured with an inherent equipment grounding conductor in the
cable assembly listed by a recognized testing laboratory. This is
not the case today. There are available adequate supplies of
listed cable assemblies provided with equipment grounding
conductdrs, such as nonmetallic sheathed cable, service entrance
cable type "R" and armored cable type AC, to mention a few, that
comply with grounding requirements as set forth in Sections
250-57-59-61(b) (excluding Exception No. 1) and 91(b).
Log # 1244
5- 59 - (250-60): Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~TION:
Delete entire section - New wording as follows:
250-60(~T~. Frames of Ranges and Clothes Dryers. Frames of
electric ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted cooking
units, clothes dryers, and outlet or junction boxes which are part
of the c i r c u i t for these appliances shall be grounded in a manner
specified by Section 250-57 or 250-59.
Exception No. 1. Where grounded to the f u l l y insulated grounded
conductor when the voltage is 115/230V 3-wire, single-phase or
120/208, 3-wire, single-phase tapped from a 4-wire, 3-phase
wye-connected system. The grounded conductor shall be not less
than No. 10 CU or No. 8 AL.
Exception No. 2. (a) Existing system where grounded to the
uninsulated conductor and the circuit originates at the service
equipment panelboard that contains the equipment jumper described
in Section 250-79 and is ground as required by Section 250-5(b) to
the electrode conductor.
Exception No. 3. Mobile homes and travel trailers shall be
grounded according to Section 550-9 or 551-21.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 250-60, as now written in the Code, is
~ m p l - 6 ~ ' c ' o v e r s too much ground and is easily misunderstood.
See Webster's Dictionary, quote: "semicolon, links main clauses
not joined by coordinating conjunctions." Not only does one need
an understanding of the art, he must also have a degree in English
with "great" understanding of punctuation marks.
This proposal is intended to prohibit further use of uninsulated
grounded conductors and - to preserve the grounding philosophy for
equipment grounding.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
" # ' A ' N [ C ~ T : Some as Proposal 5-55.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
--ATFIIT-MA'FII/E~IT~
NEGATIVE: Brown, Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~{-'~-cdn~I~eBt
on Proposal 5-53.
NAGEL: The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Grounding of Ranges and
Clothes Dryers in its report indicated a strong support to require
that the grounded circuit conductor be insulated.
I believe this proposal should be accepted because i t would be
the f i r s t step towards eliminating the use of the grounded
(neutral) conductor to ground ranges and clothes dryers.
BS
Log # 1938
5- 60 - (250-60): Reject
SUBMITTER: Donald W. Zipse, West Chester, PA
RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire Section 250-60.
~USS~ANTIATIO-N: SAFETY
I t is agreed that due to the inherent electrical leakage of the
ranges and ovens and the energizing of frames of ranges, ovens and
dryers that this equipment must be grounded. The use of the
grounded circuit conductor to provide a safe equipment ground is
questionable. Lack of accuracy in reporting f a t a l i t i e s associated
with this equipment is a problem. However, we should not have to
wait until a f a t a l i t y can be undeniably attributed to this method
of wiring before we act to delete this unsafe practice.
COST
I t was demonstrated that any additional cost, i f actual, would
not put any manufacture or method at a disadvantage with respect
to other means of accomplishing the desired task. The requirement
of mobile homes to u t i l i z e the 4-wire method of g~ounding has
resulted in reduced cost because of volume. I t has been
established that SE cable may not be readily available in sizes
required as is universally thought or that i t is the least
costly. The Code is not retroactive. Therefore, massive rewiring
costs are not a factor.
WIRING METHODS
This change in wiring methods would not disrupt or cause drastic
wiring practice changes, nor would i t result in confusion.
Instructions presently found in ranges and dryers show in detail
how to wire the equipment using a separate ground conductor,
4-wire method.
Major municipalities have recognized this Code deficiency and
require a 4-wire installation without any reports of confusion,
problems, or d i f f i c u l t y of installing, or in obtaining the
4-conductor cable or receptacles and plugs. Nor are there reports
of problems with relocating or replacement or interchangability.
The problem with adaptors previously has produced unfounded fear
with respect to future use. One does not have the possibiqity of
misuse of an adaptor in this case as the configuration is not
symmetrical and an adaptor, should one come on the market, would
f i t only one way. I t was determined that an adaptor would cause
no more problem than presently'exist.
STANDARDIZATION
By removing this obsolete exception to what has become the norm,
we will have a standard method of grounding electrical equipment.
This will reduce the confusion that exists with the public, that
grounding of any equipment can be accomplished without a ground
conductor by using the "white wire" as is done in ranges and
dryers. Consistency would be gained. The public, due to the
3-wire cords and plugs and receptacles, which have become the
standard now, are well aware of the need for a separate equipment
ground conductor. This was not prevalent prior to the requirement
of grounded receptacles.
Will the continuance of this exception prohibit or cause
problems in the future with electronic devices due to the flow of
uncontrolled current over the ground path? Should not all
continuous current flow be contained in an insulated conductor and
prevented from flowing uncontrolled over surfaces, piping, ground,
etc.? The parallel paths that exist due to this exception allows,
er Ohm's Law, continuous uncontrolled current flow.
ANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-55.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
Log # 523
5- 62 - (250-60, Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
R~DATION:
Make "250-59" in the 5th line the end of the
~---q'uTrement[--The remainder is an Exception to this requirement:
Exception: Except for mobile homes and recreation vehicles, the
frames of electric ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted
cooking units, clothes dryers, and outlet or Junction boxes which
are part of the circuit for these appliances shall be permitted to
be grounded to the circuit conductor. . . . . . . . . . . • Continue as
presently stated but in I t a l i c s .
SUBSTANTIATION: In order to i l l u s t r a t e that this is clearly an
exception and not the requirement.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PA~NEL COM~'NT: See editorial clarification in Proposal 5-56'.
VOTE ON..PANEL.~q~L Unanimously Affirmative.
NEGATIVE: Brown, Nagel, Neiswender.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BROWN: ~ee comment on Proposal 5-53.
NAGEL: Sameas Proposal 5-58.
NEISWENDER: Refer to co~nent for Proposal 5-53.
Log # 607
5- 65 - (250-61, Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Darrell Hazelwood, J. M. Perry Institute
RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 250-61, Exception No. 2.
~O~-STKNYI'AiI6N: The problem with Section 250-24(a) is the
required association of the ac system grounded conductor with
earth ground in too many places. The more times that a system is
connected to the earth, the more potential for hazard exists. I f
three buildings are fed from a single service equipment, there
will be five connections made with the earth to the grounded
circuit conductor. I f any one of the grounded circuit conductor
connections from the service equipment to any of the building's
disconnecting means f a i l , the neutral current will reenter the
system by the grounding electrode connection at the building,
through the earth, to the service equipment or the supply
transformer. This current flow sets up a voltage gradient from
the building to the point of return to the system. This gradient
presents a hazard to personnel. The NEC should not require supply
system's connections that increase a potential for hazard.
Section 250-24(a) is likely to be used mainly on farm or ranch
locations. These types of occupancies commonly have many types of
livestock present. There have been cases of cattle being killed
because of current flow from the grounding electrode connections
at the various buildings.
Each of the above buildings should have a properly sized
equipment grounding conductor run to each building from the
service equipment. Any grounded circuit conductor connection that
may f a i l will simply cause the circuit to open and not operate.
No current flow in the earth will be present, no voltage gradient
will be present, and there will be no danger to personnel.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~'COMME'NT: Sameas Proposals 5-24 and 5-25.
~O~FC-~NTA-N~'C" ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 524
5- 53 - (250-60(c)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Add "Type SE" between "a" and "service-entrance"
SUBSTANTIATION: Type SE cable does have a covering over the
~ninsulated neutral therefore i t is important that Type SE be
specified in order that Type USE with a bare neutral will not be
used.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-55.
VOTE ON.PANEL.ACTION~ Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 48
5- 64 - (250-60(e) (New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add paragraph (e) as follows:
The circuit wiring method shall be nonmetallic-sheathed
cable, type UF cable, type SE cable, or nonmetallic raceway.
SUBSTANTIATION: Permits an undesirable and potentially hazardous
condition when metallic raceway system is used. This Section and
Section 250-61(b), Exception No. 1 permit the grounded circuit
conductor to be utilized as an equipment grounding conductor.
When installed in this manner and in metallic raceway, the raceway
system is effectively a conductor in parallel with the grounded
neutral. This could cause heating or arcing at raceway
connections or at contact areas between the raceway and other
grounded metal. A break in the neutral may not be readily
apparent as the raceway would then become the sole grounded
circuit conductor, with perhaps a pronounced increase in the
potential for heating and/or arcing effects.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 5-55.
ON-F/~N'EL ACTION:
--A~"F[ITF~ATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~EC:"S~6
"as~F~posal 5-59.
~
Log # 1891
5- 61 - (250-60): Accept
SUBMITTER: Peter Van Putten, Michigan Chapter IAEI
~OATION:
Revise line 5 to read,
"250-59; or, except for mobile homes and recreational vehicles,
shall be permitted etc."
Provide comma after "or."
Provide comma after "vehicles."
Change "recreation" to recreational.
Change "or" to "and" between homes - recreation.
SUBSTANTIATION: The insertion of a comma before "Except" and
a--f't-e'r--m~h-Tcl-es '' sets the two mentioned units off as an exclusion
to the rule. Without the comma, specifically the one after
vehicle, the rule would permit that which the exception was
e x p l i c i t l y inserted for.
The lack of punctuation contributes to confusion as to the
meaning and the interpretation of intent.
The additon of "al" to recreation is to keep i t in line with the
terminology of Article 551.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-56.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
8B
The provisions of Section 250-60 to ground noncurrent-carrying
metal frames and enclosures, as listed, with the grounded circuit
load conductor is not limited to dwelling unit occupancies. This
system of grounding is not restricted for commercial and
industrial occupancy applications. Therefore, the specified
equipment frames and noncurrent-carrying metal parts could be
grounded to the (neutral) grounded current-carrying conductor of a
coin-operated laundry located in a commercial occupancy, adjacent
to a high ampacity electrical service where fault and circulating
currents are considered objectional and undesirable frSm the
standpoint of electrical safety.
The practice of grounding nonelectrical parts of appliances
using the branch circuit grounded (neutral) conductor, has
evidently been deemed an unsafe practice for the reason that the
1981 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODESection 250-60 excludes this
practice of grounding metal frames of equipment installed in
mobile homes and recreational vehicles. This maximum safety
should be extended to all wiring systems by deleting the
provisions of Section 250-60, including Section 250-61(b)
Exception No. i .
There was a period of time that cable assemblies were not
manufactured with an inherent equipment grounding conductor in the
cable assembly listed by a recognized testing laboratory. This is
not the case today. There are available adequate supplies of
listed cable assemblies provided with equipment grounding
conductors, such as nonmetallic sheathed cable, service entrance
cable Type "R" and armored cable Type AC, to mention a few, that
complies with grounding requirements as set forth in Sections
250-57-59-61(b) (excluding Exception No. i) and 91(b).
Field inspections have revealed washing machine cases @rounded
with an equipment grounding conductor as part of the cable
assembly and the clothes dryer case grounded with an aluminum
grounded (neutral) current-carrying conductor. High resistance
aluminum connections of the grounded circuit conductor of the
dryer has caused from 15 to 20 volts potential difference between
the dryers and washer cases in a number of instances. Inspections
also revealed that NEMAnumber I0-30R regular type receptacles
installed in nonmetallic outlet boxes l e f t the device mounting
yokes and the metal cover plates not grounded and in an above
ground potential. Therefore, Line No. 10 of the NEMA
configuration chart should be eliminated.
(Note: See Proposal 5-54 for configuration chart.)
Line No. 14 of the NEMAconfiguration chart should be used
because separate terminals are provided for each conductor of a
125/250 volt, 3-wire with ground branch circuit cable.
(Note: See Proposal 5-54 for configurationchart.)
Laundry equipment is often located in the garage area and by
Code, we find washer outlets grounded to an equipment ground
conductor, the dryer grounded to the neutral (white) conductor.
Then, adjacent to the dryer we find a receptacle that must be GFCI
protected with an equipment grounding conductor. I t is time
consuming for the inspector to explain the reasons for all these
requirements to an electrical installer or a frustrated homeowner
who has decided to be an electrician because of today's economy.
For these reasons i t is highly recommended that Section 250-60
be deleted entirely, including Exception No. 1 of Section
250-61(b) and Line No. 10 for 125/250V receptacle devices of the
NEMAconfiguration chart.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 5-55.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
--AFI~IITFIA'FIITg.T
NEGATIVE: Nagel, Neiswender.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
NAGEL: S~e as-P-{oposal 5-58.
NEISWENDER: Refer to comment for Proposal 5-53.
Log # 606
5- 66 - (250-61(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Darrell Hazelwood, J. M. Perry Institute
~ T I O N :
250-61(a)~ Delete the last phrase: "and on the
supply side of the main disconnecting means for separate buildings
as provided in Section 250-24."
SUB.STANTIATION: The problem with Section 250-24(a) is the
required association of the ac system grounded conductor with
earth ground in too many places. The more times that a system is
connected to the earth, the more potential for hazard exists. I f
three buildings are fed from a single service equipment, there
will be five connections made with the earth to the grounded
circuit conductor. I f any one of the grounded circuit conductor
connections from the service equipment to any of the building's
disconnecting means f a i l , the neutral current will reenter the
system by the grounding electrode connection at the building,
through the earth, to the service equipment or the supply
transformer. This current flow sets up a voltage gradient from
the building to the point of return to the system. This gradient
presents a hazard to personnel. The NEC should not require supply
system's connections that increase a potential for hazard.
Section 250-24(a) is l i k e l y to be used mainly on farm or ranch
locations. These types of occupancies commonly have many types of
livestock present. There have been cases of cattle being killed
because of current flow from the grounding electrode connections
at the various buildings.
Each of the above buildings should have a properly sized
equipment grounding conductor run to each building from the
service equipment. Any grounded circuit conductor connection that
may f a i l will simply cause the circuit to open and not operate.
No current flow In the earth will be present, no voltage gradient
will be present, and there will be no danger to personnel.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~
:
Sameas Proposals 5-24 and 5-25.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 438
5- 67 - (250-61(b)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
RECO~ENDATION: Delete: Exception No. 1 of Section 250-61(b).
SUBSTANTIATION: Refer to 250-60 proposal, Log No. 436.
~NO-N~-."
Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 5-53.
~NETACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NEGATIVE: Nagel, Neiswender.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
~ R T - - ~ T - C o m m e n t should read "See Proposal 5-53" rather
than "Same as Proposal 5-53" since Proposal 5-53 was accepted
while Proposal 5-67 was rejected, and the action on the former was
the basis for the action on the l a t t e r .
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
NAGEL: Sameas Proposal 5-58.
NEISWENDER: Refer to comment for Proposal 5-53.
Log # 285
5- 68 - (250-61(b), Exception No. 1): Reject
SUBMI1-FER: Maurice C. Wagner, Contra Costa Electrical Code
Research and Development Committee
RECOMMENDATION: Delete: Exception No. 1 of Section 250-61(b)
~I]B-S"~T~F:/~r~: Refer to 250-60 proposal.
A recent f i r e investigation in the city of Martinez, California,
revealed that a NEMA, 3-pole, 3-wire, 10-30R dryer receptacle
grounded (neutral) conductor was connected to the ungrounded
terminal by mistake. The ungrounded (black) conductor was
mistakenly connected to the ("L" slot) grounded (neutral)
terminal.
The Appliance Mechanic then installed an equipment
grounding jumper in the dryer from the case to the grounded
(neutral) terminal that was mistakenly connected to the ungrounded
conductor. The result was that the dryer case was energized to a
potential of 115 to 120 volts above ground condition. The owner
complained two or three times that the dryer took such a long time
to dry a load of clothes. The Appliance Mechanic did not
determine that the machine was connected incorrectly and was
operating i n e f f i c i e n t l y in a low 115 volt condition instead of 230
volts. A fault path through the f l e x i b l e plastic exhaust duct,
steel spiral wire, caused the plastic to burst into flames behind
the dryer located in the garage area resulting in a f i r e loss. I f
a four-wire receptacle had been installed, the clothes dryer
supplied with a four-wire cord set and the dryer case grounded to
the equipment grounding conductor instead of to the grounded
(neutral)conductor, this f i r e loss would have no doubt been
averted.
The practice of permitting by Code the grounding of
noncurrent-carrying metal frames, enclosures and cases of ranges,
clothes dryers, range top cookin 9 units and wall-mounted ovens,
with the grounded (neutral/white) current-carrying conductor of a
branch c i r c u i t should be abolished and discontinued. This would
afford a higher standard of electrical safety and allow the
electrical industry to have a uniform, standard, straight-forward
procedure of grounding noncurrent-carrying metal parts of " a l l "
equipment without exception and comply with the provisions of the
Code as already outlined in Sections 250-57-59-61(b) (excluding
Exception No. 1) and 91(b).
Log # 437
5- 69 - (250-61(c)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph.
---TE~ Pa6ef6o'ards with Insulated Neutral (Subpanels).
Grounding of electrical and nonelectrical equipment shall be
through connection to a grounding bus in the panelboard. The
grounding bus shall be grounded through the grounding circuit
supplying the panelboard.
Grounded circuit conductor (neutral) and the neutral bus shall
be insulated from equipment enclosures and other grounded parts.
Grounding of ranges, ovens, cook-tops and dryers from subpanels
may be grounded according to 1 or 2 below.
1. Section 250-60(a), Exception No. 1.
2. As described in (c) above.
SUBSTANTIATION: (1) This proposal is intended to inform or alert
that ranges, dryers, etc., may be grounded as in i and 2 above.
l~I Will prevent the use of uninsulated grounded conductors.
Will s t i l l permit ranges and dryers to be grounded to the
grounded conductor from remote panels.
(4) Prevent current flowing in grounding conductor.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~CO~CNT:
See Proposals 5-55 and 5-57.
V-O~E~-ON--I~A-N-E--CACTION:
AFFIRM;ff/qE~"I"3-"NEGATIVE: Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
- ' N / ~ G E 1 _ ~ - - ~ r o p o s a l 5-59.
87
Log # 510
5- 70 - (250-71(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Porsch, Sheldon, IA
RECOMMENDATION: The noncurrent-carrying metal parts of equipment
indicated in (1), (2) and (3) below shall be effectively bonded
together so as to be electrically continuous.
SUBSTANTIATION: Added on: So as to be electrically continuous.
This is to insure that no one will only bond one end.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is the intent that only a single path to th e
grounded circuit conductor is required.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 44
5- 75 - (250-71(b)(1)): Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Substitute the words "raceways or cables" for the
word "conduit."
SUBSTANTIATION: Does not specifically permit Electrical Metallic
Tubing, or other metallic service raceways or cable to be utilized
for intersystem bonding. Other metallic enclosures are permitted
for services, including EMT, MI cable, MC cable, busways,
wireways, auxiliary gutters, which may be installed exposed.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part.
Change "conduit" to "raceways."
PANEL COMMENT: Service cables do not provide an acceptable
~
means for bonding.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 47
5- 71 - (250-71(a)(3)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~ATION:
Substitute the words "metallic raceway" for the
word "conduit."
SUBSTANTIATION: Does not specifically require bonding of
Electrical Metallic Tubing. Section 250-92 requires or permits
EMT as an enclosure for a grounding electrode conductor. This
Section could be interpreted as not requiring bonding when so used.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise Section 250-71(a)(3) to read:
"(3) Any metallic raceway or armor enclosing a grounding
electrode conductor as permitted in Section 250-92(a)."
PANEL COMMENT: Clarifies the intent of the proposal.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative..
Log # 1628
5- 76 - (250-71(b)(3)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Walter Gwynn, Onondaga Metropolitan Electrical
~ r s
Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: I t is proposed that the Following be deleted from
A~ticle 250-71(b)(3):
"Approved means for the external connection of a bonding or
grounding conductor to the service raceway or equipment."
SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement causes excessive cost to.
homeowner.
I t is Further feared that the requirement may cause
manufacturers to add a bonding wire, thereby increasing product
cost.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
FAN-~C COMMENT: The ~equirement is necessary for safety.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1700
5- 72 - (250-71(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~ATION:
250-71(b). Bonding to Other Systems. At
dwellings, an accessible means external to enclosures for
connecting intersystem bonding and grounding conductors shall be
provided at the service by at least one of the following means.
"Conductor shall be No. 6 CU or No. 4 AL."
SUBSTANTIATION: 1981 Code does not require specified sizing of
this conductor. I am not qualified to determine method of sizing
but some method should be provided.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~B~TE'L--C-O]~NT: Submitter's concern is adequately covered by fine
print note.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffi,rmative.
Log # 1762
5- 77 - (250-71(b)(3)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello~ Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
R~DATION:
Revise (b)(3) as follows:
---T-3-)-"A'{iel-d-installed approved means...
SUBSTANTIATION: The addition of the word "field-installed"
clarifies that a means may be provided where provisions of (b)(1)
or (b)(2) are not available. The fine print note suggesting a
projection date led many users of the NEC to believe the
provisions of (b)(3) was to be a factory-assembled means only.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~N~CL--L~O-MTQE~
' T: The FPN will not appear in the 1984 edition of the
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
I t is the Panel's intention that the acceptable means be either
factory- or field-installed.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1118
5- 73 - (250-71(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. H. (Jim) Richards, Maryland Electrical Inspectors
~ o n
RECOMMENDATION: Amend as follows:
An accessible means external to enclosures shall be provided for
connection of intersystem bonding and grounding "at or near" the
service equipment.
SUBSTANTIATION: Recessed equipments makes service conduits and
grounding eleEtrode conductors at the service equipment
inaccessible, however, usually somewhere near this equipment the
grounding electrode conductor is exposed. There would seem to be
no reason that the telephone u t i l i t y or the CATV installers should
not be required to make some reasonable effort to do their own
rounding.
ANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The term "near" is vague. The present
requirements convey that the connection may be at any point, for
example, on the serviGe raceway or grounding electrode conductor
where accessible.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1290
5- 78 - (250-71(b), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Add new Exception:
Exception. For flush recessed type enclosures, intersystem
bonding shall be permitted distant From the enclosure in an area
where the conditions of (b)(1) and (b)(2) are accessible.
SUBSTANTIATION: Inclusion of this Section in the 1981 NEC failed
to make note of flush recessed type service equipment. This type
equipment usually installed in a finished room would prevent or
prohibit proper installation of the requirements listed.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-73.
VOT~-~FA-FFL'~ ACTION:
~FI~MA~IVE ~ "1%NEGATIVE: Nagel.
COMMENTON VOTE:
--~E~ff:----Y-he-proposer's substantiation fails to recognize that
flush-mounted service equipment is one of the reasons that the
available bonding means is needed and was specifically addressed
in the support of Proposal 69 on Section 250-71 in the 1980
Preprint.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
--lqA-G'l~'l_-~-l-6C~where enclosures are flush recessed, the
present wording can be misinterpreted.
I am in Favor of this
proposal because the exception would address that problem.
~
Log # 1749
5- 74 - (250-71(b)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
ITE'C~O'~OATION: 250-71(b). Bondings to Other Systems. Delete:
"At dwellings", and add wording in quotations: "A building
containing dwelling units shall have" an accessible means external
to enclosures for connecting intersystem bonding and groundin9
conductors shall be provided at the service by at least one of the
following means.
SUBSTANTIATION: This would better identify the Code's intent,
PANEL ACTION.
7- Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The term "dwelling" is defined in Article 100 and
conveys the intent.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1370
5- 79 - (250-71(b),Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: M. H. Lounsbury, Eastern Section IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Exception. For flush recessed type enclosures,
~ystem
bonding shall be permitted distant from the enclosure
in an area where the conditions of (b)(1) and (b)(2) are
accessible.
SUBSTANTIATION: Inclusion of this Section in 1981 NEC failed to
make note of flush recessed type service equipment. This type
equipment usually installed in a finished room would prevent or
prohibit proper installation of the requirements listed.
88
Log # 318
5- 84 - (250-72(d)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Chester Flanagan, San Diego, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Bonding Jumpers. Bonding jumpers meeting other
~ ~ o f
ths article "shall be used to assure electrical
continuity." Bonding jumpers shall be used around concentric or
eccentric knockout that are punched or otherwise formed so as to
impair the electrical connection to ground.
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is being submitted to amend
apparent error(s) in the subject section.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
P-A-~I~I'~--C~MMEN
' TT: See the Panel recommendation For Proposal 5-85.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
!~TE'L--C~I~E'RT: Same as Proposal 5-73.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: ~3---NEGATIVE: Nagel.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
SESSLER: See comment on Proposal 5-78.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
NAGEL: Same as Proposal 5 - 7 8 .
Log # 1231
5- 80 - (250-71(b), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom Morosco, Utica, NY
RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 250-71(b) to read:
Exception. For flush recessed type enclosures, intersystem
bonding shall be permitted d i s t a n t from the enclosure in an area
where the conditions of (b)(1) and (b)(2) are accessible.
SUBSTANTIATION: Inclusion of t h i s Section in the 1981 NEC f a i l e d
to make note of flush recessed type service equipment. This type
equipment usually i n s t a l l e d in a f i n i s h e d room would prevent or
p r o h i b i t proper i n s t a l l a t i o n of the requirements l i s t e d .
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 5-73.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Nagel.
COMMENT ON VOTE:
SESSLER: See comment on Proposal 5-78.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
NAGEL: Same as Proposal 5-78.
Log # 525
5- 81 - (250-72-Title)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, F l i n t , MI
RECOMMENDATION: Revise t i t l e to:
"250-72. Bonding Service Equipment for 250 Volts or Less."
SUBSTANTIATION: In order that the t i t l e will more nearly cover
the requirement.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The requirements of Section 250-72 apply to all
services.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 526
5- 85 - (250-72(d)): Accept
SUBMII-TER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Combine 1st and 2nd sentence to: "Bonding
jumpers meeting the other requirements of this article shall be
used around concentric or eccentric knockouts that are punched or
otherwise formed so as to impair the electrical connection to
ground."
SUBSTANTIATION: The former 1st sentence was dangling.
F ~ R ~
Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 527
86 - (250-74, Exception No. 1): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Add 2nd sentence: "This Exception shall not
inc'~d~16~ boxes with raised covers."
SUBSTANTIATION: Exception No. I has been misinterpreted to
~3~{16~
boxes with raised covers where there is only one
6-23 screw securing a receptacle yoke.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
J ~ ~ n d
sentence in Exception No. 1 to read: "This
Exception shall not apply to cover-mounted receptacles."
PANEL COMMENT: Expandson the original proposal to include all
cove~t66
receptacles.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
• 5-
Log # 833
5- 87 - (250-74, Exception No. 4 and FPN-(New)): Accept in
Principle
SUBMITTER: Warren H. Lewis, Computer Power Systems Corp.
RECO_____MM.ME_N~!gN: Add: "This grounding conductor shall not be
terminated to a grounding electrode(s) which is isolated from the
applicable derived system or service grounding terminal." Note:
Where the receptacle box is connected to flexible metal conduit
(Article 350) or to a liquidtight flexible metal conduit (Article
351-A) in lengths exceeding six feet a separate insulated
equipment bonding jumper shall be required and shall be installed
in accordance with Section 250-79."
SUBSTANTIATION: Exception No. 4 is often misinterpreted to allow
the equipment bonding wires (green wires) to be connected, into
some sort of "isolated" ground ( i . e . , "quiet earth ground") which
is not metallically bonded to the g~ounding point of the
associated service or separately derived system grounding point,
nor a water pipe or even building steel. This is done in an
attempt to control real or imagined electrical "noise" and the
ground fault path is effectively defeated or seriously compromised.
This is becoming an almost universal problem with major computer
manufacturers demanding large scale use of IC receptacles on
"isolated" ground systems.
This is an exceptionally serious problem in "old work" where
flexible metal conduit is used within the walls and the original
grounded receptacle is changed to an IC style using Exception
No. 4 as j u s t i f i c a t i o n .
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
-~Exception
No. 4 as follows:
(1) Change the reference to "Section 384-27, Exception No. i . "
(2) Revise last sentence of Section 250-74, Exception No. 4
after the word "directly" as follows:
"at an equipment grounding conductor terminal of the applicable
derived system or service."
(3) Add a Fine Print Note as follows:
"Use of an isolated equipment grounding conductor does not
relieve the requirement for grounding the raceway system and
outlet box."
PANEL COt~MENT: This incorporates the intent of the proposal.
VOTE ON~ANEL.ACT~ONz Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1900
5- 82 - (250-72, FPN-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTERS: B. Auger/H. B. Love, Michigan Chapter IAEI
ITE'i~-O]~N~TION: Add a fine print note at the end of the section:
For metal raceway to bok connections on services, some form of
bonding is always required.
A bonding bushing, bonding wedge, bonding lock nut, or other
approved device shall always be installed when a metal connector
or raceway is brought into a service enclosure; even when
connections are with cut holes or the outer periphery of
concentric knockouts.
SUBSTANTIATION: There is probably more confusion on the bonding
of services than any other single item in the Code. The
discussion, debates and disagreements seem to go on and on.
Even though the rules are simply and f l a t l y stated, the
Code-Making Panel must assume some responsibility towards helping
to c l a r i f y this basic question. This FPN is offered as an opening
in that direction.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~ E L COMMENT: The proposal is unacceptable as a FPN since i t
contains a mandatory requirement.
Stating the requirements twice in another format will not add
clarity.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 286
5- 83 - (250-72(c)): Accept in Principle
SUBMI~ER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Change the word "couplings" to " f i t t i n g s . "
SUBSTANTIATION: The word "coupling" per se, does not include
threadless connectors which when screwed into threaded hubs or
bosses, or used with grounding or bonding locknuts or bushings
appear to be a satisfactory and commbnly accepted method of
obtaining electrical continuity at services.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise t i t l e of (c) to read:
"Threadless Couplings and Connectors."
Revise f i r s t sentence to read:
"Threadless couplings and connectors made..."
PANEL COMMENT: Panel agrees, but feels "connectors" is the
appropriate term.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 644
5- 88 - (250-74, Exception No. 4): Reject
SUBMITTER: Clyde H. Craig, Craig Electric Co.
RECOMMENDATION: Revise (added wording in quotations): On the
grounding c i r c u i t , a receptacle in which the ground terminal is
purposely insulated from the receptacle mounting means "and the
threaded 6-32 machine screw hole for attachment of a cover plate,"
shall be permitted.
89
SUBSTANTIATION: With the exception of hubble and P and S there is
a ~ p a - a t - ~ - c r e a t e d when mounting most insulated receptacles on
4-inch square or hand~ boxes and using metal and/or raised cover
plates. This obviously violates the insulated grounding terminal
by connecting the normal equipment ground to the insulated
ground. This causes problems on computer circuits, certain
medical equipment, etc. etc.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: This is an equipment installation problem and not
a Code related problem.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
SUBSTANTIATION: 1. This will alert the wiremen that an effective
#at-t-h-~
is required and necessary, with no impairments such
as eccentric or concentric knockouts or reducing washers creating
high resistance connections; thus preventing the opening of the
protective device.
2. Manypeople are not aware of the magnitude of fault currents
that may and can be much greater than load currents.
3. Manyfires and destruction of equipment is directly related
to an ineffective ground path.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
--R6~ion
250-76 as follows:
250-76. Bonding f o r Over 250 Volts. "For c i r c u i t s of over 250
v o l t s to ground, the e l e c t r i c a l c o n t i n u i t y of metal raceways and
cables with metal sheaths that contain any conductor other than
service conductors shall be assured by one or more of the methods
specified for services in Section 250-72(b) through (e)."
"Exception: Where oversized, concentric, or eccentric knockouts
are not encountered, the following methods shall be permitted:
(a) Threadless couplings and connectors for cables with metal
sheaths.
(b) Two 1ocknuts, on rigid metal conduit, or intemediate metal
conduit, one inside and one outside of boxes and cabinets.
(c) Fittings with shoulders that seat firmly against the box or
cabinet, such as electrical metallic tubing connectors, flexible
metallic conduit connectors and cable connectors, with one locknut
on the inside of boxes and cabinets."
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels this wording accomodates the intent of
e~-~-prb'pb-sal'." Also see Proposal 5-83.
VOTE ON PANEL ACT~ON~ Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1656
5- 89 - (250-74, Exception No. 4): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity, Inc.
~q~'-CR~Q~:-~ATION: 250-74. Exception No. 4. Where required for the
reduction of electrical noise on the grounding c i r c u i t , a
receptacle in which the grounding terminal is purposely installed
from the receptacle mounting means shall be permitted. The
receptacle grounding terminal shall be grounded by an insulated
equipment grounding conductor run with the circuit conductors.
This grounding conductor shall be permitted to pass through one or
more panelboards, without connection to the panelboard grounding
terminal as permitted in Section 384-27 Exception, so as to
terminate directly at the applicable derived system or service
grounding "electrode" terminal.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is the only instance in the Code where the
term "service grounding terminal" is used. I t is not a readily
identifiable term and using the new term ~ould provide c l a r i t y .
EDITORIAL CHANGE.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel recommendation on Proposal 5-87.
ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 439
5- 94 - (250-76(c)-(New)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Paragraph (c) to Section 250-76.
--llTr-eacf~6ss'Yittings or 2 locknuts described in (a) and (b) shall
be used only when knockouts are properly sized and cut" for the
conduit or cable size required. The use of one of methods
described in Section 250-72(b) through (e) becomes necessary to
assure an effective grounding path whenever grounding continuity
is impaired by reducing washers, improperly cut knockouts or when
concentric or eccentric knockouts are encountered.
See Section 250-51.
SUBSTANTIATION: An effective path to ground is required and
necessary, with no impairments such as eccentric or concentric
knockouts or reducing washers creating high resistance
connections, thus preventing the opening of the protective device.
Many poeple are not aware of the magnitude of fault currents
that may and can be much greater than load currents.
Many fires and destruction of equipment is directly related to
an ineffective ground path.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
P-A-N'ET-COMME~T: See Proposal 5-93.
VOTE ON PANELACTION~ Unanimously Affirmative.
5- 90 - (250-75): Reject
Log # 528
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
CIT-EC
' O~MMENDATION: Delete "effectively" and "where necessary" from
the 4th line.
SUBSTANTIATION: The NEC should avoid vague and indefinite terms
per Section 4-7 of the Manual of Style f o r NFPATechnical
Committee Documents 1978.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMEN~: The Panel feels terms are necessary to allow use
of grounding paths in equipment which have been tested to
demonstrate their effectiveness.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 529
5- 91 - (250-76-Title): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
]TE~]~'-~E--N-OATION: Revise t i t l e to:
"250-76. I~)nding Service Equipment for Over 250 Volts" and move
this section to immediately after Section 250-72.
SUBSTANTIATION: In order that the t i t l e will more nearly cover
the requirement and so that Sections 250-72 and 250-76 will have
continuity.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~KITE'L--(~C4E-~T: Section 250-76 applies to all circuits operating
at over 250 volts to ground and is not limited to services.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1245
5- 95 - (250-76(c)-(New)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~L~U~'I~DATION: To add new paragraph (c) to 250-76.
Threadless f i t t i n g s or 2 locknuts described in (a) and (b) shall
be used only when knockouts are properly sized and cut for the
conduit or cable size required. The use of one of the methods
described in Section 250-72'(b) through (e) becomes necessary to
assure an effective grounding path whenever grounding continuity
is impaired by reducing washers, improperly cut knockouts or when
concentric or eccentric knockouts are encountered.
See Section 250-51.
SUBSTANTIATION: An effective path to ground is required and
necessary, with no impairments such as eccentric or concentric
knockouts or reducing washers creating high resistance
connections, thus preventing the opening of the protective device.
Many people are not aware of the magnitude of fault currents
that may and can be much greater.than load currents.
Many fires and destruction of equipment is directly related to
an ineffective ground path.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
NI~-~N-E'C--CO~ENT: See Proposal 5-93.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e ,
Log # 43
5- 92 - (250-76(a)): Accept
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
ITE'CDIq~[EI~ATION: Add the words "electrical metallic tubing" after
the word "conduit."
SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification: Does not specifically include
electrical metallic tubing as a raceway wiring method. EMT is
permitted for circuits of over 250 volts to ground; Section
250-72(c) includes EMT threadless couplings as a bonding method
for services. This proposal will c l a r i f y use of EMT and
associated threadless f i t t i n g s as being suitable for bonding
purposes on circuits of over 250 volts to ground.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
5- 96 - (250-78): Reject
Log # 1946
SUBMII-FER: Richard J. Buschart, Monsanto Company
RECOMMENDATION: Delete this section in its entirety.
~TI]I~-~-T'A-NT'IAYfON: The special grounding and bonding requirements in
Hazardous ~ s s i f i e d )
locations are in Sections 501-16, 502-16,
and 503-16. Section 250-78 is a duplication of part of the
requirements.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PAICE!_~:
Section 250-78 is needed for the basic bonding
requirements.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 392
5- 93 - (250-76(c)-(New)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: R. G. DeLuca, Maricopa County, AZ
I~E'C~O-#I~'ITDATION: (c) RACEWAYENTRIES
Threadless f i t t i n g s or 2 locknuts described in (a) and (b) shall
be used only when knockouts are properly sized and cut for the
conduit or cable size required. The use of one of the methods
described in Section 250-72 (b) thru (e) becomes necessary to
assure an effective grounding path whenever grounding continuity
is impaired by reducing washers, improperly cut knockouts or when
concentric or eccentric knockouts are encountered.
See Section 250-51.
go
Log # 290
5- 97 - (250-79(b)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following: Bonding jumper connections
shall not be required to be accessible except as required by
Section 250-71(b).
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 250-112 Exception permits certain
connections of a grounding electrode conductor to be
non-accessible, but does not address connections of bonding
jp'umers. Bonding jumpers are commonly installed around insulating
f i t t i n g s or joints in buried metal piping systems, around
expansion f i t t i n g s , in swimming pool installations, etc. where the
connections are not accessible. Bonding of interior metal piping
systems is commonly done within walls or hollow spaces of
buildings to lessen the chance of damage or disturbance. Metal
ater ~iping and other pipin 9 systems are permitted or required to
e oonoed to the groundlng electrode, which may be
concrete-encased re-bar of a structure. This proposal will
provide specific permission for such practices.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~IT~'L--~]~b'--NT: Present rules do not require accessibility.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal would establish a reliable'izeds
~F~~uniform
method for determining the optimum
service supply side equipment bonding/main bonding jumper. The
main bonding jumper is actually a conductor/bus extending From the
service grounded conductor on the supply side of the service to
the equipment bonding jumper on the service supply side to the
equipment bonding jumper on the service load side and the purpose
of the equipment bonding/main bonding jumper is to conduct fault
current, of sufficient magnitude, back to the source via the
service grounded conductor/grounding electrode conductor to
trip/actuate the service overcurrent device to clear the fault
(see attached line diagram). Also, the size of the equipment
bonding jumper on the service load side is based on Table 250-95;
the size of the equipment bonding/main bonding jumper on the
service supply side is based on Table 250-94. However, since the
function of the service supply side and the service load side
sections of the equipment bonding/main bonding jumper is the same;
the total fault current sensed by the equipment bonding jumper on
the service load side is also sensed by the equipment bonding/main
bonding jumper on the service supply side. Therefore, since i t is
common knowledge that an equipment bonding jumper, sized in
accordance with Table 250-95, on the service load side does not,
in any way, impair/endanger the system; accordingly, the sizing of
the service supply side equipment bonding/main bonding jumper
w i l l , likewise, cause no impairment/endangerment of the functions
of the system. Also, material usage will be reduced i f bonding
jumper size is reduced, based on Table 250-95 (see attached
supporting data sheet).
Item
Definition-per Article 100, NEC 1981
~
Log # 319
5- 98 - (250-79(c)):
Reject
SUBMII-FER: Chester Flanagan, San Diego, CA
~ATION:
Size-Equipment Bonding Jumper on Supply Side of
Service and Main Bonding Jumper. The "equipment" bonding/"main
bonding" jumper shall be "sized as indicated in Table 250-95 based
on the use of the allowable ampacity of the largest
service-entrance phase conductor or equivalent area for parallel
conductors as the reference. I f the allowable ampacity of the
largest service-entrance phase conductor exceeds Table 250-95, the
equipment bonding/main bonding jumper size shall be
proportionately increased." Where the service-entrance conductors
are paralleled in two or more raceways, the size of the bonding
jumper for each raceway shal be "as indicated in Table 250-75,
based on the use of the service-entrance phase conductor(s)
allowable" ampacity in each raceway "as the reference."
Service-entrance
Overcurrent device
conductor size per
rating or setting
Table 250-94/allowed per Table 250-95
service-entrance
conductor size
A system or circuit that is
intentionally grounded.
The connection between the grounded
circuit conductor and the equipment
grounding conductor at the service.
The connection between two or more
Equipment Bonding Jumper
portions of the equipment grounding
conductors.
Equipment Grounding Conductors The conductor used to connect the
noncurrent carrying metal parts
equipment, raceways and other
enclosures to the system grounded
conductor and/or the grounding
electrode conductor at the service
equipment or at the source of a
separately derived system.
Grounding Electrode Conductor The conductor used to connect the
grounding electrode to the
equipment grounding conductor
and/or to the ground conductor of
the circuit at the service
equipment or at the source of a
separately derived system.
Ground Conductor
Main Bonding Jumper
Service supply side
Proposedservice
equipment bonding
supply side
and/or main bonding equipment
jumper size per Table bonding and/or
250-94/service supply main bonding
side equipment bonding jumper size per
and/or main bonding
Table 250-95
jumper per A r t i c l e
250-79(c)
2CU
IOOA
8CU
8CU
i or 1/0
150
6
6
2/0 or 3/0
200
4
6
3/0-350 MCM
300
2
4
350-600
400
i/0
3
600-1100
500
2/0
2
over 1100
600
3/0
i
"1250
800
**3/0
i
1500
i000
4/0
2/0
1750
1200
250 MCM
3/0
2500
1600
350
4/0
3000
2000
400
250 MCM
3500
2500
500
350
4000
3000
500
400
6000
4000
750
500
7000
5000
900
700
8000
6000
i000
800
*Size 1400 MCM and above are allowed (based on Table 310-16) for the corresponding overcurrent device amperage
rating/setting as listed in Table 250-95.
**Size 3/0 and above are based on Section 250-79(c).
Aluminum wire data was gathered but is not submitted since the results were proportionately equal to that of the
copper wire.
91
SUBSTANTIATION: The Code presently appears to have no specific
reqJ~for
physical protection of bonding jumpers which are
not installed within enclosures or raceways. Since in some
installations they may serve essentially the same purpose as
equipment grounding conductors, similar protection requirements
should be specified as those required for equipment grounding
conductors or grounding electrode conductors. The installation of
an unprotected No. 12 or No. 14 conductor to bond piping systems
per Section 250-30(b) does not provide much assurance that such a
connection will not be rather easily broken. Similarly, an
exposed No. 10 conductor used as a bonding jumper around a 6 foot
length of flexible metal conduit or a No. 8 conductor providing
bonding around water meters, etc., may not provide sufficient
physical strength for all environments. The latter part of the
roposed exception would provide for such installations where the
ikeliheod of damage is slight.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Submitter f a i l s to substantiate need for such
~~irements.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel does not agree with the proposer's
su-'6B-s-Z-an-t~Fat~n in that faults on the supply may be of different
magnitude than faults on the load side.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 54
5- 99 - (250-79(c)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add the words "or cables" after the word
"raceway(s)" in the last sentence.
SUBSTANTIATION: Does not refer specifically to paralleled
conductors installed in other than raceways. Section 250-71(a)(1)
requires metallic armor or sheath of service cables to be bonded;
Section 330-3 permits MI cable for services, Section 334-3 permits
MC cable for services, and i t seems reasonable that this bonding
jumper requirement should apply to such metallic enclosures.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise last sentence to read as follows:
"Where the service-entrance conductors are paralleled in two or
more raceways or cables, the size of the bonding jumper for each
raceway or cable shall be based on the size of the service
conductors in each raceway or cable."
PANEL COMMENT: Panel agrees cables should be included.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
~
Log # 308
5- 103 - (250-79(d), Exception-(New)): Accept
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following:
"IE'xEep-t~66~"Theequipment bonding jumper shall not be required
to be larger than the circuit conductors supplying the equipment.
SUBSTANTIATION: In some cases, especially motor circuits, the
rating of the circuit overcurrent device would result in a bonding
jumper conductor size larger than the circuit conductors. This
proposal will provide the same exception permitted for equipment
grounding conductors in Section. 250-95.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 320
5- 100 - (250-79(d)):
Reject
SUBM[TTER: Chester Flanagan, San Diego, CA
~DATION:
Size-Equipment Bonding Jumper on Load Side of
Service. The equipment bonding jumper on the load side of the
service overcurrent device shall not be smaller than the sizes
listed by Table 250-95 for equipment grounding conductors. "The
bonding jumper size shall be as listed in the table based on the
use of the overcurrent device rating/setting or the combined
rating/setting of the overcurrent device and the overcurrent
device(s) downstream as the bonding jumper sizing reference when
the overcurrent device(s) is served by a common bonding jumper."
SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of this proposal is to emphasize the
pur~/T~
of Section 250-79(d). As an example, when a common
equipment bonding jumper is extended to serve additional equipment
(load) the magnitude of the potential fault current increases. As
current is increased, a larger bonding will/may be required
depending on the current level involved. In essence this is what
the subject section is about and the aim here is to make this
clear.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~M~IE-NT:
The proposal does not c l a r i f y intent.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 531
5- 104 - (250-7g(e)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, F l i n t , MI
RECOMMENDATION: Revise last sentence to delete the "and" and
~cewfth'a
co~na in the 4th line, delete the period in the 5th
line and add: "and shall minimize convolutions."
SUBSTANTIATION: Manyconvolutions will cause a choke effect.
F~NEL ACTION: .Reject.
PANEL COF~V~NT: Insufficient substantiation that there is a
p'r'66femln---F6-~e f i e l d .
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 288
5- 105 - (250-79(e)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following as sub-paragraph (2); make
present paragrapfi (1): The equipment bonding jumper may be bare,
covered, or insulated.
Individually covered or insulated bonding
jumpers shall have a continuous outer finish that is either green,
or green with one or more yellow stripes, or shall be identified
as permitted in Exceptions No. 1 and No. 3 of Section 250-57(b).
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 310-2 requires that conductors be
~te~exce'pt
where otherwise specifically permitted. A
bonding jumper is, or may become a conductor. Article 680 for
example, permits bare, covered, or insulated bonding jumpers.
Article 517 requires certain bonding jumpers to be insulated.
Article 250 appears to be silent on this point.
There is a fine line of distinction between equipment grounding
conductors and equipment bonding jumpers, which in some instances
is d i f f i c u l t to discern, as the function of each may overlap. For
example: two sections of rigid metal conduit joined by a short
section of multiconductor cord or flexible metal conduit, to
permit movement (seismic j o i n t , floating dock, etc.) The
conductor which is used to provide the connection between the two
rigid raceways could meet the definition of bonding jumper or
bonding jumper, equipment, in Article 100, or this definition
could be inferred by Section 250-79(e). By definition and per
Sections 250-57(b) and 250-91(b) i t may also be construed as an
equipment grounding conductor.
An equipment bonding jumper installed as required by Section
250-74 ( i f not permitted to be bare or not required to be green in
color) could easily lead to mistakes in connections by a
do-it-yourself homeowner or others, with potential hazards.
Since splices and terminations may be interposed in some bonding
jumper installations, and lengths are not specifically limited,
the lack of code requirements for identification can lead to
safety hazards. To avoid controversy over definitions and for the
same safety reasons the identification requirements for equipment
grounding conductors and equipment bonding jumpers should be the
same.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: No substantiation that there is a f i e l d problem.
The function of the bonding jumper is readily apparent and color
identification is not necessary.
VOTE____ON_PANEL.~G~Q~L Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 530
5- 101 - (250-79(d)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: J . K . Daugherty, Flint, MI
~E~ATION:
Add new sentence: "The equipment bonding jumper
shall be permitted to run continuously in series from 2 or more
conduits."
SUBSTANTIATION: To end a controversy on whether this is
acceptable.--On the basis that requirements are written based on
one fault at a time and does not conceive.a double f a u l t , this
construction should be accepted.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
~ ~ a s t
sentence as follows:
"A single common continuous equipment bonding jumper shall be
permitted to bond two or more raceways or cables where the bonding
jumper is sized in accordance with Table 250-95 for the largest
overcurrent device supplying circuits therein.
PANEL COMMENT: More clearly describes the intent.
VUIL ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 309
5- 102 - (250-79(d)(2)-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following as subparagraph (2) and make
~aph
subparagraph (1):
A bonding jumper No. 6 or larger may be installed without an
enclosure i f installed where free from probable physical damage,
otherwise i t shall be in rigid conduit, intermediate metal
conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor.
A bonding jumper shall be installed in accordance with Section
250-92 in regard to restrictions for aluminum.
Exception. Enclosures, racewa s, or armor shall not be required
where a bonding jumper is installed:
a. in the hollow spaces of a wall or partition, or
b. imbedded in concrete or masonry, or
c. under a minimum 2-inch thick concrete pad, or
d. underground with a minimum 12-inch cover, or
e. otherwise installed so as not to be subject to physical
damage.
92
Log # 783
5- 108 - (250-80): Reject
SUBMITTER: Thomas E, Trainer, City of San Diego, CA
~DATION:
Section 250-80 Bonding of Piping Systems
---~--l~ret-~T -~ater Piping
The i n t e r i o r water piping system on a premises shall always
be bonded to the grounding electrode system,
(2) The underground water piping system on a premises shall
always be bonded to the grounding electrode system.
(31 Where the underground water piping system is e l e c t r i c a l l y
contlnuous to the i n t e r i o r water piping system, a bonding jumper
from either to the grounding electrode system is acceptable.
(4) Bonding jumpers shall be sized in accordance with Table
250-94 and connected in the manner specified in Section 250-113.
(b) Other Metal Piping. I n t e r i o r metal piping which may become
energized shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the
grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode
conductor where of s u f f i c i e n t size, or to the one or more
grounding electrodes used. The bonding jumper shall be sized in
accordance with Table 250-95 using the rating of the c i r c u i t which
may energize the piping.
The equipment grounding conductor for the c i r c u i t which may
energize the piping shall be permitted to serve as the bonding
means.
Bonding all piping and metal a i r ducts within the premises w i l l
provide additional safety.
SUBSTANTIATION: The changes in Section 250-81, beginning in 1978,
have indicated that metal underground water piping systems can no
longer be relied on to provide a permanent and e f f e c t i v e ground
because of the expanding use of p l a s t i c water pipe f o r new and
repair work. The requirement to supplement a metal underground
water pipe with another electrode regardless of i t s length
underground c e r t a i n l y implies that metal underground water pipes
are not acceptable as grounding electrodes.
This proposal deletes metal underground water pipes from Section
250-81 and places such piping in Section 250-80~ Bonding of Piping
Systems. Under this section, metal underground water p i p e would
always be bonded to the grounding electrode system andwould no
longer be confused as a grounding electrode.
Based on the e f f e c t of the changes in Section 250-81, this
proposal is intended to recognize the actual status of metal
underground water pipe and to place i t l o g i c a l l y in a code section
to provide for adequate and e f f e c t i v e bonding of such piping.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 5-107.
5- 106 - (250-80): Reject
Log # 06
SUBMITTER: Jack E. Reinhard, Southern Union Gas Company
RECOMMENDATION: Change Section 250-80 "Bonding of Piping Systems"
to read:
250-80 Bonding of Piping Systems. All i n t e r i o r metal water and
gas piping that may become energized shall be bonded together and
made e l e c t r i c a l l y continuous. An equipment bonding jumper sized
in accordance with Table 250-95 shall be connected between the
bonded piping system(s) and the grounding electrode conductor at
the service disconnectlng means. *UNDERNO CIRCUMSTANCES IS THERE
TO BE A BONDINGTO GAS LINES UPSTREAMOF THE METER CONNECTION.
Bonding to sewer piping and metal a i r ducts within the premises
w i l l provide additional safety.
*Capitalized to denote changed wording.
SUBSTANTIATION: Southern Union Gas Company has recently
encountereo s~veral e~ectrical bonds tied upstream of our meter
sets. This bond causes our steel lines to be tied to copper water
lines with a copper conductor. The bonding causes cathodic
rotection problems for our gas lines which~ in time, could create
eakage hazards.
Individual cities can alter their local codes to prohibit bonds
to gas lines, as has Austin, Texas. In small towns, however,
there are often no codes other than the adoption of the various
national codes. Southern Union Gas serves numerous small towns in
Texas, Oklahoma, and Arizona. We therefore feel that in'the
interest of safety and convenience of implementation, the proposed
change should be made to the 1981 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
The change should provide safe service to the population without
the hazard or expense of gas line deterioration caused by bonding
of conductors upstream of meter connects. Please consider this
matter as soon as possible.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: There are no mandatory requirements for bonding to
"i-fi1~-F~'or gas pipes upstream from the meter unless such piping is
subject to becoming energized. In such cases bonding is necessary
for safety.
• VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
~
Log # 440
5- 107 - (250-80): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
~NDATION:
Section 250-80 Bonding of Piping Systems:
(a) Metal Water. Piping.
( i ) The i n t e r i o r water piping system on a premises shall
always be bonded to the grounding electrode system.
(2) The underground water piping system on a premises shall
always be bonded to the grounding electrode system.
(3) Where the underground water piping system is e l e c t r i c a l l y
continuous to the i n t e r i o r water piping system, a bonding jumper
from either to the grounding electrode system is acceptable.
(4) Bonding jumpers shall be sized in-accordance with Table
250-94 and connected in the manner specified in Section 250-113.
(b) Other Metal Piping.• I n t e r i o r metal piping which may become
energized shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the
grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode
conductor where of s u f f i c i e n t size, or to the one or more
grounding electrodes used. The bonding jumper shall be sized in
accordance with Table 250-94, using the rating of the c i r c u i t
which may energize the piping.
The equipment grounding conductor for the c i r c u i t which may
energize the piping shall be permitted to serve as the bonding
means.
Bonding all piping and metal a i r ducts within the premises w i l l
rovide additional safety.
UBSTANTIATION: The changes in.Section 250-81, beginning in 1978,
have indicated that metal underground water piping systems can no
longer be relied on to provide a permanent and e f f e c t i v e ground
because of the expanding use of p l a s t i c water pipe for new and
repair work. The requirement to supplement a metal underground
water pipe with another electrode regardless of i t s length
underground c e r t a i n l y implies that metal underground water pipes
are not acceptable as grounding electrodes.
This proposal deletes metal underground water pipes from Section
250-81 and places such piping in Section 250-80, Bonding of Piping
Systems. Under this section, metal underground water pipe would
always be bonded to the grounding electrode system and would no
longer be confused as a grounding electrode.
Based on the e f f e c t of the changes in Section 250-81, this
proposal is intended to recognize the actual status of metal
underground water pipe and to place i t l o g i c a l l y in a Code section
to provide f o r adequate and e f f e c t i v e bonding of such piping.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~
:
Proposal is not meaningful considering Panel
recommendation on Proposals 5-123 and 5-124.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 14
NEGATIVE: Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
NAGkL: Same 6s--P-~oposal 5-124.
NEGATIVE: Nagel.
EXPLANATION O~ VOTE:
--fl/~GE1-'f~n~oposal
5-124.
Log # 1246
5- 109 - (250-80): Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~ATION:
Section 250-80 to read as follows:
Section 250-80 Bonding of Piping Systems:
(a) Metal Water Piping
(i) The interior water piping system on a premises shall
always be bonded to the grounding electrode system.
(2) The underground water piping system on a premises shall
always be bonded to the grounding electrode system.
(3) Where the underground water piping system is electrically
continuous to the interior water piping system, a bonding jumper
from either to the grounding electrode system is acceptable.
(4) Bonding jumpers shall be sized in accordance with Table
250-94 and connected in the manner specified in Section 250-113.
(b) Other Metal Piping. Interior metal piping which may become
energized shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the
grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode
conductor where of sufficient size, or to the one or more
grounding electrodes used. The bonding jumper shall be sized in
accordance with Table 250-94, using the rating of the circuit
which may energize the piping.
The equipment grounding conductor for the circuit which may
energize the piping shall be permitted to serge as the bonding
means.
Bonding all piping and metal a i r ducts within the premises w i l l
provide additional safety.
SUBSTANTIATION: The changes in Section 250-81, beginning in 1978,
have indicated that metal underground water piping systems can no
longer be relied on to provide a permanent and e f f e c t i v e ground
because of the expanding use of p l a s t i c water pipe for new and
repair work. The requirement to supplement a metal underground
water pipe with another electrode regardless of its length
underground c e r t a i n l y implies that metal underground water pipes
are not acceptable as grounding electrodes.
This proposal deletes metal underground water pipes from Section
250-81 and places such piping in Section 250-80, Bonding of Piping
Systems. Under this section, metal underground water pipe would
always be bonded to the grounding electrode system and would no
longer be confused as a grounding electrode.
Based on the effect of the changes in Section 250-81, this
proposal is intended to recognize the actual status of metal
underground water pipe and to place i t logically in a Code section
to provide f o r adequate and effective bonding of such piping.
~
g3
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-107.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: i-4
NEGATIVE: Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
NAGEL: Same as Proposal 5-124.
Log # 2019
5- 114 - (250-80(a), 250-80(a), FPN-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Idaho Chapter IAEI
R--~-~-O--~EN~TION: Add a new sentence to Section 250-80(a) at the
~-6f-te~h-~-~tion:
"Bonding jumper terminations shall be accessible."
FPN: See definition of Accessible, Article 100.
SUBSTANTIATION: Terminations for grounding electrode conductors
as required by Section 250-81(a) are required by Section 250-112
to be accessible (not permanently closed in by the structure or
finish or the building). Bonding jumper terminations such as used
on bonding hot and cold metal water piping systems in a building,
are being made and then are being closed in when the building is
finished and then are not accessible. In many instances this
involves the grounding electrode conductor which is used as the
jumper. These terminations also have a need to be accessible to
isolate the metal piping system especially in cold weather areas
where welders are used for thawing frozen water pipes. Whether or
not this is considered a 9ood practice, i t is a commonly used
procedure and has caused fires even in other remotely located
buildings because the return path or anticipated circuit (the
section of frozen section of pipe intended to be thawed) may be
interrupted by some unknown means causing the current to flow
elsewhere. And i f this path of least resistance happens to be
across a conductor too small to carry the applied current creates
an eminent fire hazard.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Accessibility for disconnection will not solve the
problem given in the substantiation because of the inevitable
m u l t i p l i c i t y of parallel paths such as an equipment grounding
conductor at a water heater. See Proposal 5-112.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 103
5- 110 - (250-80, Exception (New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
ITE-COI~[E'~ATION: Add Exception as follows:
Exception: Isolated metal water piping installed in buildings
that do not contain service equipment shall be permitted to be
bonded to an effectively grounded metal enclosure of the building
disconnecting means for the largest ampacity rated supply
conductors. The bonding jumper shall be sized in accordance with
Table 250-95 using the largest overcurrent device of any supply
circuit to the building. The bonding jumper shall not be required
to be larger than the largest supply circuit conductor.
SUBSTANTIATION: Does not provide for (alternative) bonding in
~eparate buTF~ings without service equipment ~here metallic water
piping may be isolated. The present wording of this section
appears to prohibit the bonding of an isolated metal water piping
system to the building disconnect means required by Section
230-34(a) when i t is grounded by a metallic raceway (equipment
grounding conductor) enclosing the supply conductors, as permitted
by the Exception to Section 250-24. For example: a remote
(separate) building with a disconnecting means rated 30 amperes
supplied by an underground 1/2 inch rigid metal conduit
originating from service equipment with service entrance
conductors of 500 MCMcopper. I f this remote building contains an
isolated metal water piping system a l i t e r a l interpretation
requires a 1/0 copper or a 3/0 aluminum bonding jumper to be
installed to the area of the service equipment. This seems an
unreasonable requirement in view of the acceptability of the
conduit as a grounding means for the electrical equipment.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The submitter has not shown a widespread need for
t-F~eException.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 496
5- 115 - (250-80(a), Exception No. 1-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ernest E. Cannon, Tempe, AZ
RECOMME_NDATION: Add Exception No. 1. When tests for grounding
resistance of the interior metal water piping system show that the
system is isolated from earth, the bonding jumper size shall be
determined by Table 250-95 using the rating of the circuit or
feeder which could energize the system.
SUBSTANTIATION: Information from installations indicate that in
many installations the interior metal water piping system is
isolated from earth ground. Under such conditions there is minor
difference between the interior metal water piping system and
other interior piping systems.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~N-E~T.C
' OMM
' EN
' ~F: There is no certainty that the isolation will be
Log # 532
5- 111 - (250-80(a)): Accept
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
~ATION:
Delete "always" in the 2nd line.
SUBSTANTIATION: Unnecessary understood term.
ACTION: Accept.
V-Olq~'--~t~-F~l~L ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
VOT_E ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 495
5- 116 - (250-80(a), Exception No. 2-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ernest E. Cannon, Tempe, AZ
RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No. 2. In a dwelling unit where
the panelboard or load center is remote from the service entrance
equipment and the interior metal water piping system is not
isolated From earth, the interior metal water piping system shall
be permitted to be bonded to the grounding terminal bar of the
panel (See Section 384-27). The size of the bonding jumper for
the interior metal water piping system and for the panelboard
shall be determined according to Table 250-94 using the size of
the panelboard feeder conductor.
SUBSTANTIATION: This Exception is intended to address the
condition presented in multi-family locations such as apartments
or condominiums wherein there are often 4 or 6 units in one
building, each with separate systems for water, electric, gas and
air-conditioning. Under these conditions there is usually no
existing metallic connection between the individual interior metal
water plping systems, The electrical supply is usually a grouped
set of meters and main service switches. A common configuration
consists of 6 meters and mains in the 150-ampere size, all
supplied by service-entrance conductors and equipment main rating
of 600 amperes (because of the load calcs.)
Application of the Exception would permit each separate interior
metal water piping system to be bonded to the panelboard and the
panelboard to the service with No. 4 copper for 2/0 feeder to the
panel. For the installation, there would be 6 such bonds. For
nonisolated systems, these would provide the equivalent of 240,000
CM nearly double that provided by the No. 2/0 for 600 amperes. In
addition, the method is practical from an installation standpoint
and i t provides the safety which the NEC intends.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PAIqEL
' --C~O-R[RE~
' IT: See Panel recoJmnendation on Proposal 5-117.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 962
5- 112 - (250-80(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Hal Knight, The City of Santa Clara, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new final sentence:
The metal water piping "bonding jumper" shall be accessible.
SUBSTANTIATION: In the f i e ] d , electrlcal inspectors find i t
d i f f i c u l t to actually be able to determine whether the underground
metallic water pipe system meets all the requirements of Section
250-81(a). Consequently the bonding jumper required by Section
250-80 could be, and is in many cases, a grounding electrode
conductor and i t ' s connection point would have to be accessible.
Because of the d i f f i c u l t y of knowing whether you are dealing
specifically with a "bonding jumper" or a "grounding electrode
conductor," i t would make the field inspector's job considerably
easier i f this particular bonding jumper (Section 250-80(a)) was
required to be accessible under any circumstances.
For that matter, why not make all "bonding jumpers" accessible
where practicable?
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~NE'[--~F~NT: There is no evidence that there is a problem in
the f i e l d .
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1514
5- 113 - (250-80(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: R. B. Adams, Freeport, TX
ITE'-C'O]@~E'I~ATION: The interior metal water piping system "which may
become energized" shall be bonded --- (and add at the end of the
sentence) "where personnel safety is a problem."
SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement to bond all interior water pipe
excesslve. In many industrial plants the grounding of water
pipes only introduces new and possibly greater problems. Many
papers have been written on methods to protect water piping
grounding through mandatory requirements in the NEC. I believe
that the bonding only in cases where personnel safety is at stake
would eliminate many of these problems.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Personnel safety will always be a problem i f not
Bonded.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
94
section of frozen section of pipe intended to be thawed) may be
interrupted by some unknown mean causing the current to flow
elsewhere. And i f this path of least resistance happens to be
across a conductor too small to carry the applied current creates
an eminent f i r e hazard.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel recommendation on Proposal 5-114.
VdfE'-~-N-I~-A3f~[ ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
,
Log # 407
5- 117 - (250-80(a), Exception-(New)): Accept
SUBMITTER: R. W. Worthing, Bakersfield, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception -'-I-h--b-'u-~-F~aT6~C of multiple occupancy, where the interior metal
water piping system for the individual occupancies is metallically
isolated from all other occupancies by use of nonmetallic water
piping, the interior metal water piping system for each occupancy
shall be permitted to be bonded to the panelboard or switchboard
enclosure supplying that occupancy. The bonding jumper shall be
sized inaccordance with Table 250-95.
SUBSTANTIATION: With the increased use of nonmetallic water
iping systems, underground, i t has become necessary for many
urisdictions to either amend Section 250-80 by ordinance or
provide administrative procedures which will address the problem.
As written, Section 250-80 would require a bonding jumper, sized
in accordance with Table 250-94 interconnect all isolated metal
water piping systems to the service equipment enclosure.
Section 250-51 requires "the path to ground...have sufficiently
low impedance to ~imit the voltage to ground and to f a c i l i t a t e the
operation of the circuit protective devices in the c i r c u i t . "
Section 250-80 does not require the bonding jumper be "run with
or enclose the circuit conductors" as does Section 250-91(b)
relating to equipment grounding conductors. Therefore, i t is
conceivable that a bonding jumper, sized in accordance with Table
250-94, may be larger than that required by Table 250-95 for a
specific c i r c u i t , but through its routing and intermediate
connections may well provide a higher impedance path.
At the Southwest Section meeting of the IAEI in Albuquerque in
1981, a sampling of jurisdictions indicated that the following
have amended Section 250-80 for the reasons stated: Stockton,
California- 16 separate jurisdictions in San Diego County,
California including the City of San Diego - State of New Mexico • Oakland, California - Clovis, California - Fresno, California Huntington Beach, California - Long Beach, California - Phoenix,
Arizona - Sacramento, California - County of Sacramento,
California - Carson City, Nevada.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1724
5- 121 - (250-80(x)-(New)): Reject
SUBMI1-FER: Charles "Mike*' Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Section 250-80(x)-(New) between Section
~J'IJ--~-a'T~n~-Section 250-80(b).
250-80(x): Isolated Metal Piping. Isolated metal piping that
may become energized shall be grounded to the nearest equipment
grounding conductor of sufficient size, that would be required to
open the largest overcurrent device by the use of Table 250-95.
SUBSTANTIATION: This section would deal with isolated water
plplng systems. Sizing of these conductors shall be based upon
overcurrent devices that would be required to be interrupted. The
Code requires that all water piping systems be bonded to the
service grounding conductor. I t doesn't take into consideration
the fact of the great usage of plastic plumbing pipe. Therefore
smaller and larger systems do not have all the plumbing piping
systems connected with a common metal pipe. The Code does not
identify how to bond these isolated systems.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 5-117.
~TOF
' E-'-O-~-P-~N~C ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
~
Log # 442
5- 122 - (250-81): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Revise f i r s t paragraph of Section 250-81.
~G-~df6~'ET6Ctrode System. I f available on the premises at each
building or structure s~rved, each item (a) through (d) below
shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system.
The bonding jumper shall be sized in accordance with Section
250-95 and shall be connected in the manner specified in Section
250-115. The unspliced grounding electrode conductor shall be
permitted to run to any convenient grounding electrode available
in the grounding electrode system. I t shall be sized for the
largest grounding electrode conductor required among all the
available electrodes.
(See Section 250-23(a), Exception No. 5.)
SUBSTANTIATION: Due to almost universal use of plastic water
systems a "zero" ohmage would be 1 ohm which is easily carried by
conductor sized per Section 250-95.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
COMMENT: Table 250-95 cannot be applied to a service with
more-tHan on~ main overcurrent device.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 90
5- 118 - (250-80(b)):
Reject
SUBMI1-FER: Joseph F. Pinachio, Revere, MA
ITE-C'OI~ME'N~ATION: In the f i r s t and second lines, delete the words
"which may become energized."
SUBSTANTIATION:. To assure that all interior metal piping is to be
bonded for added safety.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMWENT: Proposal would require excessive and needless
b-6-~-dTh~-~G-p-fping which will not become energized.
Some judgement is needed.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 936
5- 119 - (250-80(b)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: C. D. Hansell, GTE Service Corporation
RECOMMENDATION: At the end of Section 250-80(b), add: The
~ n - ~ - - ~ F ~ n d i n g conductor for the circuit which may energize
the piping shall be permitted to serve as the bonding means.
Delete this same sentence which follows Section 250-80(b) and
which applies to all of Section 250-80.
Retain the Fine Print Note that follows and that applies to all
of Section 250-80.
SUBSTANTIATION: The sentence should apply only to (b), and not to
(a). The bonding required by Section 250-80(a) is to the
grounding electrode system, not to load equipment.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The sentence is already in paragraph (b) only.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 784
5- 123 - (250-81): Reject
SUBMITTER: Thomas E. Trainor, City of San Diego
RECOMMENDATION: Section 250-81 Grounding Electrode Systen
--(a~--PrimaryGrounding Electrodes. The electrodes (i) through
(3) below are defined to be primary grounding electrodes for the
purposes of this section.
(1) An electrode encased by at least 2 inches of concrete,
located within and near the bottom of a concrete foundation or
footing that is in direct contact with the earth, consisting of at
least 20 feet of one or more steel reinforcing bars or rods of not
less than I / 2 inch diameter, or consisting of at least 20 feet of
bare solid copper conductor not smaller than No. 4 AWG.
~I
The metal frame of the building, where effectively grounded.
A ground ring encircling the building or structure, in
direct contact with the earth at a depth below earth surface not
less than 2-1/2 feet, consisting of at least 20 feet of bare
copper conductor not amaller than No. 2 AWG.
(b) SecondaryGrounding Electrodes. The grounding electrodes
specified in Section 250-83 are defined to be secondary grounding
electrodes for the purposes of this section.
Log # 2033
5- 120 - (2~-80(b),250-80(b).FPN-(New)):
Reject
SUBMII-TER: Idaho Chapter IAEI
ITE'CR]I~I~EIT[IATION: Add a new sentence to Section 250-80(b) at the
end of the section:
"Bonding jumper terminations shall be accessible."
FPN: See definition of Accessible, Article 100.
SUBSTANTIATION: Terminations for grounding electrode conductors
as required by Section 250-81(a) are required by Section 250-112
to be accessible (not permanently closed in by the structure or
finish or the building). Bonding jumper terminations such as used
in bonding hot and cold metal water piping systems in a building,
are being made and then are being closed in when the building is
finished and then are not accessible.
In many instances this
involves the grounding electrode conductor which is used as the
jumper. These terminations also have a need to be accessible to
isolate the metal piping system especially in cold weather areas
where welders are used for thawing frozen water pipes. Whether or
not this is considered a good practice, i t is a commonly used
procedure and has caused fires even in other remotely located
buildings because the return path or anticipated circuit (the
Required Grounding Electrodes
A primary grounding electrode shall be provided for each
building constructed under the provisions of this Code.
(2) Either a primary or a secondary grounding electrode shall
be provided for all other installations served under the
provisions of this Code.
(d) Grounding Electrode System. All grounding electrodes
available on a building or structure shall be bonded together to
Form a grounding electrode system. Bonding jumpers shall be sized
in accordance with Section 250-79(c) and connected in the manner
specified in Section 250-115.
(e) Additional Requirements. Whenever i t is deemed necessary
by the authority having jurisdiction, additional electrodes may be
required to assure a permanent and effective grounding electrode
systBn.
95
SUBSTANTIATION: The permissive wording of Section 250-81 (where
av-ai-Ta-bTe on the premises) tends to allow inadequate grounding in
certain installations. The most typical example is a wood frame,
single-family dweIHng constructed on a slab or foundation with no
rebar and supplied by a plastic underground water system. Since
none of the "primary" electrodes are available on the premises,
the Code specifically permits a typical 1/2 inch copper ground rod
to serve as the grounding electrode for the service to this
dwelling. The effectiveness of a copper ground rod as a grounding
electrode is seriously in question for the following reasons:
1. Ground rods generally have a higher resistance to ground
than other electrodes and there are no effective provisions to
require a low resistance to ground. (Section 250-84.)
2. Ground rods are often shortened or otherwise improperly
installed and such abuses are d i f f i c u l t or impossible to detect.
3. Ground rods are generally installed in locations that
subject the rod, ground clamp and grounding electrode conductor to
physical damage.
In general, ground rods do not seem to satisfy the requirements
of Section 250-51. In the not unusual case where the neutral bond
is removed or the neutral conductor broken, a ground rod does not
have sufficiently low impedance to limit the voltage to ground and
to f a c i l i t a t e the operation of the circuit protective devices.
(Section 250-51(c)).
This proposal requires that a permanent and effective grounding
electrode be provided for each building constructed under the
provisions of this Code. I t is f e l t that such mandatory wording
would better serve the purpose of this Code to provide practical
safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the
use of e l e c t r i c i t y . (Section 90-1(a).)
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~M~Z~'NT:
No evidence that present requirements do not
produce an adequate grounding electrode.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
~
In general, ground rods do not seem to satisfy the requirements
of Section 250-51. In the not unusual case where the neutral bond
is removed or the neutral conductor broken, a ground rod does not
have sufficiently low impedance to limit the voltage to ground and
to f a c i l i t a t e the operation of the circuit protective devices. Section 250-51(c).
This proposal requires that a permanent and effective grounding
electrode be provided for each building constructed under the
provisions of this Code. I t is f e l t that such mandatory wording
would better serve the purpose of this Code to provide practical
safeguardiDg of persons and property from the hazards arislng from
the use of e l e c t r i c i t y . - Section 90-1(a) - The concrete-encased
electrode has been used with success as the main grounding
electrode on services for several years. A po11 at a meeting
showed that twenty (20) cities or counties now require i t as the
grounding electrode for services by local amendment to the
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. This type electrode has been in use in
Arizona since 1938.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
FAN~C'CR~RI;E'I~T: Same as Proposal 5-123.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
NEGATIVE: Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
--NAGEC~'-I--am-i6"{avor of this proposal because the new language
would provide a more effective grounding systBn.
Log # 1257
5- 125 - (250-81): Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~C'~)-#II~E']~[~TION: In the f i r s t sentence, delete the words " i f
available" and s t a r t the sentence with the word where, to read:
"Where on the premises, e t c . . "
SUBSTANTIATION: The increased use of p l a s t i c (CPVC and
p o l y 6 ~
as water services and as i n t e r i o r water systems
leaves many services of r e l a t i v e l y high ampacity with a "made" or
driven electrode as the only on-site grounding system. Section
250-94 (exception) recognizes that a made or driven electrode w i l l
not dissipate a ground-fault beyond what can be carried by a No. 6
copper conductor. Whereas the building steel and the foundation
steel " i f available" are both required to be bonded f u l l size as
l i s t e d in Table 250-94, the Code Panels would appear to recognize
them as an e f f e c t i v e grounding system.
The foundation steel and building steel are usually not
"avail able" simply because no one bothers to bond'them during the
phase of construction when they are a v a i l a b l e .
Most structural codes now require rebar steel in the footings or
foundation in quantities that would exceed that required in
Section 250-81(c) as a grounding system.
I t is the intent of this change to require that these steel
sections (foundation and building steel) be u t i l i z e d when on the
premises.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
P ~ ~ :
No evidence to indicate that present requirements
are not s u f f i c i e n t .
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
- - ~ - T - - ~ 6 m ~ a Y P ¥ o p o s a l 5-124.
fR--~A-?r V-[---~IK--
NEGATIVE: Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~-~-as-F~oposa]
5-124.
Log # 1247
5- 124 - ( 2 ~ - 8 1 ) : Reject
SUBMII-FER: IAEI
~DATION:
(a) Primary Grounding Electrodes. The
electrodes ( I ) through (3) below are defined to be primary
grounding electrodes f o r the purposes of this section.
( i ) An electrode encased by at least 2 inches of concrete,
located within and near the bottom of a concrete foundation or
footing that is in d i r e c t contact with the earth, consisting of at
least 20 feet of one or more steel r e i n f o r c i n g bars or rods of not
less than 1/2 inch diameter, or consisting of at least 20 f e e t of
bare copper conductor not smaller than No. 4 AWG.
(2) The metal frame of the building, where e f f e c t i v e l y
grounded.
(3) A ground ring encircling the building or structure, in
direct contact with the earth at a depth below earth surface not
less than 2 i / 2 feet, consisting of at least 20 feet of bare
copper cofiductor not smaller than No. 2 AWG.
(b) SecondaryGrounding Electrodes. The grounding electrodes
specified in Section 250-83 are defined t o be secondary grounding
electrodes for the purposes of this Section.
(c) Required Grounding Electrodes.
(1) A primary grounding electrode shall be provided for each
building constructed under the provisions of this Code.
(2) Either a primary or a secondary grounding electrode shall
be provided for all other installations served under the
provisions of this Code.
(d) Grounding Electrode System. All grounding electrodes
available on a building or structure shall be bonded together to
form a grounding electrode system. Bonding jumpers shall be sized
in accordance with Section 250-79(c) and connected in the manner
specified in Section 250-115.
(e) Additional Requirements. Whenever i t is deemed necessary
by the authority having jurisdiction, additional electrodes may be
required to assure a permanent and effective grounding electrode
system.
SUBSTANTIATION: The permissive wording of Section 250-81 (where
available on the premises) tends to allow inadequate grounding in
certain installations. The most typical example is a wood frame,
single-family dwelling constructed on a slab or foundation with no
rebar and supplied by a plastic underground water system. Since
none of the "primary" electrodes are available on the premises,
the Code specifically permits a typical 1/2 inch-copper ground rod
to serve as the grounding electrode for the service to this
dwelling. The effectiveness of a copper ground rod as a grounding
electrode is seriously in question for the following reasons:
(1) Ground rods generally have a higher resistance to ground
than other electrodes and there are no effective provisions to
require a low resistance to ground. - Section 250-51(c).
(2) Ground rods are often shortened or otherwise improperly
installed and such abuses are d i f f i c u l t or impossible to detect.
(3) Ground rods are generally installed in locations that
subject the rod~ ground clamp and grounding electrode conductor to
physical damage.
Log # 1516
5- 126 - (250-81): Reject
SUBMII-[ER: R. B. Adams, Freeport, TX
RECOMMENDATION: Change the First sentence to read:
~ C ~ i ' l ' ~ 1 - 6 on thepremises at each building or structure
served, each item (a) through (d) below "may" be bonded
together---(and the remainder of the text unchanged.)
SUBSTANTIATION: In industrial plants, the grounding of water
pipes poses many problems due to stray currents. The use of
driven galvanized steel ground rods connected with copper cables
and all copper and connections sealed from contact with the earth
has proven a good method For grounding in large industrial
complexes. Impedance checks to ground have indicated very good
conductivity with resistances of less than one o~n measured by the
voltage drop method using currents in the range of 50 amperes. In
low resistance areas the grounding to water pipes has proven
c o s t l y in t r y i n 9 to overcome e l e c t r o l y t i c corrosion.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL CO'MME'NT: Safety considerations require bonding.
V 6 ~ ' ~
ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1192
5- 127 - (250-81, 250-81(e)-(New)): Accept
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this
proposal be referred to CMP 20 for c o r r e l a t i o n .
SUBMITTER: Olaf G. Ferm, Ferm's Fast Finder Index
RECOMMENDATION: Change the wording of the F i r s t sentence to read:
~avai'Ta~1"e on the premises at each building or structure
served, each item (a) through (e) below shall be bonded together
to Form the grounding electrode system.
9B
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~N-E'I--COMM~NT: See Proposal 5-123.
VOTC~
ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
-NA~C{-~oposal
5-124.
Then add subsection (e) to read:
(e) The structural reinforcing steel of a concrete swimming
pool, or the wall of a bolted or welded metal swimming pool
installed below grade, and in direct contact with the earth 2 1/2
feet or more below the earth surface.
SUBSTANTIATION: In most cases where there is a below grade
swimming pool on the premises, the mass of reinforced concrete or
the metal poQl structure in direct contact with the soil will give
a resistance to ground reading far less than the items listed in
Ca) through (d) and therefore should be listed as one of the items
of the grounding electrode system. The bonding together of all
the required items in Section 680-22 and then grounding this mass
to the electrode system and the main service ground will offer the
safest installation possible.
(see) Enclosed material from the United States Department of
Agriculture.
CNote: Copyof enclosed material available from NFPA on
request.)
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
~
:
Refer to CMP 20 for correlation.
~ON
PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 469
5- 129 - (250-81(a)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Darrell Hazelwood, J. M. Perry Institute
RECOMMENDATION: Include in the last sentence of 250-81(a) the
~ng'phrase
in quotations:
The supplemental electrode shall be pennitted to be bonded to
the grounding electrode conductor, the grounded service-entrance
conductor, the grounded service raceway, the interior metal water
piping at ~ny convenient point, "and any grounded service
enclosure.'
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 250-81(a) intends to allow the
{upp1~rounding
electrode conductor to be connected to any
service enclosure because of the inclusion of the wording
"grounded service raceways." The paragraph, though, needs to
specifically include the words "and any grounded service
enclosure."
Electrically, we are dealing with the smne point in the
electrical system when we are on the supply side of the service
disconnecting means. To connect our supplemental grounding
electrode conductor to any service enclosure on the supply side of
the service disconnecting means is in r e a l i t y connecting the
grounding electrode conductor to the grounded service-entrance
conductor.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
~G~t-i-F~e-~ast sentence of Section 250-81(a) to read as follows:
"The supplemental electrode shall be permitted to be bonded to
the grounding electrode conductor, the grounded service-entrance
conductor, the grounded service raceway, any grounded service
enclosure, or the interior metal water piping at any convenient
oint."
ANEL COMMENT: Editorial.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 441
5- 128 - (250-81): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
~ATION:
Ca) Primary Grounding Electrodes. The
electrodes ( i i through (3) below are defined to be primary
grounding electrodes for the purposes of this section.
(1) An electrode encased by at least 2 inches of concrete,
located within and near the bottom of a concrete foundation or
footing that is in direct contact with the earth, consisting of at
least 20 feet of one or more steel reinforcing bars or rods of not
less than 1/2-inch diameter, or consisting of at least 20 feet of
bare copper conductor not smaller than No. 4 AWG.
(2) The metal flame of the building, where effectively
grounded.
(3) A ground ring encircling the building or structure, in
direct contact with the earth at a depth below earth surface not
less than 2 1/2 feet, consisting of at least 20 feet of bare
copper conductor not smaller than No. 2 AWG.
(b) Secondary Grounding Electrodes. The grounding electrodes
specified in Section 250-83 are defined to be secondary grounding
electrodes for the purposes of this section.
(c) Required Grounding Electrodes.
(1) A primary grounding electrode shall be provided for each
building constructed under the provisions of this Code.
(2) Either a primary or a secondary grounding electrode shall
be provided for all other installations served under the
provisions of this Code.
(d) Grounding Electrode System. All grounding electrodes
available on a building or structure shall be bonded together to
form a grounding electrode system. Bonding jumpers shall be sized
in accordance with Section 250-79(c) and connected in the manner
specified in Section 250-115.
(e) Additional Requirements. Whenever i t is deemed necessary
by the authority ilaving jurisdiction, additional electrodes may be
required to assure a permanent and effective grounding electrode
system.
SUBSTANTIATION: The permissive wording of Section 250-81 (where
~-o-6-6he
premises) tends to allow inadequate grounding in
certain installations. The most typical example is a wood-frame,
single-family dwelling constructed on a slab or foundation with no
rebar and supplied by a plastic underground water system. Since
none of the "primary" electrodes are available on the premises,
the Code specifically permits a typical, 1/2-inch copper ground
rod to serve as the grounding electrode for the service to this
dwelling.
The effectiveness of a copper ground rod as a grounding
electrode is seriously in question for the following reasons:
(1) Ground rods generally have a higher resistance to ground
than other electrodes and there are no effective provisions to
require a low resistance to ground. - Section 250-51(c)
(2) Ground rods are often shortened or otherwise improperly
installed and such abuses are d i f f i c u l t or impossible to detect.
(3) Ground rods are generally installed in locations that
subject the rod, ground clamp and grounding electrode conductor to
physical damage.
In general, ground rods do not seem to satisfy the requirements
of Section 250-51. In the not unusual case where the neutral bond
is removed or the neutral conductor broken, a ground rod does not
have sufficiently low impedance to limit the voltage to ground and
to f a c i l i t a t e the operation of the circuit protective devices. Section 250-51(c)
This proposal requires that a permanent and effective grounding
electrode be provided for each building constructed under the
provisions of this Code. I t is f e l t that such mandatory wording
would better serve the purpose of thisCode to provide practical
safeguarding of persons and property from the hazards arising from
the use of e l e c t r i c i t y . - Section 90-1(a) - The concrete-encased
electrode has been used with success as the main grounding
electrode on services for several years. A poll at the meeting
showed that twenty (20) cities or counties now require i t as the
grounding electrode for services by local amendment to the
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. This type electrode has been in use in
Arizona since 1938.
~
Log # 789
5- 130 - (250-81(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Gordon M. Johnson, City of Sioux City, IA
~E-C-O-M-#E-'N-~ATION: Add (New) paragraph:
Where the supplemental electrode is a made electrode as in
Section 250-83(c) or (d), that portion of the bonding jumper which
is the sole connection to the supplemental grounding electrode
shall not be required to be larger than No. 6 copper wire or No. 4
aluminum wire.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is necessary to c l a r i f y that exceptions number
one and two of Section 250-94 also apply when sizing bonding
jumpers required by Section 250-81. Without this clarification,
there are many times when the bonding jumper to a supplemental
ground rod is required to be larger than i f the ground rod were
the only ground electrode.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
F~-EL~'COMME-NT: Already covered in Section 250-94, Exception No. 1.
V~fE ON.PANEL.ACTION~ Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1258
5- 131 - (250-81(a)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~EC
' -O-RFF~E~NI~ATION: Include in the last sentence of Section 250-81(a)
the following quoted phrase:
. . . . the supplemental electrode shall be permitted to be bonded
to the grounding electrode conductor, the grounded
service-entrance conductor, the grounded service raceway, the
interior metal water piping at any convenient point, "and the
grounded service enclosure."
SUBS___.TANTIATION: Section 250-81(a) intends to allow the
supplemental grounding electrode conductor to be connected to any
service enclosure because of the inclusion of the wording
"grounded service raceway." The paragraph, though, needs to
specifically include the words "and the grounded service
enclosure."
Electrically, we are dealing with the sm,e point in the
electrical system when we are on the supply side of the service
disconnecting means. To connect our supplemental grounding d
electrode conductor to any service enclosure on the supply s i e of
the service disconnecting means is in r e a l i t y connecting the
grounding electrode conductor to the grounded service entrance
conductor,
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel recommendation on Proposal 5-129.
VOTE~T-FA]~____AC!IQN£ Unanimously Affirmative.
g7
Log # 2022
5- 132 - (250-81(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Idaho Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: In the last line of Section 250-81(a) between the
~'CC~Tent"
and "point" add the word "accessible:"
The
last part of the sentence would then read, " . . . a t any convenlent
"accessible" point."
SUBSTANTIATION: To emphasize the "accessible" requirement as in
~2~dZ23(a)
and 250-112. As presently written i t leads one
to believe that the supplementary electrode grounding connections
are not required to be accessible.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
IIT~-fE~C-Cx)--~ICT: See Proposals 5-112 and 5-114.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
"(c) Concrete-Encased Electrode. A steel or copper electrode
with an aggregate length of not less than 20 feet (6.1 m) encased
by at least 2 inches (50.8 mm) of concrete, located within and
near the bott~n of one or more underground concrete foundations or
footings in direct contact with the earth, consisting of: (a) one
or more connected reinforcing bars or rods of not less than i / 2
inch (12.7 mm) diameter, or (b) bare copper conductor not smaller
than No. 4 AWG."
"FPN. An aggregate length of underground concrete-encased
electrode is formed by one, or a collection of more than one
electrically connected, length(s) of metal electrode(s). The
steel framing of a building (Section 250-81(b)), or the metal
shell of a flammable liquid storage tank, for examples, may serve
as the means for electrically connecting several underground
foundations or footings forming one large grounding electrode for
that building or storage tank. Where only one single
concrete-encased electrode is used i t is required by Section
250-81(c) to have at least 20 linear feet of underground concrete
encasement in the foundation or footing."
Log # 1699
5- 133 - (250-81(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~I~ATION:
250-81(a). The supplemental electrode shall be
permitted to be bonded to the grounding elecLrode conductor, the
grounded service-entrance conductor, the grounded service raceway
or the interior metal water piping at any convenient point.
"Supplementary electrode conductor shall be sized according to
250-94."
SUBSTANTIATION: 250-81(a) requires a supplementary electrode.
The 1981 NEC added this requirement without indicating the sizing
of the conductor to the electrode.
In making the supplementary
electrode conductor sized consistent with 250-94, this sentence
should be added.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Already covered in the f i r s t paragraph of Section
250-81.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 443
5- 136 - (250-82-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
RE-C~DATION: Add a Section 250-82 (which was vacated) Required Grounding Electrodes. A grounding electrode in
accordance with 250-81(c) shall be installed as follows:
(a) For services on new buildings and structures.
(b) For relocated, enlarge, or replaced services when
additional footings are constructed for additions to existing
buildings.
Exception: An existing grounding electrode in accordance with
Section 250-81(c) shall be permitted to be reused.
A grounding electrode in accordance with Sections 250-83(c) or
(d) shall be permitted to be used for relocated, enlarged, or
replaced services when no additional footings are constructed.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is the intent of this proposal to require a
concrete-encased electrode in all new or remodeled f a c i l i t i e s
which provide additional footings which can be used. Even though
additional footings are added, i f they are not in proper location
for a concrete-encased electrode to be used for an existing one
may be used. Further, i f no footings are added, then Section
250-83(c) and (d) are recognized. In the Phoenix area this
amendment has served adequately for the past Code period and is
recommended for general use.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-123.
VOTE ON_PANEL.ACTION£ Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1789
5- 134 - (250-81(a), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Leo F. Martin, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
~ N - - D A T I O N : Add the following exception:
Exception: The electrical system shall be pennitted to be
instal led without a supplemental grounding electrode where the
existing underground water pipe is in direct contact with the
earth for 10 feet (3.05 m) or more and either of the following
conditions exist.
(a) The water pipe is of copper or brass alloy.
(b) The water pipe is 3 inch minimum diameter cast iron.
SUBSTANTIATION: A buried copper or brass piping system will
provide an adequate low resistance ground for the electrical
service which wlll not deteriorate or be removed. I t is not
common practice to replace cast iron piping systems with PVC and
thus remove the existing grounding system.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The substantiation is not adequately documented.
~ N - P - A N E C ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 494
5- 137 - (250-82-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ernest E. Cannon, Tempe, AZ
RECOMME_N_DA_TION: Add a Section 250-82 (which was vacated).
Required Grounding Electrodes. A grounding electrode in
accordance with Section 250-81(c) shall be installed as follows:
Ca) For services on new buildings and structures.
(b) For relocated, enlarged, or replaced services when
additional footings are constructed For additions to existing
buildings.
Exception: An existing grounding electrode in accordance with
Section 250-81(c) shall be permitted to be reused.
A grounding electrode in accordance with Sections 250-83(c) or
(d) shall be permitted Lo be used for relocated, enlarged, or
replaced services when no additional Footings are constructed.
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is the intent of this proposal to require a
conErete-enca-~sed electrode in all new or remodeled f a c i l i t i e s
which provide additional footings which can be used. Even though
additional Footings are added, i f they are not in proper location
for a concrete-encased electrode to be useful, an existing one may
be used. Further, i f no footings are added, then Section
250-83(c) and (d) are recognized. In the Phoenix area thls
amendment has served adequately for the past Code period and is
recommended for general use.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Sameas Proposal 5-123.
voT__._E_EONPANELACTION~ Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 1747
5- 135 - (250-81(c)):
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~NDATION:
250-81(c). Concrete Encased Electrode. An
electrode encased by at least 2 inches (50.8 mm) of concrete,
located within and near the bottom of a concrete foundation or
footing that is in direct contact with the earth, consisting of at
least 20 feet (6.1 m) of one (or more) steel reinforcing bars or
rods of not less that 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) diameter, or consisting
of at least 20 feet (6.1 m) of bare copper conductor not smaller
than No. 4 AWG. Eliminate "or more."
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 250-81(c) as written gives the impression
the 20 foot length can be achieved by multiple bars each less than
20 feet but totaling 20 feet or more. New wording will clearly
indicate that one bar 20 feet of not less than 1/2 inch diameter
is required as a minimum.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise ~ o
read as follows:
"An electrode encased by at least 2 inches (50.8 mm) of
concrete, located within and near the bottom of a concrete
foundation or footing that is in direct contact with the earth,
consisting of at least 20 net linear feet of concrete encasement
containing one or more steel reinforcing bars or rods of not less
than 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) diameter or bare copper conductor not
smaller than No. 4 AWG."
PANEL COMMENT: To c l a r i f y intent.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
Log # 1515
5- 138 - (250-83): Reject
SUBMITTER: R. B. Adams, Freeport, TX
~ T I O N :
Change the f i r s t sentence to read:
Where none of the electrodes specified in 250-81 is used, one or
more -- (and the remainder of the t e x t unchanged.)
SUBSTANTIATION: In industrial plants, the grounding of water
pipes poses many problems due to stray currents. The use of
driven galvanized steel ground rods connected with copper cables
and all copper and connections sealed from contact with the earth
has proven a good method f o r grounding in large i n d u s t r i a l
complexes. Impedance checks to ground have indicated very good
conductivity with resistances of less than one ohm measured by the
voltage drop method using currents in the range of 50 amperes. In
low resistance areas the grounding to water pipes has proven
costly in t r y i n g to overcome e l e c t r o l y t i c corrosion,
NEGATIVE: Mclntosh.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~ O ~ ' - F [ C " l ' ~ - ~ C ~ m i t t e r of Proposal 5-135 and the Panel have
attempted to c l a r i f y this section of Code with results less than
clear. I suggest the following replacement for Section 250-81(c).
98
COMMENTON VOTE:
- ~ ' F F E - ~ : - ~ g h no depth requirement for plate electrodes is
included in Section 250-83(d), the main paragraph of Section
250-83 states that "where practicable, made electrodes shall be
embedded below permanent moisture level." While this does not
specify a depth, i t does give a guideline to follow.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~KITE'[--CO-~FIE-NT: I t is the intent that the electrodes specified be
used for safety. There are alternate methods available to
mitigate corrosion which do not compromise safety.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
~Fi-R--M~f~v-CT. ~4
NEGATIVE: Mclntosh.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
MCINTOSH: My "negative" vote will be changed to "affirmative"
with acceptance of the following additional comments (or their
equivalent) to the PANEL COMMENT. "The driven rod electrodes of
Section 250-83(c), as discussed by the SUBMII-FER, are permitted i f
• NONEof the electrodes in Section 250-81 is available at each
building or structure served such as the interior metal water pipe
serving the building, and tapped from the underground water main.
An insulting Joint in the metal water pipe tap at the transition
from underground water main to the interior metal water piping, or
a nonmetallic underground water main should be effective against
stray currents."
Log # 656
5- 143 - (250-83(d)):
Reject
SUBMII-FER: Edward C. Levan Jr., Tonawanda, NY
RECOMMENDATION: Plate electrode shall be buried in a trench that
is~--at--~'east--2-1/2 feet (762 ram) deep.
Plate Electrodes. Each plate electrode shall expose not less
than 2 square feet (0.186 sq m) of surface to exterior soil.
Electrodes of iron or steel plates shall be at least i / 4 inch
(6.35 mm) in thickness. Electrodes of nonferrous metal shall be
at least 0.06 inch (1.52 mm) in thickness.
Plate electrode shall be buried in a trench that is at least
2 1/2 feet (762 mm) deep.
SUBSTANTIATION: Purpose is to provide conformity with depths
r ~
~her
electrodes as in Section 250-81(d) Ground Ring,
Section 250-83(c) Rod and Pipe Electrodes and as implied in
Section 250-81(c) Concrete-Encased Electrode.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
P~NaL~C--C]}-~RE'I~[: The proposal lacks substantiation for the specific
installation requirements of this seldom used electrode.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
CO~VIENT ON VOTE:
C O H C N { ~ g h no depth requirement for plate electrodes is
included in Section 250-83(d), the main paragraph of Section
250-83 states that "where practicable, made electrodes shall be
embedded below permanent moisture level." While this does not
specify a depth, i t does give a guideline to follow.
Log # 580
5- 139 - (250-83(b)):
Reject
SUBMII-FER: Thomas D'Ambola, Nutley, NJ
~NDATION:
(b) Other Local Metal Underground Systems or
Structures.
Other local metal underground systems or structures,
such as piping systems and underground tanks.
ADD: or underground electric service raceway not smaller than
l-inch trade size, minimum of 30 inches below ground made of iron
or steel with outer galvanized coating or otherwise metal coated
for corrosion protection, not less than 10 feet long.
SUBSTANTIATION: Where a metal lateral service is installed 30
or more below grade not less than 10 feet long, use the
metal conduit as a made electrode and eliminate the requirement
for an additional made electrode such as a ground rod or other
electrodes as described in Section 250-83.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is not the intent of paragraph (b) to include
this electrode.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
.
.
Log # 238
5- 144 - (250-83(e)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Section 250-83(e) to read:
"---('e-~-~b'6drete-Encased Electrode: An electrode encased by at
least 2 inches of concrete, with a minimum cross-sectional area of
4 square inches, buried a minimom of 12 inches below grade, that
is in direct contact with the earth, consisting of at least 20
feet of one or more steel reinforcing bars or rods of not less
than i/2-inch diameter, or consisting of at least 20 feet of bare
copper conductor not smaller than No. 4 AWG.
SUBSTANTIATION: There are many existing buildings where an
e ~ ' i ' d a l ~ g r d u n d must be established as part of a modification or
reconstruction program where no new foundations are required.
Also there are buildings being constructed that do not use a
concrete foundation.
This proposal was presented to the Panel In 1978, because this
installation is being used in lieu of driven grounds and has
proven to be more effective than driven ground rods.
We have discussed the question raised in 1978, on frost line
condition with Mr. Max McComb, Electrical Engineer, Reno, Nevada,
who designed several ski l i f t s in the High Sierras and we are sure
you have read the results of his tests on this method of
rounding. Mr. McComb states he has made tests on the l i f t s under
rozen ground conditions and the reading showed less resistance in
the frozen earth than readings taken in other seasons.
These l i f t s were subjected to numerous lightning strikes and
caused many equipment failures before this method of grounding was
installed. There have been no failures since this method was
installed. This method should be adopted.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Panel is concerned with the structural integrity
and possible resultant corrosion at cracks. Panel has not seen
the referenced supporting data.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
.
Log # 339
5- 140 - (250-83(c)(1)): Reject
SUBMII'TER: Michael P. O'Quinn, IBEW Local 59
RECOMMENDATION: Add the word "Metal" between the words "or" and
"conduit," so as to read:
"Electrodes of pipe or "metal" conduit shall not be smaller than
3/4-inch trade size and, where of iron or steel, shall have the
outer surface galvanized or otherwise metal-coated for corrosion
protection."
SUBSTANTIATION: This would be to c l a r i f y that only rigid metal
conduit or intermediate metal conduit (or nonelectrical pipe) may
be used as an electrode.
As the wording stands now, rigid nonmetallic conduit could be
misinterpreted as an electrode.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~-Eq_--I~MME-NT: The Panel feels that i t is understood that
electrodes are metallic.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
~
Log # 533
5- 141 - (250-83(c)(3)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: J . K . Daugherty, F l i n t , MI
RECOF~MENDATION: Revise the 5th line from "or shall be buried in a
trench ~
at least 2 1/2 feet (762 mm) deep" to "or at least
20 feet (6.1 m) of one or more electrodes bonded in series shall
be buried in a trench that is at least 2 1/2 feet (762 mm) deep."
SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording allows the least effective
location of a minimal 8 foot electrode. The above wording will
improve this requirement to equate withSection 250-81(c).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
!~-A-N~C--CX~M~NT: I f the single 8 foot rod is not 25 ohms or less,
Section 250-84 requires two rods not less than 6 feet apart. This
appears to achieve the objective.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 03
5- 145 - (250-84): Reject
Secretary's Note: This proposal is for a revision of the 1978
edition but was received after the deadline for proposals.
SUBMII-FER: Edward J. McNealon, Tampa, FL
R~ATION:
Add to the existing requirements of 250-84 the
following "or augmented by a ground resistance lowering device."
SUBSTANTIATION: The criterion of "25 ohms or less" is not
possible even with multiple electrodes. This proposal was
rejected in 1978 by the Code Panel to wit: "Code Panel feels
there is no reason for mandatory requirement that single
electrodes be less than 25 ohms." Obviously, the 1978 Code Panel
concluded that the "single driven electrode" was my objective
rather than a solution to meet the 25 ohm criterion. I have
invented a device, "patent pending" that will lower the resistance
of a ground rod, new, or existing, to 10 ohms or less.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: There is no c r i t e r i a that grounding electrodes
have a resistance of 25 ohms or less, only that where a single
electrode is greater than 25 ohms i t be supplemented by a second
electrode.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 332
5- 142 - (250-83(d)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Michael J. Ciauro, East/West Electrical Contractors,
n~.
RECOMMENDATION: The 1981 Code does not specify burial depth of
~Ero-6~es.
SUBSTANTIATION: I f the burial depth is the sa~e as a h o r i z o n t a l l y
b--u-r'~--e~--rod'e'lectrode, 2 1/2 feet (762 m), I think i t should be so
stated.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL~M-~--M-~--NT: See Proposal 5-143.
~FANEC
ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
99
Log # 1704
5- 151 - (250-91(a), FPN-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 250-g1(a). Add fine print note - "There is no
~ o ~ i ~ g ' ~ e q u i r e d of the insulated grounding electrode
conductor."
SUBSTANTIATION: Some inspectors interpret that this section
r6qufrest-s-t-~at-250-57(b) would apply where insulated and the
conductor shall be green-tagged.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
]~N~'C--CG~ENT: The Panel agrees that the statement is correct but
does not feel i t needs to be incorporated into the Code.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
--A~'FIRMA'F~
NEGATIVE: Nagel.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
~-T~f6gCH6~
the Panel agrees that the statement is
correct, I feel the proposal should be accepted.
Log # 534
5- 146 - (250-84): Reject
SUBMII-TER: J . K . Daugherty, Flint, MI
~DATION:
Add "primary" between "single" and "electrode" in
the 1st line.
SUBSTANTIATION: By adding the word "primary" i t will help c l a r i f y
that supplemental electrodes required by Section 250-81(a) will
not require the treatment of Section 250-84.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~B~TE~C--~O--~NT: Requirements of Section 250-84 make i t clear that
the supplementary electrode need not be supplemented again.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 535
5- 147 - (250-84 and FPN): Reject
SUBMITTER: J . K . Daugherty, Flint, MI
~NDATION:
Revise "6 feet (1.83 m)" to "10 feet (3.05 m)" in
t--he-~and
the FPN.
SUBSTANTIATION: To improve the paralleling efficiency of made
electrodes and to correlate with the requirements of Sections
3-21.1 and 3-21.2 of the Lightning Protection Code, NFPA78-1980.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~rAITEqZ-CCI~IE~N~T: No technical justification for the minimal
improvement which would be achieved. Increasing the spacing o f 8
foot ground rods from six feet to ten feet improves the net
resistance by only eight percent.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnaninmuslyAffirmative.
Log # 1206
5- 152 - (250-91(b)): Reject
SUBMI1-FER: Charles J. Hart, NECA
R~TION:
Revise Section 250-91(b) to read:
--~-6-)---fj#6g'6f Equipment andClosure Grounding Conductors. The
grounding conductor for equipment and for conduit and other metal
raceways or enclosures for conductors shall be one of the
following:
(1) A conductor of copper or other corrosion-resistant
material, stranded or solid, Insulated or bare. I f run in conduit
or raceway with current-carrying conductors, i t shall be insulated
and identified by a green color or green with one or more yellow
stripes.
(2) A busbar.
(3) The armor of Type AC.
(4) The sheath of Type MI cable.
(5) The metallic sheath or the combined metallic sheath and
grounding conductors of Type MC cable.
All bolted or threaded connections at joints and f i t t i n g s shall
be made tight by the use of suitable tools.
Delete Exceptions.
SUBSTANTIATION: The grounding conductor is an essential safety
element oT-~--~ircuit under ground-fault conditions. A wide
variety of raceways and f i t t i n g s now in use have no specified
r e s i s t i v i t y , ampacity, or I CT performance, and therefore
raceways cannot be relied upon Lo provide the effective grounding
path required by Section 250-51. Bare conductors may damage
insulated conductors where both are installed together in conduit.
For marinas and boatyards (Section 555-7) and swin~ning pools
(Section 680-25), NEC requires an insulated equipment grounding
conductor run with the circuit conductors, recognizing that a
raceway system is not inherently a reliable electric~ conductor.
Also, many electrical designers recognize the inadequacy of the
raceway system as a suitable grounding conductor for modern wiring
systems and specify Lhe installation of an insulated grounding
conductor in raceways. At intervals of 10 feet or less throughout
its length, a raceway system has joints or terminations, often not
accessible for inspection, that may and on occasion do become
loose, rusted, or corroded so as to impair electrical
conductivity. The intent of this proposal is to provide the same
level of equipment-grounding r e l i a b i l i t y For all installations as
is now required for marinas and swimming pools.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~AI~E-[-~:
Proposal would eliminate all raceways as grounding
conductors. Submitter has not supplied adequate support for such
a change as requested when previous similar proposals were made.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 536
5- 148 - (250-86): Reject
SUBMII-FER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
~NDATION:
Revise last sentence from "This provision shall
not prohibit the required bonding to~ether of grounding electrodes
of different systems" to "All groundlng electrodes of different
systems shall be bonded together."
SUBSTANTIATION: Former wording has lead to misinterpretation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
I~)~E'L---C~F~'7~F: There is no technical justification for the
substantiative change requested.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1965
5- 149 - (250-90-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Richard W. Osborn, St. Louis, MO
RECOMMENDATION: Each branch circuit or feeder derived from a
~rounded alternating current system shall include a corresponding
insulated grounding conductor, sized in accordance with Table
250-95. The integrity of the grounding conductor shall be
maintained by appropriate wiring methods.
Exception No. 1: Service Conductors.
Exception No. 2: Covered cable assemblies shall not require
insulation on the grounding conductor.
Exception No. 3: Section 250-60.
SUBSTANTIATION: The increased use of nonmetallic raceway systems,
~ a t { o n - o { electrical equipment requiring dependable grounding
sources and the intermingling of various types of wiring systems
now require a bold approach to meeting the need for dependable
low-resistance grounding sources.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Submitter has not shown evidence of the inadequacy
of present grounding requirements.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 53
5- 153 - (250-g1(b), Exception No. i a., Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 1 a. as follows:
a. The total length in any ground return path without an
equipment bonding jumper or equipment grounding conductor Is six
feet or less.
Revise Exception No. 2 as follows:
Exception No. 2: Liquidtight f l e x i b l e metal conduit shall be
permitted for grounding in the I-1/4 inch and smaller trade sizes
i f the total length in any ground return path, without an
equipment bonding jumper or equipment grounding conductor is 6
feet or less and the conduit is terminated in f i t t i n g s approved
for grounding.
Log # 207
5- 150 - (250-91(a), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~OATION:
Add Exception No. 3 as. follows:
Connections between an approved grounding plate used as the
terminating point for the grounding electrode conductor, and one
of the electrodes described in Section 250-81(c) shall be
permitted. The conductor from the grounding plate to the
electrode shall be copper and not smaller than No. 4 AWG.
SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording, in effecL, requires a rebar or
No. 4 copper conductor electrode to be stubbed out of the footing
or foundation for later connection to the grounding electrode
conductor, or a direct imbedded connection to a rebar electrode,
with the required length of grounding electrode conductor
connected or installed at that time. The stub-out procedure is
objectionable in many cases due to esthetics, corrosion, etc. The
connection of the grounding electrode conductor in one continuous
length at the time of connection to the electrode will generally
be at an early stage of construction which promotes the
possibility of damage or theft.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
15-~N-I~=C
' ~CO-MMEfT[T: Recommendation and substantiation are not clear.
VO~I'E'--OI~-F~TE'I~ ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
100
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
FAIfEt--CR]I~E~T: See Proposal 5-154.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
SUBSTANTIATION: Literal interpretation would limit length of any
run to six feet whether or not a separate equipment grounding
conductor is installed. A l i t e r a l .interpretation of the
Exceptions would require all portions of a flexible metal conduit
or liquidtight flexible metal conduit run, including that portion
with an equipment bonding jumper, to be counted as part of the
ground return path, as such conduit is in parallel with the
bonding (or grounding) conductor and thus is part of the ground
return path.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
F]IJTE'C-ObNt~RT: The Panel disagrees that a l i t e r a l interpretation
would limit the length when a grounding conductor or bond is run
since the conduit is not being used as the equipment grounding
conductor.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 406
5- 156 - (250-91(b), Exception No. 2): Accept
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that the
proposal be referred to CMP 8 for information.
SUBMITTER: Frederick 'A. Reker, O-Z/Gedney Company
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to the end of the Section:
. ~ . . a n d " t h d ' c i r c u i t conductors contained therein are protected by
overcurrent devices rated at 20 amperes or less for 3/8-inch and
1/2-inch trade sizes and 60 amperes or less for 3/4-inch through
1 1/4-inch trade sizes.
The exception will then read as follows: Liquidtight Flexible
metal conduit shall be permitted as a grounding means in the
1 I / 4 inch and smaller trade sizes i f the total length of any
ground return path is 6 feet (1.83 m) or less, the conduit is
terminated in f i t t i n g s approved for grounding, and the circuit
conductors contained therein are protected by overcurrent devices
rated at 20 amperes or less for 3/8-inch and 1/2-inch trade sizes
and 60 amperes or less for 3/4-inch through 11/4-inch trade sizes.
SUBSTANTIATION: Recent field experience has indicated that i t is
poss~le to'overload the armor of liquidtight flexible metal
conduit under certain ground-fault conditions. Overloading the
armor causes the jacket material to melt, smoke, and possibly
flame. This led to a study by UL and industry to determine the
practical limit of use for this conduit under ground-fault
conditions. Ground-fault current tests were conducted and i t was
determined that an overcurrent protective device limitation
similar to the limit in Section 350-5 would protect the continuity
of the ground system.
Recent tests by UL and industry based on the grounding conductor
size specified in Table 250-95 of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
have confirmed the fact that overcurrent protection device
limitations proposed will provide a grounding and bonding system
that meets nationally accepted standards. See attached bulletin
Subject 360 of Sept. 4, 1981 from Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
(Note: A copy of this bulletin in available from NFPA upon
request.)
This will also provide guidance to discourage the possible
misuse of this conduit by clearly defining its worst case
limitation right in the Code. By limiting the circuits to 20
amperes for 1/2 inch and smaller trade size and 60 amperes for
3/4-inch through 1 1/4-inch trade size, there will be acceptable
protection against a ground-fault destroying the conduit.
This submittal is supported by the manufacturers of liquidtight
flexible metal conduit.
Exception No. 2 to Section 250-91(b) uses the words "shall be
permitted for grounding" whereas "shall be permitted as a
grounding means" is used in Section 351-9, Exception. These
should be e d i t o r i a l l y changed to agree with each other preferably
using "shall be permitted as a grounding means" in both sections.
A companion proposal has been submitted for Section 351-9,
Exception.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
gO~E:-'O-N-'FAN~L ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Mclntosh.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
MCINTOSH: The submitter and the UL bulletin 360 of Sept. 4,
1981 are to be complicated on recognizing a problem that has been
around f o r many years. However I believe the results desired by
the submitter and many users in the trade will not be achieved in
the manner proposed. First of all not all liquidtight flexible
metal conduit in the market place is approved as a raceway. Some
is sunlight resistant-some is not. Secondly, eccentricity of the
plastic jacket on the f l e x i b l e conduit, where permitted to exceed
to normal manufacturing tolerances, creates a problem associated
with proper seating of the ferrule in the end of the flexible
conduit. Thirdly, connectors come in many shapes and
configurations, some good, some not so good. Fourthly, the
liquidtight flexible conduit and the connectors are usually not
made by the same manufacturer, which can affect the f i t .
Fifthly,
liquidtight flexible metal conduit, sizes 3/4 inch and larger, is
predominantly used for motor connections in lengths of only 18 to
24 inches in length. This practice is not so much for f l e x i b i l i t y
as i t is for simplification of the conduit alignment with the
motor and the resulting labor savings resulting compared to use of
rigid conduit at the motor. Over half of the total liquidtight
flexible metal conduit footage used is 1/2-inch trade size,
primarily for instrumentation and control circuit terminations, in
typical lengths of 30 to 48 inches. The connector problem also
seems to be related: (1) a need for more DEPTH OF PENETRATION of
the ferrule into the end of the f l e x i b l e conduit; (2) the LACK OF
VISIBILITY on some connector ferrules for the installer to see i f
the ferrule is properly seated to f u l l penetration depth; (3) the
pull-out problem is worse with combinations of some connectors and
conduit from different manufacturers.
• I recommend changing Exception No. 2 to read: "Liquidtight
flexible metal conduit without an internal or external equipment
bonding conductor shall be permitted for grounding i f all the
following conditions are met:
Log # 2083
5- 154 - (250-91(b), Exception No. i ) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: 8. Auger/H.B. Love, Michigan Chapter IAEI
~N~TION:
Add to end of present Exception: "; and the
conduit is not installed in accordance with Section 350-4,
Exception No. 2."
SUBSTANTIATION: This is to assure that an effective and
~ous
grounding path is maintained. Our field experience
shows a consistent problem with loose connections and lost
grounding paths where f l e x i b l e metal conduit is used to wire
equipment that is not fixed in one place or position. A recent
experience involving electrical inspections of dozens of
restaurants across d i f f e r e n t parts of the State showed this
problem in each and every restaurant. This amendment would serve
a dual function. First, i t would assure that, in these instances,
the equipment would remain grounded. 'Second, i t would point out
that, in lengths over 3 feet, flexible metal conduit must be
secured.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
~xception
No. 1 to Section 250-91(b) to read as follows:
"Exception No. I : When not used to connect equipment where
f l e x i b i l i t y is required, flexible metal conduit and flexible
metallic tubing shall be permitted for grounding i f all the
following conditions are met."
PANEL COMMENT: To meet intent of proposal and to correlate with
~ a ~ T ' 8 - 2 7 6 for a new Exception No. 2 i n Section 350-5.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
'agglR~TrV~---f~--
NEGATIVE: Mclntosh.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
MCINTOSH: The submitter is endeavoring to solve a very real
flexible conduit (or tubing) and connector loosening and/or
pullout problem but I believe the desired results will not be
achieved in the manner proposed. First of a l l , not all flexible
conduit in the market place is approved as a raceway. Secondly,
connectors come in many shapes and configurations, some good, some
not so good. The connector problem seems to be related to: ( i ) a
need for more DEPTH OF PENETRATION OF THE FERRULE INTO THE
FLEXIBLE CONDUIT; (2) the lack of v i s i b i l i t y on some connector
ferrules f o r the installer to see i f the ferrule is actually
seated at f u l l penetration depth; (3) the pull-out problem is
worse with some connectors than with others due in part to f i t - u p
tolerances. Remember the flexible conduit and the connectors are
usually not made by the same manufacturer.
I recommend changing Exception No. 1 to read: "Flexible metal
conduit and f l e x i b l e metal tubing without an internal or external
equipment bonding conductor shall be permitted for grounding i f
all the following conditions are met:
a. Circuit voltage is 120 volts, nominal to ground, or less.
b. Circuit protective device is 20 amperes, or less.
c. Conduit size does not exceed 3/4-inch trade size; tubing,
I/2 inch.
d. Conduit or tubing length is 6 feet (1.83 m), or less.
e. Equipment is located in a nonhazardous area.
f . The conduit or tubing and the conduit or tubing connectors
are approved for grounding.
" I f any of the above conditions (a) through (f) are not met an
equipment bonding conductor shall be installed either inside or
outside of the conduit or tubing in accordance with Section
250-79(e)."
Log # 1987
5- 155 - (250-91(b), Exception No. 1): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~ T I O N :
Add to end of present exception:
"; and the conduit is not installed in accordance with Section
350-4, Exception No. 2."
SUBSTANTIATION: This is to assure that an effective and
continuous grounding path is maintained. Our f i e l d experience
shows a consistent problem with loose connections and lost
grounding paths where f l e x i b l e metal conduit is used to wire
equipment that is not fixed in one place or position. A recent
experience involving electrical inspections of dozens of
restaurants across different parts of the State showed this
problem in each and every restaurant. This amendment would serve
a dual function. First, i t would assure that, in these instances,
the equipment would remain grounded. Second, i t would point out
that in lengths over 3 feet, flexible metal conduit must be
secured.
101
a. Circuit voltage is 120 volts, nominal to ground, or less.
b. Circuit protective device is 20 amperes, or less.
c. Conduit size does not exceed 3/4-inch trade size.
d. Conduit length is 6 feet (1.83 m), or less.
e. Equipment is located in a nonhazardous area.
f . The liquidtight flexible metal conduit and connectors are
approved for grounding.
" I f any of the above conditions (a) through (f) are not met an
equipment bonding conductor shall be installed either inside or
outside of the conduit in accordance with Section 250-79(e)."
SUBSTANTIATION: The second sentence of Section 250-92(a) is not
consistent with the third sentence of this paragraph since i t does
not identify the situation where a No. 6 grounding conductor free
from exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run
along the surface of the building construction without metal
covering or protection. In general, i t is confusing. The new
wording would make i t simple to understand.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COF~MENT: Request submitter to c l a r i f y the proposal.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 622
5- 157 - (250-91(b)(6)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, F l i n t , MI
RECOMMENDATION: "(6) the armor and bonding strip of armored
cable;"
SUBSTANTIATION: I t is both the armor and bonding strip terminated
under and in direct contact with an armored cable connector that
makes armored cable acceptable ~or grounding. Types ACT and ACL
should also be acceptable hence the replacement with the term
"armored cable."
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is not the intention that the bonding strip be
required to be terminated since i t performs its function by direct
contact with each convolution.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 52
5- 158 - (250-92(a)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Revise f i r s t paragraph as follows:
(a) A grounding electrode conductor or its enclosure shall be
securely fastened to the surface on which i t is carried: A No. 6
or larger conductor shall be protected i f exposed to physical
damage. Required protection shall be provided by installation in
rigid metal conduit, rigid nohmetallic conduit, intermediate metal
conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor. Grounding
electrode conductors smaller than No. 6 shall be in rigid metal
conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, intermediate metal conduit,
electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor. A grounding electrode
conductor shall be permitted in the same raceway or enclosure with
other conductors of the system to which i t is connected.
Add the following to the second paragraph:
When installed as an unenclosed (open) conductor, or in cable
armor, supports shall be provided at intervals not exceeding four
and one-half feet and within twelve inches of terminations, except
when fished. Unenclosed (open) conductors installed through wood
framing members shall comply with the requirements of Section
300~(a).
SUBSTANTIATION: Wording is vague; no requirements for support of
unenclosed conductors. Is some degree of damage to No. 4 or
larger conductor acceptable? Is 50 percent severage of a
conductor severe? As presently w~rded this Section does not
require protection against less than "severe" damage for No. 4 or
larger conductors. Staples may not be suitable for installation
on masonry or concrete, but an interpretation of this Section may
require them, i f enforced l i t e r a l l y . A conductor may be r i g i d l y
stapled to construction (where so fastened) but no required
spacing is indicated for unenclosed or enclosed-in-armor
conductors.
I t seems desirable to specify protection for unenclosed
conductors against nails~ screws, etc., when installed in wood
framing members.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
~ANEL COMMENT: No evidence this is a field problem and includes
unsubstantiated substantiative changes.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1655
5- 159 - (250-92(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~ T I O N :
250-92(a). Grounding Electrode Conductor.
Delete the words "A grounding electrode conductor or its enclosure
shall be securely fastened to the surface on which i t is carried.
A No. 4 copper or aluminum, or larger conductor shall be protected
i f exposed to severe physical damage. A No. 6 groundingconductor
that is free from exposure to physical damage shall be permitted
to be run along the surface of the building construction without
metal covering or protection where i t is r i g i d l y stapled to the
construction, otherwise," and add "grounding electrode conductors
exposed to physical damage shall be provided with a metal covering
or protection" or i t shall be in rigid metal conduit, intermediate
metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic
tubing, or cable armor. Grounding conductors smaller than No. 6
shall be in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid
nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor.
• 102
Log # 1730
5- 160 - (250-94): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 250-94. The size of the grounding electrode
conductor "and/or supplementary electrode conductor" of a grounded
or ungrounded ac system shall not be less than given in Table
250-94.
SUBSTANTIATION: Change is requested in order that 250-94 will
clearly define that Table 250-94 is to be used for main electrode
conductor and supplementary electrode conductor sizing.
PANEL ACTION: Reject•
PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 5-133.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 537
5- 161 - (250-94, Exception No. 1): Accept
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
~ T I O N :
Add "(a)" after "Grounded Systems" in the 1st
line and the following:
(b) where connected to concrete-enclosed electrode as in
Section 250-81(c), that portion of the grounding electrode
conductor which is the sole connection between the grounding
electrode and the grounded system conductor shall not be required
to be larger than No. 4 copper wire.
(c) where connected to a ground ring as in Section 250-81(d),
that portion of the grounding electrode conductor which is the
sole connection between the grounding electrode and the grounded
system conductor shall not be required to be larger than No. 2
copper wire.
SUBSTANTIATION: In both the concrete-enclosed electrode and the
ground ring, the electrode copper wire size may be less than that
required by Section 250-94. There is no electrical reason for
requiring the grounding electrode conductor to be larger than the
electrode when the electrode is constructed of a conductor.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Cohen•
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
COHEN: Mr. Daugherty states that there is no electrical reason
for requiring the grounding electrode conductor to be larger than
the electrode when the electrode is constructed of a conductor;
however, for a concrete-encased electrode, Section 250-81(c)
requires the copper conductor to be not smaller than No. 4 AWG,
but the proposal states i t shall not be required to be larger than
No. 4. Similarly, Section 250-81(d) requires a ground rinq to be
not smaller than No. 2 AWG, and the proposal states i t shall not
be required to be larger than No. 2. I suggest that Section
250-94, Exception No. l(b) be reworded as follows: "...shall not
be required to be larger than the conductor used for the
electrode."; and Section 250-94, Exception No. 1(c) be reworded as
follows: "shall not be required to be larger than the conductor
used for the ground ring."
Log # 1881
5- 162 - (250-94,Exception No. 1): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Delete "sole" in the 3rd line.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present requirement implies that i f a made
electrode is the only grounding electrode, the electrode conductor
may be a No. 6 copper wire or No. 4 aluminum. But i f a made
electrode is supplementary per Section 250-81(a), the grounding
electrode conductor shall be per Table 250-94. I do not see the
j u s t i f i c a t i o n for this requirement since a made electrode is
current limiting under either condition.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Under some conditions this would permit made
electrodes to be connected by an undersized conductor.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
UF installed in accordance with the appropriate provisions of
Article 339.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COM~NT: Request submitter to c l a r i f y meaning of common
enclosure and application of requirement to trenches especially
with respect to how the grounding conductor and circuit conductors
are coupled.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: Brown.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
BROW~: In order to better c l a r i f y the intent of the proposal,
the second paragraph should be revised to read "see Section
300-5(c)."
Log # 493
5- 163 - (250-94, Exception Nos. 1 and 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Ernest E. Cannon, Tempe, AZ
RECOMMENDATION: Add after "Section 250-83(c) or (d)" "or Section
250-81(c)"
SUBSTANTIATION: In the revisions of NEC 1975 f o r NEC 1978,
concrete-encased electrodes were relocated from Section 250-83(a)
to Section 250-81(c) and the re-bar was added. Section 250-94,
Exception Nos. 1 and 2 then changed from Section 250-83 to Section
250-83(c) or (d) in 1981NEC. I t appears that the
concrete-encased (or Ufer) electrodewas recognized as meeting the
criteria for the Exception during NEC 1975 but lost that
recognition in NEC 1978 and remained so in 1981. Data submitted
by Proposal 61 for 1974 Preprint indicates that the expected
resistance of the Ufer is such that No. 6 copper would be more
than adequate as the grounding electrode conductor for the
concrete-encased electrode. Perhaps i t was an oversight that the
concrete-encased electrode was relocated without being relisted in
these Exceptions. There appears to be adequate data to qualify
for the Exception. In general data indicates that the resistance
of rods and plates may be expected to be less than that of
concrete-encased grounding electrode.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Proposal would permit concrete-encased electrodes
to be connected by a No. 6 copper conductor which is considered to
be too small. Also see Proposal 5-161.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1723
5- 167 - (250-95): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph:
250-95 "Equipment grounding conductors on secondary of
transformer should be sized based upon an overcurrent device
conductor that would be used to protect those secondary
conductors."
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 250-95 as written does not provide a
vehicle to size equipment grounding conductors on secondary of a
transformer where feeder taps are used for secondary conductors.
A reference should be added to indicate a method for sizing
equipment grounding conductors on the secondary of transformer.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COFCVENT: Request submitter to c l a r i f y proposal with regard
to type and application of transformer.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 444
5- 164 - (250-94, Exception Nos. I and i ) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
RECOY~MENDATION: Add after "Section 250-83(c) or (d)" "Or Section
250-81(c)"
SUBSTANTIATION: In the revisions of NEC 1975 for NEC 1978,
concrete-encased electrodes were relocated from Section 250-83(a)
to Section 250-81(c) and the re-bar was added. Section 250-94,
Exception Nos. I and 2 then changed from Section 250-83 to Section
250-83(c) or (d) in 1981 NEC. I t appears that the
concrete-encased (or Ufer) electrode was recognized as meeting the
criteria for the exception during NEC 1975 but lost that
recognition in NEC 1978 and remained so in 1981. Data submitted
by Proposal 61 for 1974 Preprint indicates that the expected
resistance of the Ufer is such that No. 6 copper would be more
than adequate as the grounding electrode conductor for the
concrete-encased electrode. Perhaps i t was an oversight that the
concrete-encased electrode was relocated without being relisted in
these Exceptions. There appears to be adequate data to qualify
for the Exception. In general data indicates that the resistance
of rods and plates may be expected to be less than that of
concrete-encased grounding electrode.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COUNT: Sameas Proposal 5-163.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 239
5- 168 - (250-95, 2nd paragraph): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc.
~ T I O N :
Amend Section 250-95, second paragraph to read as
follows:
Where c i r c u i t conductors are run in p a r a l l e l and in m u l t i p l e
raceways, as permitted in Section 310-4, the equipment grounding
conductor, when used, shall also consist of paralleled conductors,
one in each raceway. All of the p a r a l l e l equipment groundingnd
conductors shall be of the same length, conductor material, a
c i r c u l a r - m i l area and sized so as to provide an aggregate ampacity
equivalent to that of a single conductor selected on the basis o f
the ampere r a t i n g of the overcurrent device protecting the
paralleled c i r c u i t conductors.
SUBSTANTIATION: The Code permits p a r a l l e l i n g of the
c u r r e n t - c a r r y i n g c i r c u i t conductors under specified conditions.
I t is not only inconsistent but i l l o g i c a l to deny t h i s design
p r i v i l e g e to passive elements of the wiring system. Further
inconsistencies in the Code are apparent. Section 250-71(c), f o r
instance, allows the equipment bonding jumper (equipment grounding
conductor by another name) in parallel service raceways to be
based on the size of the service conductors in each raceway.
Furthermore, in their proposed outline for Type TC cable
(UL1277), the Underwriters Laboratories recognized the inherent
v a l i d i t y of the concept of divided, or sectioned, grounding
conductors by recognizing their use with the condition that "the
total circular-mil area of a sectioned or distributed grounding
conductor shall be equal to or larger than that of the
corresponding size of a single conductor."
The proposed amendment provides the basis and logic for sizing
parallel equipment grounding conductors. This procedure will
assure a suitable and adequate ground-fault current path,
consistent with the design principles of the circuit wiring, when
parallel circuit conductors are permitted and will comply with the
requirements of Section 250-51.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COUNT: The proposer makes an unsubstantiated change in
the grounding conductor size.
Under internal fault conditions the ground current tends to run
as closely as possible to the faulted phase conductor. The bulk
of the current flows in this path and only a minor portion flows
in the other multiple paths. Thus each ground conductor must be
suitable for a large share of the total available f a u l t current.
The equipment grounding conductors selected by this proposal are
not adequate in many cases, in fact, many of the combinations will
melt before the protective device will open the circuit.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 538
5- 165 - (250-95): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, F l i n t , MI
~ T I O N :
Add [o 1st paragraph: "Where the equipment
grounding conductor is run in lengths exceeding 100 feet (30.5 m),
the size shall be increased to two sizes larger."
SUBSTANTIATION: The present requirements of Section 250-95 and
Table 260-95 are based on reasonable lengths of conductors.
Theoretically, lengths exceeding 100 feet may not operate the
overcurrent protective device without a correlated increase in
conductor size.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise the third paragraph to read as follows:
"When conductors are adjusted in size to compensate for voltage
drop, equipment grounding conductors, where required, shall be
adjusted proportionately according to circular mil area."
PANEL COMMENT: Intent of proposal is covered in third paragraph
which is further c l a r i f i e d .
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 871
5- 166 - (250-g5): Reject
SUBMITTER: H. Brooke Staffer, NEMA
RECOMaMENDATION: Change the last paragraph to read: Where a
s--Ingle equipment grounding conductor is run with multiple circuits
in a common enclosure, raceway or trench, i t shall be sized for
the largest overcurrent device protecting the corresponding
circuit conductors.
Where run in an enclosure or trench, the grounding conductor
shall be grouped with the circuit conductors.
SUBSTANTIATION: The rationale applied to the text in the 1981 NEC
should be extended to conductors installed in environments beyond
"raceways" such as:
USE installed in accordance with the appropriate provisions of
Article 338.
Log # 276
5- 16g - (250-112, Exception): Accept
SUBMITTER: W. Creighton Schwan, Hayward, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Exception as follows, added material
shown in quotations.
Exception: "An encased or buried" connection to a
concrete-encased, driven, or buried grounding electrode shall not
be required to be accessible.
103
SUBSTANTIATION: Where connections are made to exposed portions of
electrodes which are largely encased, driven, or buried, such
connections must be accessible. The present wording of the
exception leads to possible misinterpretation that electrodes
largely concrete-encased, or buried, need not have the exposed
connections to them accessible. The suggested revision will not
allow such misinterpretation of the intent of the requirement.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 539
5- 170 - (250-113): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
~ATION:
Revise the 2nd sentence to: "Securement
mechanically, connection devices, or f i t t i n g s that depend on
solder for electrical continuity shall not be used."
SUBSTANTIATION: Grounding connections could be subjected to
ground faults and should not depend on solder for electrical
continuity.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Present wording is much clearer than the proposal:
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
SUBSTANTIATION: 250-117(a) and (b) are t o t a l l y confusing in that
250-117(a) states where physical damage is present, i t can be
protected by installations where they are not likely to be
damaged. EDITORIALCHANGE.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Does not allow for use of ground clamps approved
for general use without protection.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
ARTICLE 280 -- LIGHTNING ARRESTERS
Log # 1930
5- 175 - (280-4(b)):
Accept
SUBMITTER: Charles M. Lutz, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
I ~ATION:
Fine Print note - change "Lightning" to "Surge."
"C62.2-1969" to "C62.2-1981,"
SUBSTANTIATION: Change in t i t l e of ANSI C62.2-1981.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1576
5- 176 - (280-4(b),FPN): Accept
SUBMI1-TER: David W. Jackson, IEEE, Power Engineering Society,
Surge Protective Devices Committee
RECOMMENDATION: In the Fine Print Note following Section
280-4(b), correct the reference to ANSI C62.2 to read as follows:
"Guide for the Application of Valve-Type Surge Arresters for
Alternating-Current Systems (ANSI C62.2-1981)."
SUBSTANTIATION: C62.2-1981 is the#pproved national standard
guide for application of surge arrdsters. The deprecated term
"lightning arrester" in the t i t l e has been replaced by the
recommended term "surge arrester."
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 5-175.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 835
5- 171 - (250-114): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Walter A. Upson, Chocorua, NH
RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite a portion of the f i r s t sentence.
250-114. Continuity and Attachment of Branch-Circuit Equipment
Grounding Conductors to Boxes. Where more than one equipment
grounding conductor of a branch circuit enters a box, all such
conductors shall be spliced or joined with splicing devices
identified For the use and the arrangement shall be such that the
disconnection or removal of a receptacle, f i x t u r e , or other device
fed from the box will not interfere with or interrupt the
grounding continuity.
SUBSTANTIATION: The statement, "spliced or joined with splicing
devices identified for the use," is more specific than, "good
electrical contact with each other."
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 5-172.
~ A C T I O N :
UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 541
5- 177 - (280-22): Reject
SUBMITFER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Ist sentence: "Surge arresters shall
be installed on the load side of services."
SUBSTANTIATION: Although the t i t l e of Section 280-22 clearly
states that surge arresters are to be installed on the load side
of services, the requirement does not. This proposal will
coordinate the t i t l e with the requirement.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is not the intent to require surge arresters.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
NEISWENDER: Although my vote is affirmative, i t is f e l t that a
comment is warranted on the mandatory requirement of surge
arresters in residential areas.
In residential occupancies surge voltages generally are
experienced from two major sources: (I) external surges; and (2)
the switching of loads within the residence. The external surges
are mainly caused by lightning which is a function of local
geographical and meteorlogical conditions.
An IEEE Transactions
Paper, August 1970, entitled "Surge Voltage in Residential and
Industrial Power Circuits" states that a significant number of
surges above 2000 volts occur periodically in residential power
lines. Solid insulation devices such as motors and transformers
usually will withstand such surges. However, devices containing
semiconductors may be much more vulnerable and these devices are
becoming much more con~non in the average household.
The switching of refrigerators, food mixers, oil burners,
fluorescent lamps, etc. has been found to produce internal surges
within a home which are not transmitted to other homes on the same
service. The values of these switching surges has been found to
range from 300 to 2500 volts. The installation of a surge
arrester on the main panel or service would not protect the
internal wiring or ~ndividual branch circuits from the effects of
these transient voltages.
Since i t has been documented that these types of surge voltages
can exist in a residential occupancy, we feel an effort should be
made to study this problem in more detail with one possible goal
of: (1) providing protection from external surges; and (2) making
the user and manufacturer aware of the possible damaging effects
to ,solid state technology equipment within the average home.
We realize that several steps of protection are required: (1)
at the service for external surges; and (2) less expensive and
closer matched surge arresters at the individual devices requiring
them. Technology is fast placing the microprocessor and like
equipment in the home. We need to look closer at the area of
providing property protection for the non-technically oriented
home user of these new devices.
Log # 1606
5- 172 - (250-114): Accept
SUBMITTER: Andre R. Cartal, Middle Department Inspection Agency,
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:
Where more than one equipment grounding conductor enters a box
all such conductors shall be spliced or joined within the box with
splicihg devices suitable for the use. Connections depending on
solder shall not be used and the arrangement shall be such that
the disconnection or the removal of a receptacle, f i x t u r e , or
other device fed from the box will not interfere with or interrupt
the grounding continuity.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 250-114 now requires that branch circuit
grounding conductors shall be in "good electrical contact" with
each other - I know of no definition of "good electrical
contact." Is a pigtail splice sufficient? What about aluminum
branch circuit grounding conductors?
The expanded recognition of NM cable in Section 517-11 Exception
No. 2 and Section 680-25(d) mandates more specific wording to
insure continuity of all equipment grounding conductors.
~ANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 540
5- 173 - (250-115(d)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
~ATION:'
Add: "such as thermite (cad) welding." to the
end of the sentence.
SUBSTANTIATION: Thermite (cad) welding has generally been
accepted as an equally substantial approved means.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Although Panel agrees that this is one acceptable
method, listing i t would only put undue emphasis on that method.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1754
5- 174 - (250-117): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 250-117. Delete 250-117(a) and (b) replace i t
with:
250-117. Ground clamps and other f i t t i n g s shall be protected
from ordinary physical damage by being enclosed in metal, wood, or
equivalent protective covering.
104
SUBSTANTIATION: Where connections are made to exposed portions of
electrodes which are largely encased, driven, or buried, such
connections must be accessible. The present wording of the
exception leads to possible misinterpretation that electrodes
largely concrete-encased, or buried, need not have the exposed
connections to them accessible. The suggested revision will not
allow such misinterpretation of the intent of the requirement.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 539
5- 170 - (250-113): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
~ATION:
Revise the 2nd sentence to: "Securement
mechanically, connection devices, or f i t t i n g s that depend on
solder for electrical continuity shall not be used."
SUBSTANTIATION: Grounding connections could be subjected to
ground faults and should not depend on solder for electrical
continuity.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Present wording is much clearer than the proposal:
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
SUBSTANTIATION: 250-117(a) and (b) are t o t a l l y confusing in that
250-117(a) states where physical damage is present, i t can be
protected by installations where they are not likely to be
damaged. EDITORIALCHANGE.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Does not allow for use of ground clamps approved
for general use without protection.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
ARTICLE 280 -- LIGHTNING ARRESTERS
Log # 1930
5- 175 - (280-4(b)):
Accept
SUBMITTER: Charles M. Lutz, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
I ~ATION:
Fine Print note - change "Lightning" to "Surge."
"C62.2-1969" to "C62.2-1981,"
SUBSTANTIATION: Change in t i t l e of ANSI C62.2-1981.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1576
5- 176 - (280-4(b),FPN): Accept
SUBMI1-TER: David W. Jackson, IEEE, Power Engineering Society,
Surge Protective Devices Committee
RECOMMENDATION: In the Fine Print Note following Section
280-4(b), correct the reference to ANSI C62.2 to read as follows:
"Guide for the Application of Valve-Type Surge Arresters for
Alternating-Current Systems (ANSI C62.2-1981)."
SUBSTANTIATION: C62.2-1981 is the#pproved national standard
guide for application of surge arrdsters. The deprecated term
"lightning arrester" in the t i t l e has been replaced by the
recommended term "surge arrester."
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 5-175.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 835
5- 171 - (250-114): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Walter A. Upson, Chocorua, NH
RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite a portion of the f i r s t sentence.
250-114. Continuity and Attachment of Branch-Circuit Equipment
Grounding Conductors to Boxes. Where more than one equipment
grounding conductor of a branch circuit enters a box, all such
conductors shall be spliced or joined with splicing devices
identified For the use and the arrangement shall be such that the
disconnection or removal of a receptacle, f i x t u r e , or other device
fed from the box will not interfere with or interrupt the
grounding continuity.
SUBSTANTIATION: The statement, "spliced or joined with splicing
devices identified for the use," is more specific than, "good
electrical contact with each other."
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 5-172.
~ A C T I O N :
UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 541
5- 177 - (280-22): Reject
SUBMITFER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Ist sentence: "Surge arresters shall
be installed on the load side of services."
SUBSTANTIATION: Although the t i t l e of Section 280-22 clearly
states that surge arresters are to be installed on the load side
of services, the requirement does not. This proposal will
coordinate the t i t l e with the requirement.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: I t is not the intent to require surge arresters.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
NEISWENDER: Although my vote is affirmative, i t is f e l t that a
comment is warranted on the mandatory requirement of surge
arresters in residential areas.
In residential occupancies surge voltages generally are
experienced from two major sources: (I) external surges; and (2)
the switching of loads within the residence. The external surges
are mainly caused by lightning which is a function of local
geographical and meteorlogical conditions.
An IEEE Transactions
Paper, August 1970, entitled "Surge Voltage in Residential and
Industrial Power Circuits" states that a significant number of
surges above 2000 volts occur periodically in residential power
lines. Solid insulation devices such as motors and transformers
usually will withstand such surges. However, devices containing
semiconductors may be much more vulnerable and these devices are
becoming much more con~non in the average household.
The switching of refrigerators, food mixers, oil burners,
fluorescent lamps, etc. has been found to produce internal surges
within a home which are not transmitted to other homes on the same
service. The values of these switching surges has been found to
range from 300 to 2500 volts. The installation of a surge
arrester on the main panel or service would not protect the
internal wiring or ~ndividual branch circuits from the effects of
these transient voltages.
Since i t has been documented that these types of surge voltages
can exist in a residential occupancy, we feel an effort should be
made to study this problem in more detail with one possible goal
of: (1) providing protection from external surges; and (2) making
the user and manufacturer aware of the possible damaging effects
to ,solid state technology equipment within the average home.
We realize that several steps of protection are required: (1)
at the service for external surges; and (2) less expensive and
closer matched surge arresters at the individual devices requiring
them. Technology is fast placing the microprocessor and like
equipment in the home. We need to look closer at the area of
providing property protection for the non-technically oriented
home user of these new devices.
Log # 1606
5- 172 - (250-114): Accept
SUBMITTER: Andre R. Cartal, Middle Department Inspection Agency,
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:
Where more than one equipment grounding conductor enters a box
all such conductors shall be spliced or joined within the box with
splicihg devices suitable for the use. Connections depending on
solder shall not be used and the arrangement shall be such that
the disconnection or the removal of a receptacle, f i x t u r e , or
other device fed from the box will not interfere with or interrupt
the grounding continuity.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 250-114 now requires that branch circuit
grounding conductors shall be in "good electrical contact" with
each other - I know of no definition of "good electrical
contact." Is a pigtail splice sufficient? What about aluminum
branch circuit grounding conductors?
The expanded recognition of NM cable in Section 517-11 Exception
No. 2 and Section 680-25(d) mandates more specific wording to
insure continuity of all equipment grounding conductors.
~ANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 540
5- 173 - (250-115(d)): Reject
SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI
~ATION:'
Add: "such as thermite (cad) welding." to the
end of the sentence.
SUBSTANTIATION: Thermite (cad) welding has generally been
accepted as an equally substantial approved means.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Although Panel agrees that this is one acceptable
method, listing i t would only put undue emphasis on that method.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1754
5- 174 - (250-117): Reject
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: 250-117. Delete 250-117(a) and (b) replace i t
with:
250-117. Ground clamps and other f i t t i n g s shall be protected
from ordinary physical damage by being enclosed in metal, wood, or
equivalent protective covering.
104
SUBSTANTIATION: This Exception will allow the Code to cover
optical fiber cables as provided for in proposed Article 770.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Change the number "4" to the number "3."
PANEL COMMENT: The renumbering is made in order to follow the
proper numerical sequence for article numbers.
See Action on Proposal 3-3.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
ARTICLE 300 -- WIRING METHODS
Log # 2056
3- I - (Articles 300, 305): Reject
• Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee feels that this
proposal is editorial in nature and that i t is unnecessary to
repeat information already in the Code.
SUBMITTER: Ivan P. Nordstrand, Consumers Power Company
RECOMMENDATION: Propose each article have the Panel designation
thus:
Article 90 - Introduction
(Panel No. i)
Article 100 - Definitions
(Panel No. 1)
Article 110 - Requirements for Electric Installations
(Panel No. 1)
Article 200 - Use and Identification of Grounded Conductors
(Panel No. 5)
Article 210 - Branch Circuits
(Panel No. 2)
Etc...
SUBSTANTIATION: The present format of the published Code book
makes i t d i f f i c u l t and time consuming to determine the appropriate
Panel responsible for the article in which a problem is
developing. The addition of one line in parentheses under the
article number giving the Panel designation will quickly provide
the proper source.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Previously covered in the Code and i t would be
redundant to include in Article 300 and Article 305.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 21
3- 6 - (300-1(c), Exception (New)): Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CI~° 3 that
article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating
Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel
Action. I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that
further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the
negative voting.
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception as follows:
Exception: Where otherwise permitted by Article 250.
SUBSTANTIATION: Appears not to consider single conductors
permitted by Article 250 for grounding and bonding conductors.
Single conductors of types specified in Table 310-13 are permitted
in Article 250 as bonding and grounding conductors, and in some
installations are not installed according to Chapter 3 wiring
methods, e.g., Sections 250-92 and 250-97.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise to read: "Where otherwise as permitted by Article 250."
PANEL COMMENT: Editorial c l a r i f i c a t i o n .
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Lawry.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: The revision noted in the Panel Action is not correct
and as agreed upon by CMP 3. I t should have been "as permitted in
Article 250."
Log # 1631
3- 2 - (Articles 300, 305): Reject
SUBMII'TER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los Angeles, C/~
~ATION:
Delete the word "approved" when used to mean the
use of alternate method(s) or materials.
SUBSTANTIATION: The NEC is incorporated in most construction
contract documents by reference. Therefore, the authority having
jurisdiction - the owner or the owner's representative, will not
be the third party qualified person contemplated by the
Code-Making Panel. Section 90-4 covers the case for governmental
bodies exercising legal jurisdiction.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMIVENT: Does not comply with Section i0-10(b) of the NFPA
Regulations relative to submittal of proposal and his
substantiation is contrary to NFPA definitions.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1259
3- 7 - (300-I(c), FPN-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments
expressed in the negative voting. The Correlating Committee
advises CMP 3 that article scope statements are the responsibility
of the Correlating Committee.
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~ T I O N :
Add second paragraph to read:
All conductors of the same circuit including the grounding
conductor where used shall be contained within the same raceway,
trench, cable, or cord.
Add fine print note to read: See Sections 250-79(e), 300-5(i),
339-3(a)(2), 250-57(b), and 300-20(a).
SUBSTANTIATION: This would clearly require all conductors and
grounding conductors to be grouped without researching several
articles and making the mistake of relying on one section such as
where this requirement is specified in Sections 300-5(i),
339-3(a)(2), 250-57(b), 300-20(a) and 250-79(e). I t presently
misleads some to believe that this is only required when involved
with underground installation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COUNT: The uses are already spelled out in other sections
of the Code. This would be redundant and unnecessary.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 5
NEGATIVE: Lawry, Wood.
EXPLAN/~TION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: The substantiation of the submitter is valid. I t is
proper for Article 300 to include general requirements that may be
found elsewhere in Code. I would recommend that CMP 3 accept the
proposal in principle, but rather than adding a FPN, add an
exception stating "Exception: As specifically permitted elsewhere
in this Code."
WOOD: This change would help to solve a f i e l d Jroblem. I agree
with the submitter's substantiation.
Log # 1136
3- 3 - (300-I(a), Exception No. 3-(New)): Accept
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 3 that
article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating
Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel
Action.
SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group
RECOMMENDATION: Renumber the existing Exception No. 3 (Article
UUU~ to ~xception No. 4.
Add new Exception No. 3. Only those sections referenced in
Article 770 shall apply to optical fiber cables.
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal will allow the Code to cover
optical fiber cables as provided for in proposed Article 770.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1434
3- 4 - (300-I(a), Exception No. 5-(New)): Accept
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 3 that
article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating
Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel
Action.
SUBMII-rER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group
RECOI~WMENDATION: Add new Exception No. 5. Only those sections
referenced in Article 820 shall apply to Community Antenna
Television and Radio Distribution Systems.
SUBSTANTIATION: Corrects an apparent omission by proposing an
exception for Article 820.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1826
3- 8 - (300-3(a)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Paul E. Phelan, Trade Education, Inc. and New
Hampshire Electrical Contractors, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Change last sentence to read: "where all
conductors are insulated for the maximum " c i r c u i t " voltage of any
conductor."
SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification of whether we are dealing with
circuit voltage or voltage "rating" of conductor insulation.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL CO~IMENT: The Panel believes that the present wording is
adequate. The intent is that this section applies to the
insulation rating and not the operating voltage.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Lawry.
Log # 899
3- 5 - (300-1(a), Exception No. 4-(New)): Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 3 that
article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating
Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel
Action.
SUBMII-FER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fiber Optics
RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No. 4. Only those sections
referenced in Article 770 shall apply to optical fiber cables.
105
¢ ~J.
Log # 834
3- 12 - (300-4(a)(1)): Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee to direct the Panel to c l a r i f y the Panel Action in
regards to changes in Code text.
SUBMITTER: Walter A. Upson, Chocorua, NH
RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite 300-4(a)(1)
{a} Cables Through Wood Members.
(1) Bored Holes. In both exposed and concealed locations,
where a cable or raceway-type wiring method is installed through
bored holes in joists, rafters, or wood members, holes shall be
bored so that the edge of the hole is not less than 1 1/4 inches
(31.8 mm) from the nearest edge of the wood member. Where this
distance cannot be maintained the cable or raceway shall be
protected from penetration by screws or nails by a steel plate or
bushing, at least 1/16 inch (1.59 mm) thick, and of appropriate
length and width installed to cover the area of the wiring.
SUBSTANTIATION: The rewording of this paragraph would clarify the
application of Section 300L4(a)(1) to apply to all wood members,
as in solid wood structures, ndt just to structural members.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Revise heading to read: "Cables and Raceways Through Wood
Members."
Add a new exception to Section 300-4(a)(1):
"Exception: Racewaysas covered in Articles 345, 346, and 348."
PANEL COMMENT: Metal raceways covered by the proposal exception
should not be effected.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: Although I agree with the intent stated in the Panel
Comment, I s t i l l believe that the present Code language is not
clear. The specific wording in the present Code s t i l l leaves the
question of whether we are referring to insulation rating or
operating voltage. To c l a r i f y this the last portion of (a) could
be revised to read "where all conductors are insulated for the
maximum insulation voltage rating of any conductor..."
Log # 1799
3- 9 - (300-3(a), Exceptioh-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: G. V. Cox, Chemical Manufacturers Association
~DATION:
Add exception to read:
"Exception: Excitation, control, relay, and ammeter conductors,
i f insulated for the voltage applied to the conductors and where
used in connection with any individual motor or starter, shall be
permitted to occupy the same enclosure as the motor circuit
conductors."
SUBSTANTIATION: Exception No. 3 to Section 300-3(b) allows a
30D-volt or 150-volt insulated wire to be used in a similar
application using motors of greater than 600 volts. I f allowable
f o r motors over 600 volts, similar allowance should be made for
motors of 600 volts or less.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: This proposal would be in conflict with Section
725-15.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Mottern.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
MOTTERN: I t is my understanding that Article 300 establishes
the general wiring methods of the Code and Section 725-15 amends
these general methods as required by Class 1 circuits. I really
cannot see a conflict.
Consider the following specific examples:
1. Section 300-3(b), Exception No. 3 permits 120-volt control
conductors with insulation rated at 300 volts to be installed in
the same motor starter with the associated 13.8 kV power
conductors.
2. Section 725-38(a)(2), Exception No. 2 permits Class 2 and 3
120-volt control conductors with insulation rated at 300 volts to
be installed in the,same motor starter with the associated
460-volt power conductors. This was affirmed in the July, 1980,
Fire News as listed Item 70-78-6.
I see no reason that excitation, relay, and ammeter conductors,
i f insulated for the voltage applied, could not safely be
installed in the same motor starter as the associated 460-volt
power-conductors.
Log # 51
3- 13 - (300-4(a)(2)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
]TE~-~-E'I~-DATION: Insert in paragraph (a)(2) the words "or
raceways" after the word "cable," in the f i r s t sentence.
SUBSTANTIATION: Does not address installation of raceway type
wiring methods installed in notches. Installation of raceways in
notches in wood members has been a somewhat common installation
for many years and generally permitted by inspection authorities.
This proposal would c l a r i f y and specifically permit this type
installation.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Add a new exception to Section 300-4(a)(2) to read:
"Exception: Raceways as covered in Articles 345, 346, and 348."
PANEL COUNT: The Panel accepts the proposal in its entirety and
• in addition the Panel has added the Exception. Metal raceways
covered by the Exception should not be effected.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1777
3- 14 - (300-4(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Louis Miraglia, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
~DATION:
Delete (b) and the exception and replace with:
(b) Cables Through Metal Framing Members. In both exposed and
concealed locations, only Type MI cable, Type MC cable, and Type
AC cable shall be used for wiring in systems installed in factory
or f i e l d , punched, cut or drilled slots or holes in metal framing
members. Other type cables and conductors shall be installed in
raceways.
SUBSTANTIATION: Other type cables, such as nonmetallic-sheathed
cables, are usually pulled through holes and slots and routed to
outlet boxes; then protective bushings are installed, however, too
late, as damage to the cables has already taken place.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel believes that the Code presently.
requires protection of cables and that this is an enforcement
roblem.
OTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 914
3- 10 - (300-3(a), Exception-(New)): Accept
SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Solar Photovoltaics
~DATION:
Add Exception to Section 300-3(a), as follows:
"Exception: For solar photovoltaic systems in accordance with
Section 6go-4(b)."
SUBSTANTIATION: For correlation with proposed Section 690-4(b).
See substantiation for proposed Section 690-4(b).
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1944
3- 11 - (300-3(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN
ITE']L'OI~E'IT(~TION: Conductors energized over 600 volts, nominal,
shall not occupy the same equipment wiring enclosure, cable tray,
raceway or duct with conductors of 600 volts, nominal, or less.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording without "energized" could be
construed to mean that a cable having 35 kV insulation rating
could not be used to wire a 480 volt c i r c u i t . Whereas this is
improbable, I have used 5 kV nonshielded cable for a 230 volt
feeder when the proper size 600 volt cable was not available.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Code presently permits the installation cited
in the preposer's substantiation.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Lawry.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: Although the use of word "nominal" in Section 300-3(b)
suggests operating voltage rather than insulation rating (see
definition of voltage, nominal), i t appears that the proposal
would c l a r i f y (b). The Panel Comment appears to be in conflict
with the Panel Comment for Proposal 3-8. I f the intent of Section
300-3(a) is that i t applies to insulation rating, then a 35 kV
insulation rating could not be used for a 480-volt circuit in the
same raceway with conductors having 600-volt insulation rating.
~
Log # 1790
3- 15 - (300-4(c)-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Leo F. Martin, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Add new (c) as follows:
,(c) Cables Through Spaces Behind Panels Designed to Allow
Access. Cables, or raceway-type wiring methods, installed behind
panels designed to allow access shall be supported according to
their applicable articles.
SUBSTANTIATION: Manytimes, for a myriad of reasons, cables and
other wiring methods are fished across hung-ceilings and lay on
these grids with l i t t l e or no support and therefore hinder the
accessibility through l i f t - o u t panels.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that the requirements are already
covered in the respective article and the proposal is redundant.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Lawry.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: The problem stated in the submitter's substantiation is
very common in the real world. Including this proposed new
section in Article 300 would be of immense help in promoting and
enforcing safe wiring methods. This is a general problem
deserving Article 300 consideration and we should not hide behind
the fact that something may be covered elsewhere.
106
Log # 1261
3- 16 - (300-4(c)-(New)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~ATION:
Add a new subsection 300-4(c) to read as follows:
Conductors shall be protected from damage by the design of the
cabinet, pull box, junction box, auxiliary gutter, f i t t i n g or
enclosure, by a bushing identified for the use. Ungrounded
conductors of No. 4 or larger shall be protected by substantial
insulated bushing providing a smoothly rounded insulating surface
unless the conductors are separated from the raceway f i t t i n g by a
substantial insulating material securely fastened in place.
Conduit bushings constructed wholly of insulating material shall
not be used to secure a raceway. The insulating bushing or
insulating material shall have a temperature rating not less than
the insulation temperature rating of the installed conductors.
SUBSTANTIATION: Protection of conductors from damage and abrasion
in the electrical system is of primary concern and as such, the
statement should be moved from Section 373-6(c) to Section
300-4(c) in order to apply generally. Since electrical and
mechanical continuity of raceways is required by Sections 300-10
and 300-12, and since some raceways or f i t t i n g s can be secured
without a Iocknut or with one locknut, that portion of Section
373-6(c) is f e l t unnecessary.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The f i r s t sentence is unclear as to what the
proposer wants to achieve and i t is redundant to the f i r s t
sentence of Section 300-4. Prohibiting bushings wholly
constructed of insulating material may not be desirable.
The Panel feels that the Code adequately covers the protection
of conductors in Section Nos. 373-3, 370-7, 370-22, 370-52(b),
374-9(c) and 346-8. Submitter has not identified specific
problems in the Substantiation.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Lawry.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: Although there are some problems with the proposal as
noted in the f i r s t paragraph of the Panel Comment, I believe that
the protection of conductors is a subject that applies generally
and should be addressed in Article 300. Surely, i t is not
necessary to identify specific problems when considering something
as basic as conductor protection.
SUBSTANTIATION: By applying Exception Nos. I and 2 to conduits
tor underground installation with a 2-inch concrete pad is placed
for physical protection the cover depth can be reduced 6 inches,
and by Table 300-5 conduits only need to be buried 6 inches. I f a
concrete slab is applied the conduit could be placed on top of the
surface.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The submitter's comment is not clear as to what he
intends. The Panel feels that the concrete slab is sufficient.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
I
Log # 1371
3- 19 - (300-5, Exception No. 4): Accept
SUBMITTER: M. H. Lounsbury, Eastern Section IAEI
RELATION:
Delete Exception No. 4 of Section 300-5.
SUBSTANTIATION: When this exception was added to the NEC Article
680 did not allow the use of direct burial cables. At the present
time we feel that a depth of 24 inches is an important factor to
be considered by the NEC.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 445
3- 20 - (300-5, Exception No. 4): Accept
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAE[
RECOM~NDATION: Delete: Exception No. 4.
SUBSTANTIATION: Field experience has proven with only 12 inches
of cover, many cables have been dug i n t o . Most a l l of t h i s wiring
is in lawn and flower or shrub areas where l a t e r planting
occurring requires holes more than 12 inches in depth. Cables
have been cut, then improperly spliced, r e s u l t i n g in voltage leaks
with current high enough f o r shock or electrocution.
Very seldom
is inspection requested on these splices and most times they are
done by owners with l i t t l e or no knowledge of proper splicing
methods.
In Section 210-8; f o r ground-fault c i r c u i t protection
set at 5 plus or minus one milliampere, a 30 ampere-circuit can
d e l i v e r much higher shock current.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative~
Log # 353
3- 17 - (300-5(a), Exception No. 1): Reject
SUBMITTER: Paul Schat, Sheldon, IA
RECOV~MENDATION: The minimum cover requirements shall be permitted
to be reduced by 6 inches (152 mm) f o r installations where a
2-inch (50.8 mm) thick concrete pad or equivalent in physical
protection is placed in the trench over the underground
installation. This exception shall not apply to rigid metal
conduit or intermediate metal conduit.
SUBSTANTIATION: I believe these words should be added to
Exception No. I because, i f the minimum cover requirements are
allowed to be reduced 6 inches with adequate physical protection,
rigid metal conduit and intermediate metal conduit could be
installed at grade level, and being exposed to physical damage.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel believes that the conduit is not exposed
to physica| damage. The 2-inch thick concrete pad or equivalent
is s t i l l required.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Lawry.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: I t is unlikely that Exception No. i would ever be
applied to rigid metal or intermediate metal conduit because i f a
2-inch thick concrete pad was applied and the burial depth reduced
6 inches, we would end up with the conduit and 2-inch pad both on
top of the ground. Depending upon location and use of the area, I
do not believe that 2 inches of concrete necessarily provides
sufficient protection. This is supported by Exception No. 2 which
requires a 4-inch concrete pad in order to not apply the minimum
burial depth. In fact, when considering rigid metal or
intermediate conduit, I believe Exception Nos. 1 and 2 are in
conflict. I would recommend either accepting this proposal or
restricting i t s application to direct burial cables.
Log # 1291
3- 21 - (300-5, Exception No. 4): Accept
SUBMITTER: IAEI
~ T I O N :
Delete Exception No. 4 of Section 300-5.
SUBSTANTIATION: When t h i s exception was added to the NEC, A r t i c l e
680 did not allow the use of d i r e c t burial cables. At the present
time, we feel that a depth of 24 inches is an important f a c t o r to
be considered by the NEC.
Field experience has proven with only 12 inches of cover, many
cables have been dug i n t o . Most all of t h i s wiring is in lawn and
flower or shrub areas where l a t e r planting occurring requires
holes more than 12 inches in depth. Cables have been cut, then
improperly spliced, r e s u l t i n g in voltage leaks with current high
enough f o r shock or e l e c t r o c u t i o n .
Very seldom is inspection
requested on these splices and most times .they are done by owners
with l i t t l e or no knowledge of proper spllclng methods.
In 210-8,
f o r ground f a u l t c i r c u i t protection set at 5 plus or minus one
milliamperes, a 30 ampere c i r c u i t can d e l i v e r much higher shock
current.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 355
3- 22 - (300-5, Exception No. 4): Reject
SUBMITTER: Jon Kulp, Sheldon, IA
RECO~ATION:
Increase the cover requirements f o r unprotected
cable to 18 inches. Conductors run in conduit or other approved
means may s t i l l be buried at 12 inches.
SUBSTANTIATION: Although the branch c i r c u i t is limited to 300
v o l t s and 30 amperes f o r t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , I do not feel this
provides adequate protection to personnel when the conductors are
only 12 inches below grade. By increasing>the cover to 18 inches
this w i l l prevent damage to the cable and possible shock hazard by
homeowners or contractors not aware of the buried cable and
digging in the v i c i n i t y .
PANEL ACTION: RejeCt.
PANEL COMM~ZNT: See Panel Action on Proposals 3-19, 3-20 and 3-21.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i r m a t i v e .
Log # 350
3- 18 - (300-5(a), Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMI~ER: J e f f Nielsen, Sheldon, IA
RECO~ENDATION: The minimum cover requirements in Exception No. I
shall not apply to any conduits or other raceways buried
underground. Conduits or other raceways located under a b u i l d i n g
or extending beyond the building a concrete slab not less than
4 inches (102 mm) in thickness and extending not less than 6
inches (152 mm) beyond the underground i n s t a l l a t i o n .
• Log # 1464
3- 23 - (300-5(b)): Accept in P r i n c i p l e
SUBMITTER: William P. Hogan, Chicago, IL
~DATION:
Amend Section 300-5(b) so as to read as follows:
"(b) Grounding. All underground i n s t a l l a t i o n s shall be grounded
and bonded as is required and prescribed in A r t i c l e 250 of t h i s
Code."
107
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 250-51, which is presently referenced in
~ectlon ~ - b ( b ) , contains no specific requirements for
underground metal-encased wiring systems. Article 250 contains
all the requirements for grounding and bonding wiring systems of
all types under all circumstances. The proposed wording would
direct the users of the Code to the place where they can find the
information that they require.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Change "as is required and prescribed in" to "in accordance
with."
PANEL COMMENT: Pane] feels the revised wording is better Code
language.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1195
3- 26 - (300-5(d)):
Reject
SUBMITTER: Olaf G. Ferm, Ferm's Fast Finder Index
RECOMMENI)ATION: Changethe f i r s t sentence to read:
Conductors emerging from the ground shall be protected by
enclosures or raceways extending from a minimum of 18 inches below
grade to a point 8 feet or more above finished grade.
SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording does not give a below-grade
measurement and appears to lock you in at exactly 8 feet above
grade. By not protecting direct burial conductors at least 18
inches below grade where they emerge from the earth, offers a
potential hazard in many cases. The Code does make reference to
18 inches below finished grade for mechanical protection of,
conductors in Section 551-51(b). This same concept should apply
to all underground installations, and be covered in wiring methods
and materials Section 300-5(d) underground installations.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COF%MENT: Table 300-5 already requires mechanical ~rotection
to a level of 24 inches when below grade.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Lawry.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: The Panel Comment is questionable. In my opinlon, Table
300-5 does not clearly require mechanicaI protection to a level of
24-inches below grade. The 24-inch burial depth clearly applies
to the horizontal portion of the underground run. I t is not clear
that i t applies to the vertical portion where the cables leave the
ground. Table 300-5 applies to minimum cover requirements. Note
that cover is defined as the distance between the top surface of
direct buried cables and the finished grade. What is the top
surface of a vertically rising cable? I believe that the proposal
to extend the mechanical protection down 18 inches is logical and
would c l a r i f y the Code.
Log # 1885
3- 24 - (300-5(d)): Reject
SUBMII-TER: Dave Thrasher, Daverman Associates, Inc.
~ T I O N :
Change 8 feet (2.44 m) to 10 feet (3.05 m).
SUBSTANTIATION: The above change would then coordinate with
Sections 230-49, 230-50(b), and 225-18.
There are presently two conflicts:
i . Overhead services must be 10 feet in the air Sections 230-24
and 225-18; underground need protection only to 8 feet 300-5(d).
2. Services underground need protection Section 300-5(d) up to
8 feet above grade. All other underground feeders require 10 feet
Section 230-50(b).
PANEL ACTION: Reject
PANEL COMMENT: The rationale for substantiation refers to
overhead services and does not appear to be a conflict. Section
225-18 applies to vertical clearances above the ground and not to
protection requirements of vertical risers.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 5
NEGATIVE: Lawry, Wood.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: I agree that Section 225-18 applies to vertical
clearances above the ground and presents no conflict with the
protection requirements of Section 300-5(d). There does appear to
be a conflict, however, with Section 230-50(b) which requires
service-entrance conductors consisting of individual open
conductors and cables other than S.E. cables to be at least 10
feet above grade. The distance specified in Section 230-50(b) was
increased from 8 feet to 10 feet in the 1978 NEC to agree with the
National Electrical Safety Code. I t seems logical to also
increase the distance specified in Section 300-5(d) to 10 feet.
Conflicts in the Code, apparent or real, generate critic!sm of the
Code process. Accepting this proposal would eliminate this source
of criticism.
WOOD: This appears to be a good recommendation and can only add
to safety.
Log # 1260
3- 27 - (300-5(d)): Accept
SUBMITTER: IAEI
RIE'COI;~'I~I]ATION: Rewrite last paragraph of Section 300-5(d) to
read:
Where the enclosure or raceway is subject to physical damage the
conductors shall be installed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate
metal conduit, Schedule 80 rigid nonmetallic conduit or equivalent,
SUBSTANTIATION: As now written, this section is interpreted both
ways, such as some require rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal
conduit, Schedule 80 rigid nonmetallic conduit, or equivalent in
all such installations since all conductors emerging from the
ground are subject to physical damage. Others only require these
types of raceways where the raceways are subject to physical
damage such as in parking lots, etc. This will c l a r i f y that the
last paragraph is addressing physical damage to the enclosure and
raceway and not the conductors which are presently addressed in
the f i r s t two paragraphs.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1465
3- 25 - (300-5(d)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Lee Witz, Continental Electric Co.
~ g a n ,
Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch, Inc.
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
RECOMMENDATION: AmendSection 300-5(d) by deleting therefrom the
words, "8 feet" and further amend i t by inserting in lieu thereof
the words, "10 feet."
SUBSTANTIATION: There is an obvious contradiction between this
section and Section 230-50(b) where they both could be referring
to the same conductors. We don't know where the "8 feet" came
from, but "10 feet" seems to be more widely accepted by other
codes and standards and therefore we suggest that the
contradiction be eliminated by the insertion of "10 feet."
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The rationale for substantiation refers to
overhead services and does not appear to be a conflict. Section
230-5(b) applies to vertical clearances above the ground and not
to protection requirements of vertical risers.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 5
NEGATIVE: Lawry, Wood.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: See comment for Proposal 3-24.
WOOD: This appears to be a good recommendation and can only add
to safety.
Log # 277
3- 28 - (300-5(g)): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be reported as "Reject" because less
than two-thirds of the members eligible to vote have voted in the
affirmative.
SUBMITTER: W. Creighton Schwan, Hayward, CA
~TION:
Replace present text with the following:
Raceway Seals. Conduits or raceways shall be sealed or plugged
at either or both ends to minimize the entrance of moisture or
ases.
UBSTANTIATION: The Code concern for underground gas entering a
building through conduit goes back at least 60 years, but
disappeared (for 600 V or less) in the 1975 Code, as a result of
the recommendations of the Technical Subcommittee on Underground
Installations. (Gas is s t i l l mentioned in Section 710-3(b)(4) for
high-voltage installations).
With increasing quantities of waste materials being deposited as
land f i l l (due to environmental restrictions on burning) and the
scarcity of land leading to increasing use of f i l l e d land as
building sites, methane gas produced by decomposing material under
buildings isgoing to find its way into these buildings. The
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE should require that the entry not be
aided by electrical raceways.
There are of course other possible sources of gas underground,
especially in urban areas, and the long-standing Code concern for
sealing conduits against the entrance of such gases should be
reinstated. •
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 4
NEGATIVE: Adelman, Mottern, Whittington.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
ADELMAN: The proposal, as stated, would only minimize the
entrance of moisture, or gases, into conduits or raceways. This
would not prevent the entrance of gases, or moisture, into the
system completely. As proposed, this change would be no
improvement over the present text of Section 300-5(g).
~
108
Log # 1616
3- 31 - (300-11): Reject
SUBMITTER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
RECOMMENDATION: Add new second paragraph:
No other equipment shall be permitted to be supported by
raceways.
SUBSTANTIATION: Manytimes telephone and communications cables
are secured to electric raceway and are not protected from sharp
or raw edges of pipe ends and building steel. Somemajor
installations have the raceway completely encircled with telephone
cables, reducing the heat dissipation and affecting the load
current carrying capability of the electric conductors.
In time of f i r e involvement, the extra heat generated from the
burning or melting cable jackets intensify the damage to the
raceway enclosed conductors. I recently helped investigate a fire
in an equipment room of a high rise office buildlng where the f i r e
was of non-electrical origin. The 3-1/2 inch rigid aluminum
conduits passing through and into this area were exposed to the
f i r e heat. One raceway was surrounded by 15 or more large
multiconductor telephone cables strapped to i t , with the other
raceways clear of cables. The electric conductors within the
raceway encircled by the telephone conductors wore checked by a
megger and found to have a poor insulation reading. Upon renw)val
of these conductors, i t was found the insulation had been
overheated and distorted with the conductors showing through the
insulation. The other raceway not so encircled by telephone
cables were also checked and found to be free from heat
degradation. In 1981 NEC Section 384-2 requires space or areas
free from foreign systems and i t should be that our electrical
raceway also be free from being a support for other systems or
objects.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Other sections of the Code such as Sections 370-13
and 410-16(f) presently permit other equipment to be supported by
raceways.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 5
NEGATIVE: Lawry, Wood.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: I agree with the intent of the submitter to prohibit
equipment not related to the raceway from being supported by i t .
Both sections referred to in the Panel Comment deal with equipment
that is associated with the raceway system. Furthermore, Section
370-13 only permits certain threaded boxes to be supported by the
raceway. The equipment specifically permitted to be supported by
a raceway is very limited. Possibly the proposal could be
reworded as follows: "Raceways shall not be used as a means of
support for other equipment or cables. Exception: As
specifically permitted elsewhere in this Code."
WOOD: The submitter's substantiation is valid. This would
prevent the support of other mechanical systems from electrical
raceways.
MOI-FERN: This proposal requires that essentially ALL
underground conduits or raceways be sealed even i f no gas is
present or moisture presents no problem. The present requirement
of sealing only those which would permit moisture to come into
contact with live parts has been greatly expanded to include all
installations including those with waterproof cables. The
substantiation does not include any j u s t i f i c a t i o n for these
expanded sealing requirements against moisture. I t is not
necessary to seal underground raceways against moisture when
moisture presents no problem.
Many underground installations are not made near landfills or
other sources of gas. I t is not necessary to seal underground
raceways against gas when gas is not present.
I suggest that the present Code intent of sealing against
moisture be retained and that a similar requirement for sealing
against gas be added only for those installations where i t might
cause a problem.
WHITTINGTON: The present wording of Section 300-5(g) is
adequate to cover any sealing or plugging needs for conduits or
raceways. Plugging or sealing of a l l raceways or conduits will
create unnecessary problems of heat buildup in conductors and
rusting of components arising from elimination of circulating air.
Log # 1729
3- 29 - (300-5{i), Exception-(New)): Accept
SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc.
~ATION:
Add the following exception:
Exception: Conductors in parallel in raceways shall be
permitted but each raceway shall contain all conductors of the
seme circuit including grounding conductors.
SUBSTANTIATION: Provide an exception for parallel conductors
since this section implies that all conductors of the same circuit
shall be installed in the same raceway, some interpret that where
multiple raceways are used, for conductors in parallel, i t would
not be permitted because of Section 300-5(i).
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Lawry.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: In my opinion both problems stated in Proposals 3-29 and
3-30 could be resolved by deleting Section 300-5(i). I t appears
to me that the CMP 3 action in accepting these proposals is a
"Band-Aid" approach and has cluttered up the Code with additional
language which would not be necessary i f Section 300-5(i) was
deleted. The argument that the conductors should be in close
proximity does have some v a l i d i t y , but I do not believe deleting
(i) would result in installation method changes which would cause
serious problems. The circuit impedance question is a design
consideration anyway.
Log # 1181, 1184
3- 30 - (300-5(i), Exception and FPN-(New) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: M. F. Borleis, Electric Light & Power Group
I~'-~(~U~"ITF)ATION: Add: Exception: Isolated phase installations
are permitted in nonmetallic raceways in close proximity where
conductors are paralleled as permitted in Section 310-4 and the
conditions of Section 300-20 are met.
FPN: The effect on voltage drop should be considered.
SUBSTANTIATION: Grouped phase conductors are allowed in open
wiring (Article 320), in wireways (Article 362) and specifically
designed into cable bus (Article 365).
In the close quarters of the termination compartments of
switchboards, unit substations or transformer enclosures of large
power services the maze of crossing conductors can be avoided.
I t is true that the spacing of isolated phase conduits can
increase the impedance of the circuit and increase the voltage
drop. However, this effect can be minimized by keeping the
conduits in proximity and by limiting the length of the run.
The advantages of straight forward phase connections may be
minimal for two conductors per phase but can be quite substantial
at 8 to 10 conductors per phase for 3000 or 4000 ampere services.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Change "are" to "shall be" in the f i r s t sentence between
"installations" and "permitted."
PANEL COMMENT: The revised wording conforms to the NFPA Manual of
Style.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 5
NEGATIVE: Lawry, Wood.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: See comment f o r Proposal 3-29.
WOOD: Practice in the f i e l d has been and is, that all phases
are contained in the same raceway or enclosure. This change would
not increase the safety of an installation. No limitations are
placed on length of runs.
Log # 2023
3- 32 - (300-13{b), Title): Reject
SUBMITTER: Idaho Chapter IAEI
RECOMMENDATION: Delete "Device Removal" and replace with the
following: "Grounded Conductor (Multiwire)."
SUBSTANTIATION: This t i t l e would more clearly reflect the
condition in mind when searching for this section in the Code.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
FANbL CUF~VLEN~: The Panel believes that the term "device removal"
is more appropriate.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 365
3- 33 - (300-13(b)):
Accept
SUBMITTER: Jeremy Waldner, Sheldon, IA
RECOM~NDATION: Change "an" to "a," to read as follows.
In multiwire circuits the continuity of a grounded conductor.
shall not be dependent upon device connections, such as
l ampholders, receptacles, etc., where the removal of such devices
would interrupt the continuity.
SUBSTANTIATION: The use of "an" before "grounded" is not proper
grammar. Changing the "an" to "a" l~uld correct the grammar and
make this section easier to read, without changing the intent of
it.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VUIE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 390
3- 34 - (300-13(b)):
Reject
SUBMII-TER: R. G. DeLuca, Maricopa County, AZ
RECOMFENDATION: Device Re~val. In all branch circuits the
continuity of all conductors shall not be dependent on device
connections such as l ampholders, receptacles, switches, etc. where
removal of such a device will Interupt the continuity.
SUBSTANTIATION: See Definitions, Branch Circuit.
"The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device
protecting the circuit and the outlet(s)."
See also definition of Receptacle and Receptacle Outlets.
109
Fixtures, receptacles and switches are by their very nature and
use "Replaceable" items not part of the wiring system or circuit.
Once the building is occupied, the owner, usually lacking in
electrical knowledge, removes, replaces, exchanges, receptacles,
fixtures, and switches according to taste and appearance hardly
according to use and.conditions, codes, safety and inspectors are
now existent.
Some consideration should be given to allow easier, safer
replacement of devices and fixtures.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel believe that the existing language is
safe and the substantiation does not provide sufficient
documentation.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
I
Log # 446
3- 35 - (300-13(b)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI
ITE'L'~gTE~F~ATION: In all branch circuits, the continuity of all
conductors shall not be dependent on device connections such as
l ampholders, receptacles, switches etc., where removal of such a
device will interrupt the continuity.
SUBSTANTIATION: See DEFINITIONS, BPJ~NCHCIRCUIT.
"The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device
protecting the circuit and the outlet(s)."
See also: DEFINITION OF RECEPTACLEAND RECEPTACLE OUTLETS.
Fixtures, receptacles and switches are by their very nature and
use "replaceable" items, not part of the wiring system or circuit.
Once the building is occupied, in many cases the owner, lacking
in electrical knowledge, removes or replaces receptacles, fixtures
and switches for ascetic purposes without maintaining proper
connections of this equipment. In most cases, permits nor
inspections are required by local codes. Not only are improper
connections made, but in many instances shocks occur to person
making changes, as main circuit is not disconnected and this
person gets in series with circuit that is s t i l l in use downstream.
Some consideration should be given to allow easier, safer
replacement of devices and fixtures.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 3-34.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 480
3- 36 - (300-13(b), Exception-(New)): Reject
SUBMI1-FER: GeorgeW. Flach, New Orleans, LA
~ T I O N :
Add the following Exception under Part (b):
Exception: Where all ungrounded conductors of a multiwire
circuit are disconnected simultaneously, device connections for
grounded conductor continuity are acceptable.
SUBSTANTIATION: Neutral or grounded conductor continuity is not
necessary where all ungrounded conductors of a branch circuit must
be disconnected before repairs, replacements, etc. are performed.
The last paragraph of Section 210-4 requires simultaneous
disconnection of ungrounded conductors of multiwire branch
circuits supplying receptacles on the same yoke in dwelling
units. To require "pigtailing" of the neutral under these
conditions serves no useful purpose.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: This may result in an unsafe condition where the
device is removed while energized.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Cox.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
COX: The concept of simultaneously disconnecting all conductors
has been well established with manufactured wiring, office
furnishings, bus plugs, etc. Pigtailing does not increase the
level of safety under the conditions proposed.
SUBSTANTIATION: Too often I see on jobs where you have the
do-it-yoursel-i~er, they don't know to ream the ends. When they
pull the wires or cables into the ends of these the sheath gets
peeled back or nicked. Cables and wires resting on these sharp
edges may get cut into after a period of time due to vibrations.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Delete "In addition."
PANEL COMr4ENrF: Panel feels the words "In addition" are not
necessary.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1466
3- 39 - (300-15(b), Exception No. 5): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
~ g a n ,
Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
Leo Nagel, North Dakota
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch, Inc.
Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL
RECO~ENDATION: AmendSection 300-15(b), Exception No. 5 by
inserting the words, "with integral enclosures and" between the
words, "device" and "having."
SUBSTANTIATION: I t would seem that in the writing of this most
recent edition of this exception the Code-Making Panel
inadvertently omitted these very important words. I f i t was their
intent to omit the words, such intent was never made public. As
the exception presently stands any manufacturer can make any
device with brackets that will securely fasten the device to a
structural member of a building under construction and he may then
proceed to wire the house with nonmetallic-sheathed cable with no
boxes at a l l ! ! !
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
See Panel Action on Proposal 3-40.
PANEL COMMENT: The proposal di~ not use the phrase "identified
for the use."
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1301
3- 40 - (300-15(b), Exception No. 5): Accept
SUBMITTER: W. R. Williford, NEMA
C
RO - - A T ] O N :
Exception No. 5 ~Amend as follows:
A "wiring" device with integral enclosure "identified for the
use" having brackets that securely fasten the device to a
structural member in walls or ceilings of conventional on-site
frame construction for use with nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall
be permittedwithout a separate box.
SUBSTANTIATION: Present language implies that a conventional
switch, rece~acle or device can be used i f i t has a bracket(s)
attached to i t .
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1554
3- 41 - (300-15(b), Exception No. 5): Reject
SUBMITTER: Gopal J. Virani, Slater Electric Inc.
~DATION:
Exception No. 5 - Amend as follows:
A device with an integral enclosure which securely fastens to
walls or ceilings and is identified for the use without a separate
outlet box shall be permitted without support from a structural
member, brace or box. The testing and approval of the device
shall include the wall and ceiling construction systems for which
i t is intended to be used.
SUBSTANTIATION: Millions of these self-contained wiring devices
have been installed in mobile homes throughout the country by many
builders of mobile homes. Construction of walls and partitions in
mobile homes is identical in many respects to on-site construction
homes. These wiring devices have been installed without a bracket
securing the device to a structural member as permitted under
Section 550-8(j). We know of no case of failure in all these
installations and thus should be permitted in on-site construction
homes also. Presently also accepted by the NEC in manufacturing
homes (ref. Section 545-10) and in recreational vehicles (ref.
Section 551-14(e) Exception No. 1).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMJ~ENT: Manufactured home installations are factory
installed under controlled conditions.
The Panel does not have
sufficient documentation indicating that on-site construction will
result in equivalent safety.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Cox.
Log # 38B
3- 37 - (300-14, Exception No. 2-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Kris Nicholson, Sheldon, IA
~NDATION:
300-14, Exception No. 2 Rosettes shall have
enough conductor length to do the job.
SUBSTANTIATION: This article should be added because i t is very
hard to get 6 inches of free conductor inside the device.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: This section does not apply to rosettes.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 10
3- 38 - (300-15(b), Exception No. 4): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: B i l l J. Shanks, Bowling Green, OH
~ T I O N :
Add a second sentence to read: "In addition, a
f i t t i n g shall be provided on the end(s) of the conduit or tubing,
to protect the wires or cables from abrasion."
110
Log # 1964
3- 45 - (300-18): Reject
SUBMITTER: Richard W. Osbern, St. Louis, MO
~ATION:
Omit Section 300-18.
SUBSTANTIATION: The usefulness of this section is long past.
Improved and more efficient conductor installation methods have
lead to prewiring in prefabrication of raceway systems. This is
further indicated by the large number of listed prewired flexible
raceway systems. Current practices do not support the l i t e r a l
text of Section 300-18. This section does not recognize the
vastly improved conductor insulations of today.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Approval of the proposal could result in
incompleted installations which would create conditions exposing
conductors to physical damage. Listed prewired flexible systems
are covered by Article 604.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Lawry.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: I agree with deleting Sections 300-18(b) and (c). These
sections do not appear necessary nor are enforceable from a
practical standpoint. There may be v a l i d i t y in retaining Section
300-18(a). CMP 3 did not address (b) or (c) in its Panel Comment.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
COX: Test installations made of boxless devices mounted with
special brackets in wallboard were examined in on-site
construction.
These products were found to provide the same
degree of permanence as similar products mounted to structural
members. Only extended field experience can indicate i f this
construction will result in equivalent safety.
Log # 1934
3- 42 - (300-15, Exception No. 5): Reject
SUBMITTER: E. L. Eldridge, Thomas & Betts
ITE'-~(~-~FE-N~)ATION: AmendException No. 5 to read:
A device with an integral enclosure which fastens the device in
walls or ceilings of frameconstruction without support from a
structural member and for use with nonmetallic-sheathed cable
shall be permitted.
SUBSTANTIATION: Mobile homes, Section 550-8(j) and manufactured
homes, Section 545-10 permits the self-contained device to be used
without being connected to a structural member. This has been so
since the 1975 NEC. Millions have been installed in this manner.
UL fact-finding reports were necessary to obtain listing for this
self-contained device. The device installed in this manner does
not cause an electrical or mechanical hazard. I t should be
permitted in on-site frame construction.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 3-41.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Cox.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
COX: Test installations made of boxless devices mounted with
special brackets in wallboard were examined in on-site
construction. These products were found to provide the same
degree of permanence as similar products mounted to structural
~embers. Only extended field experience can indicate i f this
construction will result in equivalent safety.
Log # 155
3- 46 - (300-18(a), Exception No. 2-(New)): Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be correlated with Proposal 3-47.
SUBMITTER: Albert C. Niewoehner, SACHSElectric Co.
RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No. 2.
"Approved, Prewired raceway assemblies (cable assemblies)."
SUBSTANTIATION: Please refer to Articles 300, 350, 545, 604.
Article 545 and Article 604 recognize manufactured sub-assemblies
for branch circuit wiring, and since the Enforcing Authorities of
both the City of St. Louis and the County of St. Louis have
actually adopted this proposed exception, we as one of the leading
national electrical contractors believe that the Enforcing
Authority should have the Code backing that this exception would
provide.
This exception would permit the acceptance o f any manufactured
assembly consisting of UL listed components and meeting all
National, as well as local NATIONAL ZLECTRICAL CODErequirements.
As stated above, this method of wiring has been approved by the
Chief Inspectors of the City of St. Louis and the County of St.
Louis for installation in commercial buildings, as long as all
other requirements of NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODEare being met
during installation of these components. These requirements
being; use, size, support, ~rounding, number of bends, fastening,
termination etc., of assemblies.
The system of wiring presents no known safety hazards of any
type presently or in the future.
Attached for your information is a copy of the ruling by W. L.
Raines, Supervisor, Electrical Inspection Department of Public
Works of St. Louis County.
A few of the other cities permitting the use of manufactured
sub-assemblies in which Sachs Electric Company has made
installations are as follows:
Houston, Texas
Flagstaff, Arizona
Phoenix, Arizona
Alton, I l l i n o i s
Overland Park, Kansas
Kansas C~ty, Missouri
Independence, Missouri
MoberIy, Missouri
Please transmit your feelings on this matter at your earliest
possible convenience.
(Note: Copy of attachment available from NFPA upon request.)
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Delete: "Approved."
PANEL COM#4ENT: The Panel believes that manufactured assemblies
should be permitted. Use of the word approved is inappropriate.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 168
3- 43 - (300-15(b), Exception No. 7-(New)): Accept in Principle
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that the Panel Action using the word "when" is in
conflict with the NEC Style Manual, Section C2.
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Add exception as follows:
Exception No. 7. A conduit body shall be permitted in lieu of a
box where installed to comply with Section 370-6(c) and Section
370-18.
SUBSTANTIATION: There appears to be no valid reason to generally
restrict Junction points of cable and raceway systems to boxes
only. Paragraph (a) permits a f i t t i n g (conduit body) to be used
- at a junction point between various raceway systems (e.g.,
flexible metallic conduit to flexible metallic conduit, flexible
conduit to E.M.T., f l e x i b l e conduit to rigid metal conduit,
flexible conduit to nonmetallic conduit, etc.). In these cases
the conduit body will require support other than the raceway
system (straps at hubs, bolts, screws), as Section 370-13 permits
"support" only by two or more threaded conduits. Section
370-18(a)(2) exception implies that cables may be used with
conduit bodies and this proposal will correlate the wording of
these two sections.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
J
Changethe word "where" to "when."
PANEL CO~ENT: The Panel believes that the term "when" is more
technically correct.
VOTE O~ PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
COMMENTON VOTE:
COX: Support acceptance; however I believe event is place
related and not time related. Therefore "where" would be the
correct word.
Log # 1357
3- 44 - (300-15(b), Exception No. X-(New)): Reject
SUBMII-FER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA
~ T I O N :
Add new exception:
300-15(b) Exception X. As permitted by Section 336-6(a) and
(b) for dwelling unit basements.
SUBSTANTIATION: This would recognize a common practice of
installing an NM or NMC cable in a short section of raceway down a
basement wall to a receptacle as required by Section 210-52(f), or
for switch legs for basement lighting circuits. The Code makes
mandatory these basement receptacles, then leaves the inspector
and installer with an out-of-date requirement for a transition
Junction box because you are changing wiring methods. I t is
d i f f i c u l t to enforce this requirment and many inspectors ignore
the junction box requirement since most NM and NMC cables use a
60°C (TW) type of insulation which is in i t s e l f suitable when
installed as a single conductor in a raceway.
(This would coordinate with the proposal to permit the
installation of NM and NMC cable to be installed in short sections
of raceway in dwelling unit basements.)
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that the present wording of the
Code permits the practice cited in the substantiation.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 182
3- 47 - (300-18(a), Exception No. 2-(New)): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be correlated with Proposal 3-46.
SUBMITTER: Donald J. Meadows, I.B.E.W. Local One
RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception. Numberexisting Exception
No. 1. Add an Exception No. 2. Prefabricated flexible raceways
shall be permitted to contain conductors prior to installation in
place.
SUBSTANTIATION: This has been an industry practice for many years
and has been amplified by the marketing of listed flexible raceway
assemblies. Certain construction procedures lend i t s e l f to
prefabricated assemblies being installed in place before
structural members are in place. After structural supports are in
place, the assemblies are lowered and fastened on the supports.
Application of the existing l i t e r a l text causes field problems and
unusual hardships.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANEL COW,lENT: Add as Exception No. 2.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
111
i
I
Log # 1302
3- 48 - (300-18(a), Exception No. 2-(New)): Accept
SUBMITTER: W. R. Williford, NEMA
ECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No. 2 as follows:
Exception No. 2: Within 10 feet of a raceway termination.
SUBSTANTIATION: At motor and appliance terminal boxes,
particularly where raceway connections are made with angle
connectors, i t has been common practice to push conductors through
the last section of raceway and f i t t i n g s before final assembly.
This eliminates the necessity of conductor pulls across tight
angles and reduces the potential for insulation damage.
This proposal recognizes an installation practice that enhances
safety.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.
PANELCOIV~MENT: Add as Exception No. 3.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Cox.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
COX: Assembling the raceway and f i t t i n g s over the conductors
increases the p r o b a b i l i t y of insulation damage. To permit
disassembly of raceway systems to i0 f e e t unnecessarily increases
the r i s k of damage and is not supported by the substantiation.
If
the proposal were limited to disassembly of the raceway connection
at the terminal box, I could support the proposal.
This Committee shall consist of a Correlating Committee and
Code-Making Panels. I t shall have primary responsibility for
preparing documents on minimizing the risk of e l e c t r i c i t y as a
source of electric shock and as a potential ignition source of
fires and explosions. I t shall also be responsible for text to
minimize the propagation of f i r e and explosions due to electrical
installations.
-Removal of this phrase from the NEC does not mean that NFPA is
ignoring the very important subject of the spread of products of
combustion. The NFPACommittee on Air Conditioning has been
assigned responsibility for the subject of combustibles in plenums
and i t must seek the cooperation of the Committees on Fire Tests,
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, and Safety to Life. The subject of
combustibles in concealed spaces has been assigned to the NFPA
Building Construction Project. In addition, the NFPA Building
Construction Project has been assigned the subject of mechanical
smoke control systems. Further, the NFPAStandards Council ha~
appointed a Subcommittee to study the subject of the t o x i c i t y of
the products of combustion from combustible materials.
Correlating Proposals submitted for Sections 725-2(a), 760-4(a),
800-3(c), and 820-14.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: Since the subject is under study by another NFPA
ad hoc committee, the Panel believes that i t is appropriate to
leave this term in the section.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 272
3- 49 - (300-19(a), FPN-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA
~ T I O N :
Add a fine print note as follows:
For the purpose of this section a vertical raceway shall be
defined as a raceway installed at an angle more than 45 degrees
from the horizontal plane.
SUBSTANTIATION: Small offsets or bends in vertical runs of
raceways are not "vertical" in the strictest sense and can divide
the vertical portions into lengths which may not require conductor
support, even though such bends would not contribute substantial
support or f r i c t i o n conditions to the conductors. On the other
hand, raceway bends with a substantial angle from the horizontal
can increase f r i c t i o n and provide some conductor support. This
proposal attempts to suggest a guide as to how and what degree the
conductor support requirements may be modified.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: No documentation in the substantiation to warrant
the 45 degree angle, and no specific problems are indicated.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1182
3- 52 - (300-21): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on
Air Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTER: M. F. Borleis, Electric Light & Power Group
RECOMMENDATION: Delete "Products of Combustion" and revise to
read:
300-21. Spread of Fire (or Products of Combustion). Electrical
installations in hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and ventilation
or air-handling ducts shall be so made that the possible spread oZ
f i r e (or products of combustion) will not be substantially
increased. Openings around electrical penetrations through f i r e
resistance rated walls, partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be
firestopped using approved methods.
SUBSTANTIATION: In the 1981-82 NFPAYearbook and Committee l i s t
(page 101) the Scope of the National Electrical Code Committee
states:
SCOPE: This Committee shall consist of a Correlating Committee
and Code-Making Panels. I t shall have primary responsibility for
preparing documents on minimizing the risk of e l e c t r i c i t y as a
source of electric shock and as a potential ignition source of
fires and explosions. I t shall also be responsible for text to
minimize the propagation of f i r e and explosions due to electrical
installations.
On Page 59 of the same document, the Scope of the Air
Conditioning Committee states:
SCOPE: The construction, installation, operation and
maintenance of systems for air conditioning, warm air heating and
ventilating includirl f i l t e r s , ducts and related equipment to
protect l i f e and pruperty from f i r e , smoke and gases resulting
from f i r e or from conditions having manifestations similar to f i r e .
Section 300-21 is and should be primarily concerned with
limiting the migration or movement of f i r e through f i r e barriers
or in environmental air spaces due to the installation of
electrical systems with improper materials or improper methods.
However, since the introduction of "products of combustion," the
concern has been directed to those possible products of combustion
generated by electrical systems subjected to fires "external" to
the electrical system. The prime concern, i f we must be concerned
about products of combustion, should be those generated by
building components and contents subjected to fires possibly
caused by overcurrents or short circuits "internal" to the
electrical system.
Since we have l i t t l e or no control over the building components
and contents, our prime concern is that the electrical system not
be an ignition source or a means of migration.
Of the one million or so building fires estimated to occur
annually, approximately 15 percent are attributed to electrical
causes. Of the fires of electrical origin, approximately 10
percent are attributed to wires and cables.
The data submitted to the Technical Subcommittee on Wiring in
Ducts and Plenums reflects an a b i l i t y to control f i r e spread in
nonmetallic-sheathed cables.
All of the above indicates that wires and cables, that portion
of the electrical system that is permitted to be installed in
ducts or plenums, is seldom the ignition source for building fires
and less frequently are they the fuel for f i r e migration.
As stated in the scopes of the technical committees responsible
for the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) and Air Conditioning
and Ventilating Systems (NFPA90A) and Residence Type Warm Air
Heating and Air Conditionin~ Systems (NFPA 90B), the
responsibility to protect l i f e and property from smoke and gases
resulting from f i r e lies with the Air Conditioning Committee, not
with the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COPB~ENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 3-51.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 931
3- 50 - (300-20(b)(FPN)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Gerald Pool, William S. Watkins & Associates
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following sentence to the fine print note
.at the end of Section 300-20(b).
When rigid nonmetallic conduit is used the grouping of
conductors or special treatment of the conductors or conduit will
not be required because neither hysteresis nor induced currents
occur.
SUBSTANTIATION: This note will clarify the section by explaining
why neither aluminum nor rigid nonmetallic conduit require special
treatment.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: This is not appropriate to this section since
Section 300-20 applies to metal enclosures and metal raceways.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1380
3- 51 - (300-21): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on
Air Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTER: RichardDel.eteBOyd,B. J r . , Raleigh, NC
~MENDATION:
"or products of combustion" in heading and
f i r s t sentence.
SUBSTANTIATION: Spread of products of combustion is outside the
Scope of the National Electrical Cbde Committee as established by
the NFPAStandards Council. This Scope, approved after the 1981
Code was processed, is as follows:
112
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel believes that the NEC should not
r~en-n~e-a specific laboratory standard. The,section in which
the proposal is to be inserted is not indicated. There is no
supporting data that the proposal criteria is valid.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 838
3- 53 - (300-21): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on
Air Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTER: Robert E. Taylor, Smoke Control Association
RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 300-21 to read:
300-21 Prevention of Spread of Fire or Smoke. Electrical
installations shall be made to prevent the spread of f i r e or smoke
through fire-rated, fire-resistant, fire-stopped walls,
partitions, ceiling and floors; hollow spaces; plenums, vertical
shafts and ventilating or air handling ducts and enviromental air
handling spaces.
SUBSTANTIATION: To make Code interpretation more precise and
accurate, an accepted "scientific" definition of smoke should be
used in Section 300-21 in place of the nondefinable term "Products
of Combustion." The accepted ASTM definition for smoke has been
recommended to Panel 1 for inclusion in the definitions.
The ASTM definition f o r SMOKE(n) - the airborne solid and
liquid particulates and gases evolved when a material undergoes
pyrolosis or combustion.
The proposed change also eliminates the term "will not be
substantially increased" which l i t e r a l l y is a nonenforceable
phrase for the authority having jurisdiction. Instead the
proposed revision simply says, "made to prevent the spread of f i r e
or smoke..." which is a phrase that can be accomplished by the
installer and enforced by the authority having jurisdiction.
Environmental air spaces has been added since smoke movement
through such spaces by fires originating in the environmental
space or outside the space may move rapidly through the space to
cause serious l i f e safety hazards and make f i r e fighting extremely
difficult.
A member of the Smoke Control Association will be pleased to
appear before the Panel to discuss this proposed change in greater
depth at the Panel's request.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 3-51. The Panel
supports the concept of the submitter, but believes that the
present Code is acceptable with the present technology.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 463
3- 57 - (300-22(a), Exception-(New)): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on
Air Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTER: Leo F. Hnyda, Eastman Kodak Co.
R-'~-(~OMMENDATION: Add Exception: Equipment and associated wiring
approved as i n t r i n s i c a l l y safe may be installed in these areas.
SUBSTANTIATION: Since i n t r i n s i c a l l y safe equipment and wiring is
not capable of releasing sufficient electrical or thermal energy
under normal or abnormal conditions to cause ignition of flammable
or combustible atmospheric mixtures, i t should be accepted as a
means for monitoring or control of these materials within the duct
systems.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The submitter has not provided adequate
documentation to support the proposal. Furthermore, sensors would
be permitted to be inserted into the duct.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: UnanimouslyAffirmative.
Log # 1298
3- 58 - (300-22(b)):
Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on
Air Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTER: Doug Pendergras, NFPA Health Care Section Executive
Board
RECOMMENDATION: Revise f i r s t sentence to read as follows:
"Only wiring methods consisting of low-smoke, flame-resistant
plastic sheathed cable specifically listed for use,
mineral-insulated, metal-sheathed cable, Type MC..." (rest of
sentence to remain the same).
SUBSTANTIATION: Widespread abuse of this requirement for metal
sheathed or conduit encased wiring for communication systems now
exists. The advent of the new product (low-smoke,
flame-resistant, plastic-sheathed cable), and indication by
communication organizations that they view the use of same with
favor, would be a major move towards correcting this troublesome
condition in all building categories.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that the substantiation does not
provide documentation to support the proposal. Perhaps the
submitter intended this proposal for Section 300-22(c). There is
no definition in the present Code to define flame-resistant.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1791
3- 54 - (300-21): Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: Leo F. Martin, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI
ITE'CI]I~PL'I~DATION: Change the last sentence to read as follows:
"shall be firestopped using listed devices or materials, such as
concrete, to maintain the fire-resistance rating."
SUBSTANTIATION: Poke-through wiring is being installed in a
manner that contributes to the spread of f i r e and products of
combustion.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part.
Add "to maintain the fire-resistance rating" to the present
second sentence.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel believes that there are suitable
materials such as concrete and gypsum which are not specifically
listed for f i r e stopping.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1400
3- 59 - (300-22(b)):
Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPACommittee on
Air Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTER: C. W. Beile, Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the f i r s t sentence as follows:
Only noncombustible wiring methods, consisting of
mineral-insulated . . . (balance of paragraph remains the same).
SUBSTANTIATION: The installation of unprotected combustible
materials capable of producing smoke or gases that may spread
throughout a structure and inhibit the safe e x i t from burning
buildings should be prohibited. I t is recommended that a more
inclusive and consistent term be used.
Please note definition of "noncombustible" submitted as proposal
to 1984 NEC, Article 100. This definition is consistent with NFPA
90-A, which will be correlated with NFPA 70 with regard to Ducts
and Plenums as directed by the Standards Council actions.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: No definition of combustible in the present Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Lawry.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: Although I have reservations about including the word
"noncombustible" in this section at this time, I believe other
revisions are clearly in order. I would recommend deleting
flexible metal conduit and certainly liquidtight flexible metal
conduit, and adding flexible metal tubing as a recognized wiring
method. With flexible metal tubing and proper connectors now
available, there:appears to be no logical reason to continue
recognizing flexible metal conduit or liquidtight in this
application. Also, i f the revisions I have suggested were
adopted, there should be no reason to add the word
"noncombustible."
Log # 257
3- 55 - (300-21): Accept in Principle
SUBMII-FER: C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN
RECOMMENDATION: Add: Such firestops shall be so designed so as
not to decrease the ampacity of the cable or the overcurrent
protection must be reduced and the protective device, load panel
labeled against oversizing.
SUBSTANTIATION: Because the firestops are thermal barriers, a
c i r c u i t ' s heat due to cable losses could not be dissipated from
within the firestop.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Add as a Fine Print Note.
Revise to read as follows: "Firestops may require decreasing
the allowable load on the conductors."
PANEL COMMENT: Panel feels that enforcement would be impossible
and is a design consideration.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1604
3- 56 - (300-22): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on
Air Conditioning for comment.
SUBMII-TER: William A. Schmidt, Veterans Administration
RECOMMENDATION: Cables shall be tested in accordance with UL 910
and shall have an optical density peak of .5 based on a 20 minute
f i r e test, and a flame spread rating equivalent of 25 without
continuing progressive combustion.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is an attempt to c l a r i f y requirements for
wiring in ceiling and plenum areas.
113'
The second error is the attempt by the people, who spew forth
this falacious claptrap, to hide the fact that we, who are
responsible for formulating the National Electrical Code, have one
prime responsibility, the safety of the people. We are completely
and solely responsible for the electrical installation. We and
only we must bear the responsibility for what is in the NEC. We
are not in any, shape or form responsible for the furnishings nor
the buildin~ finishes. Regardless of what others may introduce
into the building, we are s t i l l responsible for those things that
we permit or require in the electrical installation. We can never
loose sight of the prime purpose of the NEC, " . . . t h e practical
safeguarding of persons and property from the hazards arising from
the use of e l e c t r i c i t y . "
For many years a great number of knowledgeable and highly
respected people in the scientific world have been aware of the
fact that the use of certain materials and wiring methods, which
by the very nature of their chemical composition, are certain to
add significantly to the toxic gases and harmful chemicals in any
f i r e situation. I t has been and s t i l l is their contention that
the use of these materials should be curtailed or prohibited. We
can no longer afford the luxury of sitting back waiting for
someone else to take the f i r s t step. We cannot hide behind a
disclaimer saying we know nothing about t o x i c i t y . I f we don't
know, i t is because we haven't taken the time to read what is
available on the subject or listen to what is being said from
every direction. The numbers of people being killed in recent
fires is staggering. The ratio of f i r e deaths to f i r e damage is
astounding. I t is completely out of line with historical f i r e
data. The number of people died 20 stories away from the closest
flame in the MGM is unforgiveable.
The number of people who died
in that building after the f i r e was out, but while the hallways
and stairwells were f u l l of toxic gases and smoke will never be
known, but the fact that many did is additional reason for us to
act. We cannot wait until other standards-writing bodies take the
lead. We cannot wait until slow moving committees bring in the
BODY COUNTS!
We can no longer ignore the warnings that have been made public
in the form of test results from widely diwergent groups,
government, industry, scholastic and testing f a c i l i t i e s . Here is
what just a few highly regarded scientists have to say about this
matter:
A report compiled by the Uniformed Firefighters Association in
1980 five years after the telephone company f i r e shows that of the
194 firefighters who received medical treatment at the time of the
f i r e 71 reported permanent respiratory ailments. The unprotected
cables that burned in that f i r e produced "billowing clouds of
hydrogen chloride smoke." (American Lung Association Bulletin,
Log # 1467
3- 60 - (300-22(b)):
Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on
Air Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTERS: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
Bill Hogan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, I I
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co.
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: AmendSection 300-22(b) to read as follows:
"(b}. Ducts or Plenums Used for Environmental Air. Only
noncombustible wiring methods shall be permitted to be installed
in ducts or plenums used for environmental air. Flexible metal
conduit shall be permitted in lengths not to exceed (4) four feet
to connect physically adjustable equipment and devices permitted
to be installed in ducts or plenums. The connectors used with
such flexible metal conduit shall effectively close all openings
at the connections. Electrical equipment and devices shall be
permitted to be installed within such ducts or plenums only i f
necessary for their direct action on or sensing of the contained
air. When i t is necessary to install illumination inside of such
duct or plenums, completely enclosed and gasketed fixtures shall
be utilized."
SUBSTANTIATION: Electrical equipment or devices have no business
being installed in air-handling ducts or plenums unless their
presence is absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of the
air-handling system: The prime purpose of the NEC is the
practical safeguarding of persons and property from any and all
electrical hazards. The air that is being moved thru the ducts
and plenums referred to in this section of the Code moves from one
occupied space to another. Electrical equipment, which when i t
f a l l s , emits toxic fumes or gases or products of combustion should
not be permitted to be installed in such locations. While this
proposal does not itemize the wiring methods contained in the
present Section 300-22(b), the only one that has been eliminated
is liquidtight flexible nonmetallic conduit. In view of what has
been said concerning toxic gases, fumes and products of
combustion, you can see why we have deleted that from this
proposal. Limiting wiring methods will make i t easier in the
future for the Panel to decide upon proposals for other wiring
methods in such areas. I f they are combustible, the Panel will
have no trouble rejecting them.
I t is rather obvious that this was the intention of CF~ 6 in
1953 so this proposal is not as drastic as i t might appear at
f i r s t reading.
Additional substantiation for proposals made by William P. Hogan
et. al. on Sections: 110-3(a)(8), 230-43, 300-22(b), 300-22(c),
338-2, 338-3, 340-5, 344-2, 347-2, 351-2, 352-21 and 370-23.
I t should be obvious that the thrust of all these proposals is
the limitation or actual elimination of the use of those
MATERIALS, which when exposed either to the environment,
temperatures in excess of their ratings, whether from normal or
abnormal causes, or flame emit toxic gases, fumes or harmful
chemicals. For years the electrical industry has not only
permitted but also has encouraged the use of materials that f a l l
into this category. These materials do emit toxic gases and do
result in harmful chemicals when exposed to the varying
atmospheres experienced in everyday living. For instance, i t is
not an uncommon phenomenon to observe hydrochloric acid dripping
out of a rigid steel conduit in which PVC conductors have been
exposed to temperatures higher than their ratings or flame and
water has been used to control the source of that heat or flame,
There are documented experiences of this reaction where the acid
was eating through the switch enclosure. When the inspector
attempted to catch the acid in a t i n can so that he could have i t
analyzed, i t ate right thru the can. What is startling about this
phenomenon is the fact that we are told that the plastic people
have known about i t for years and have never f e l t that this
information should be publicized because the incidence would be so
rare that i t was not worth alerting the electrical industry. In
spite of their lack of concern many people in the industry and out
of i t are aware of this possibility and the other ramifications of
the decomposition of PVC and are deeply concerned.
We are told over and over again that the amount of plastics and
polyvinyl chlorides that are introduced in any building by the
electrical installation is infinitesimal when compared with the
total of all the other furnishings and building finishes. There
are two errors in such statements. The f i r s t is corrected by the
reports printed in Modern Plastics based upon the monthly
Sales/Production report issued by SPI's Committee on Resin
Statistics. According to their figures, published in January of
1981 there were 3,581,000 tons of resins converted into building
materials in 1979. Of that 1,114,000 tons were PVC Conduit. Is
that to be considered infinitesimal? The figures for 1980 are
just as revealing; 3,078,000 tons total, 938,000 tons in PVC
Conduit. In addition to that there were 841,000 tons of resins
converted into electrical/electronic plastics in 1979 of which
195,000 tons were PVC. Likewise, in 1980 out of a total of
736,000 tons, there were 177,000 tons of PVC. These are NOT
infinitesimal fractions!
(81)).
"Large amounts of hydrogen chloride gas (HCL) are released by
either HEATING or BURNINGPVC".*
"In the case of a rapid electrical overload in PVC insulated
wire, smoke which is usually the f i r s t indication of f i r e , is only
noticeable AFTER significant quantities of HCL have been
released." *
"Calculations show that for 100 pounds of PVC pyrolyzed
(chemically decomposed by heat) in an apartment 8 feet X 25 feet X
50 feet (10,000 cubic feet) a concentration of HCL as high as
57,385 ppm could be reached, about 57 times the concentration that
will cause lung edema on very short exposure." *
Referring to the MGMf i r e deaths the Clark County
Coroner-Medical Examiner reports, "The fact that the concentration
of carboxyhemoglobin in must of the victims was not high enough to
have caused death indicates that other toxic gases or smoke
particles MUST also have been involved." * (carboxyhemoglobin is
the result of carbon monoxide in the blood).
• A Literature Study of the Combustion Hazards of PVC and ABS.
Judith E. Hall and Eric L. Tolefson, University of Calgary.
In a discussion concerning the Beverly Hills Supper Club Fire,
Deborah Wallace, who is a Toxicologist and the President of Public
Interest Scientific Consulting Service states the following about
the causes of death at that f i r e , " - - - , the carboxyhemoglobin
levels found during the autopsies showed that all assayed victims
but one had concentrations well below lethal levels. Manywere as
low as 10%." Yet they all died of something that they inhaled.
There was a tremendous amount of PVC in that building!
Jay A. Young, Ph.D., a Chemical Consultant has this to say,
"Structural disintegration of PVC Conduit in a f i r e situation.
Such disintegration allows the release of hydrogen chloride or
phosgene, or both, formed from the decomposition of PVC insulation
on the wiring inside, the conduit and confined inside the conduit
until the conduit disintegrates, u "The thermal decomposition of
PVC has been observed at temperatures below 100 degrees C,
although most studies show that the evolution of HCL in
significant amounts requires temperatures of about
200-300 degrees C.
That is, long before the PVC has reached the temperature at
which i t will burn, well in advance of the time when any
combustible structural components near PVC conduit would be l i k e l y
to be burning in a f i r e situation."
Dr. Young further states, "Hydrogen Chloride is an i r r i t a t i n g
gas At concentrations in air as low as 5ppm, i t causes choking
in most people."
114
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
ADELMAN: Need to receive additional documentation to
substantiate the claims of the proposer of early failure of
nonferrous materials in the submitter's reference fires. Fire
reports received of the Carlyle Apartment f i r e , and the Cedarwood
Tower f i r e , make no mention of early failure of nonferrous
electrical components. Rel~rts of the Henry Grady Hotel f i r e , and
the Occidental Tower f i r e , have not been submitted to the Panel
members.
COX: I do not believe that the substantiation adequately
supports the prohibition of this widely used material.
LAWRY: The substantiation does not support the Panel Action.
The fact that a zinc alloy f i t t i n g may f a i l prior to a ferrous
raceway is not cause to prohibit i t . There is no documentation
that failure of zinc alloy f i t t i n g s caused any injuries. Also,
other equipment and materials which are permitted within this
space have melting temperatures less than zinc alloy f i t t i n g s .
MOT-fERN: Apparently, the intent of the original proposal was to
require f i t t i n g s in plenums and ducts that would not melt below
approximately 1800°F and permit gases and combustibles to be
transmitted by conduit to other areas. Prohibiting zinc alloy
f i t t i n g s will not prevent this problem because there are items in
both the conduit and duct systems that will melt before the zinc
alloy f i t t i n g s , which melt at approximately 700°F.
The reports that I have read on the Cedarwood Tower Apartment
f i r e and the Carlye Apartment f i r e do not mention connections and
f i t t i n g s as being a factor in the rapid transmission of gases and
combustibles.
The subject of failure of devices and materials in ducts and
plenums should be studied by a TSC.
SCHIER: I voted negatively on Proposal 3-61 after reviewing
public comment from L.E. Mason Co., The Halex Company and the Zinc
Institute Inc.
WHITTINGTON: This proposal is inconsistent with the wording of
Section 90-1(a), the substantiation used with respect to noted
fires has been found not to contain references supporting the
proposal, and other studies have concluded that the prohibiting of
zinc alloy f i t t i n g s is not j u s t i f i e d .
WOOD: There is no substantiation that the use of zinc alloy
f i t t i n g s has added to risk or the transmission of combustibles.
Dr. Young continues, "Concentrations of 100ppm are rated as,
"Immediately dangerous to l i f e and health" by OSHAand the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Unless
removed immediately from an atmosphere containing a concentration
o f lOOppm death by suffocation will follow."
There are no less than 132 books, papers and articles available
to you on this subject. You can rest assured that each will point
out the t o x i c i t y of the products of combustion of PVC and of the
t o x i c i t y of HCL which is produced simply by heating PVC Conduit or
insulation. You may be able to ignore this information, but we
can not. As far as we are concerned, the facts are in front of
you and you must act. We have, - with these proposals.
The problem is not going to go away by i t s e l f . Nor is i t going
to lessen in intensity. You can be absolutely sure that i t and
you will be in the public eye and in every form of mass news media
as long as people are killed in fires. I t will make headlines and
bring more and more court cases, which will further highlight the
shortcomings of the Code. I t seems to be a foolish course of
action, or is i t INACTION, to wait until public furor forces us to
change. I f we in NFPA through the NEC i n i t i t a t e the act, we at
l e a s t r e t a i n the respect and confidence of the people we serve.
I f we do not, you can be assured that those same people will have
no respect for this organization or us.
I t is f u t i l e to deny, or attempt to minimize, the presence of
the harmful chemicals in the materials used to manufacture
insulations and raceways that not only can, but do, emit toxic
gases in amounts sufficient to cause instantaneous paralysis when
exposed to temperatures in excess of their ratings, or f i r e . The
peaceful attitudes of so many of their victims is grim testimony
to the speed of these killers and the fact that the victims were
t o t a l l y unaware of their impending fate.
Our proposals are intended to minimize or eliminate the exposure
of human beings to this peril.
Note: I t is most important to understand that this proposal is
not intended to do away with a l l , nor any, nonmetallic wiring
method. This proposal and all others like i t that we have
submitted for the 1984 edition of the NEC are intended to
eliminate the MATERIALSwhich emit toxic fumes or gases under
various conditions of use. I t is our opinion that the
manufacturers of this equipment or these MATERIALSmust prove that
their products do NOT emit toxic gases or harmful chemicals under
the conditions specified. I t should not be the responsibility of
the NFPA nor any Code-Making Panel to perform the tests or make
the investigations that are needed to prove the presence of the
toxic gases, fumes or harmful chemicals.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: No definition of combustible in the present Code.
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Wood.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
WOOD: I agree with the submitter's substantiation. The terms
combustible and noncombustible are used in the NEC. Ex. Articles
410 and 725.
Log # 836
3- 62 - (300-22): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on
Air Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTER: Robert E. Taylor, Republic Steel Corporation
E~LMENDATION: Insert the following after the f i r s t sentence in
Section 300-22(b) and after the second sentence in Section
300-22(c):
"All of the metallic raceway components including the f i t t i n g s
and connectors shall be made of ferrous materials."
SUBSTANTIATION: Early failures of nonferrous f i t t i n g s and
connectors in ferrous raceway systems during fires destroy the
integrity of the system and permit more rapid transmission of
decomposltion gases and smoke to other areas of the structure
through walls, plenums or other spaces used for environmental
air. Documentation of actual fires indicates early failures of
nonferrous materials and retention of the integrity of ferrous
components in at least the following fires: Henry Grady Hotel
f i r e tests, Atlanta, Georgia (1972); Carlyle Apartment f i r e ,
Lakewood, Ohio (1974); Cedarwood Tower Apartment f i r e , Rochester,
New York (1976); the Occidental Tower f i r e , Los Angeles (1976);
and the Beverly HillsSupper Club (1977).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: The Panel has not had access to referred f i r e
reports and we do not know i f they included conduit and fittings
made of aluminum. The proposal as written would prohibit the use
of aluminum f i t t i n g s with steel raceways which is specifically
allowed in other sections of the Code.
VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.
Log # 1172
3- 61 - (300-22(b)):
Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be reported as "Reject" because less
than two-thirds of the members eligible to vote have voted in the
affirmative and be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air
Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTER: Walter G. Wells, American Iron and Steel Institute
RECOM~NDATION: Add following as a new third sentence to Section
300-22(b):
"Connections and f i t t i n g s used with electrical metallic tubing,
intermediate metal conduit, and rigid metal conduit shall be made
of the same base metal as the tubing or conduit."
SUBSTANTIATION: There have been numerous instances of early
failure, melting and disintegration of raceway components made of
material other than ferrous in f i r e situations. Early failure in
plenums or other spaces used for environmental air risks more
rapid transmission of gases and combustibles. Documentation is
available to i l l u s t r a t e early failure of nonferrous materials and
retention of the integrity of ferrous components in at least the
following fires: Henry Grady Hotel Fire Test, Atlanta, Georgia
1972); Carlyle Apartment Fire, Lakewood, Ohio (1974); Cedarwood
ower Apartment Fire, Rochester, New York (1976); and the
Occidental Tower Fire, Los Angeles, California (1976).
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Add a new sentence to read: "Zinc alloy f i t t i n g s shall be
prohibited."
PANEL COM~NT: The Panel feels that this proposal satisfies the
intent of the submitter.
The proposal as written would prohibit
th e use of aluminum f i t t i n g s with steel raceways which is
specifically allowed in other sections of the Code.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 0
NEGATIVE: Adelman, Cox, Lawry, Mottern, Schier, Whittington,
Wood.
Log # 1399
3- 63 - (300-22(c)): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee en
Air Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTER: C. W. Beile, Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation
RECOM#4ENDATION: Revise the f i r s t sentence as follows:
Only noncombustible wiring methods, consisting of
mineral-insulated...(balance of paragraph remains t ~ s~i~I ~
SUBSTANTIATION: The installation of unprotected co us
materials capable of producing smoke or gases that may spread
throughout a structure and inhibit the safe exist from burning
buildings should be prohibited. I t is recommended that a more
inclusive and consistant term be used.
Please note definition of "noncombustible" submitted as proposal
to 1984 NEC, Article 100. This definition is consistent with NFPA
90A, which will be correlated with NFPA 70 with regard to Ducts
and Plenums as directed by the Standards Council actions.
115
I
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMt~NT: The current Code does not contain a definition of
noncombustible. There is no documentation submitted indlcating
the current test standards used for cables identified for use in
these areas are inadequate.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
NEGATIVE: Lawry.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
LAWRY: See comment for Proposal 3-59.
I t should be obvious that the thrust of all these proposals is
the limitation or actual elimination of the use of those
MATERIALS, which when exposed either to the environment,
temperatures in excess of their ratings, whether from normal or
abnormal causes, or flame emit toxic gases, fumes or harmful
chemicals. For years the electrical industry has not only
permitted but also has encouraged the use of materials that f a l l
into this category. These materials do emit toxic gases and do
result in harmful chemicals when exposed to the varying
atmospheres experienced in everyday living. For instance, i t is
not an uncommon phenomenon to observe hydrochloric aciddripping
out of a rigid steel conduit in which PVC conductors have been
exposed to temperatures higher than their ratings or flame and
water has been used to control the source of that heat or flame.
There are documented experiences of this reaction where the acid
was eating through the switch enclosure. When the inspector
attempted to catch the acid in a t i n can so that he could have i t
analyzed, i t ate right thru the can. What is startling about this
phenomenon is the fact that we are told that the plastic people
have known about i t for years and have never f e l t that this
information should be publicized because the incidence would be so
rare that i t was not worth alerting the electrical industry. In
spite of their lack of concern many people in the industry and out
of i t are aware of this possibility and the other ramifications of
the decomposition of PVC and are deeply concerned.
We are told over and over again that the amount of plastics and
polyvinyl chlorides that are introduced in any building by the
electrical installation is infinitesimal when compared with the
total of all the other furnishings and building finishes. There
are two errors in such statements. The f i r s t is corrected by the
reports printed in Modern Plastics based upon the monthly
Sales/Production report issued by SPI's Committee on Resin
Statistics. According to their figures, published in January of
1981 there were 3,581,000 tons of resins converted into building
materials in 1979. Of that 1,114,000 tons wore PVC Conduit. Is
that to be considered infinitesimal? The figures for 1980 are
just as revealing; 3,078,000 tons total, 938,000 tons in PVC
Conduit. In addition to that there were 841,000 tons of resins
converted into electrical/electronic plastics in 1979 of which
195,000 tons wore PVC. Likewise, in 1980 out of a total of
736,000 tons, there were 177,000 tons of PVC. These are NOT
infinitesimal fractions!
The second error is the attempt by the people, who spew forth
this falacious claptrap, to hide the fact that we, who are
responsible for formulating the National Electrical Code, have one
prime responsibility, the safety of the people. We are completely
and solely responsible for the electrical installation. We and
only we must bear the responsibility for what is in the NEC. We
are not in any, shape or form responsible for the furnishings nor
the building finishes. Regardless of what others may introduce
into the building, we are s t i l l responsible for those things that
we permit or require in the electrical installation. We can never
loose sight of the prime purpose of the NEC, " . . . t h e practical
safeguarding of persons and property from the hazards arising from
the use of e l e c t r i c i t y . "
For many years a great number of knowledgeable and highly
respected people in the scientific world have been aware of the
fact that the use of certain materials and wiring methods, which
by the very nature of their chemical composition, are certain to
add significantly to the toxic gases and harmful chemicals in any
f i r e situation. I t has been and s t i l l is their contention that
the use of these materials should be curtailed or prohibited. We
can no longer afford the luxury of sitting back waiting for
someone else to take the f i r s t step. We cannot hide behind a
disclaimer saying we know nothing about t o x i c i t y . I f we don't
know, i t is because we haven't taken the time to read what is
available on the subject or listen to what is being said from
every direction. The numbers of peeple being killed in recent
fires is staggering. The ratio of f i r e deaths to f i r e damage is
astounding. I t is completely out of line with historical f l r e
data. The number of people died 20 stories away from the closest
flame in the MC~Mis unforgiveable. The number of people who died
in that building after the f i r e was out, but while the hallways
and stairwells were f u l l of toxic gases and smoke will never De
known, but the fact that many did is additional reason for us to
act. We cannot wait until other standards-writing bodies take the
lead. We cannot wait until slow moving committees bring in the
BODY COUNTS~
We can no longer ignore the warnings that have been made public
in the form of test results from widely divergent groups,
government, industry, scholastic and testing f a c i l i t i e s . Here is
what just a few highly regarded scientists have to say about this
matter:
A report compiled by the Uniformed Firefighters Association in
1980 five years after the telephone company f i r e shows that of the
194 firefighters who received medical treatment at the time of the
f i r e 71 reported permanent respiratory ailments. The unprotected
cables that burned in that f i r e produced "billowing clouds of
hydrogen chloride smoke." (American Lung Association Bulletin,
(81)).
"Large amounts of hydrogen chloride gas (HCL) are released by
either HEATING or BURNINGPVC".*
Log # 1468
3- 64 - (300-22(c)):
Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on
Air Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTERS: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.
Bl-~BTll--F~-gan, Chicago, IL
Fred Smith, Elgin, IL
Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT
Anton Ganje, North Dakota
Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN
Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co
Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL
Paul Moore, Paducah, KY
Les Rinder, Chicago, IL
John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: AmendSection 300-22(c) so as to read as follows:
"(c). All other Spaces Used for Environmental Air. Only
noncombustible wiring methods shall be utilized in the wiring of
systems that are permitted to be installed in all other spaces
that are used for the movement of environmental air. Electrical
equipment that is normally permitted to be installed in concealed
spaces in buildings shall be permitted to be installed in these
spaces provided the wiring materials that are utilized are encased
in noncombustible enclosures or raceways.
The provisions of this sub-section apply, except as listed below
and as required in (a) and (b) of this section, to any enclosed
space inside of any structure that is used for environmental
air-handling purposes.
Exception No. I : Integral fan systems specifically identified
for the purpose.
Exception No. 2: This sub-section is not intended to include
any habitable room or space inside of buildings.
Exception No. 3: This sub-section is not intended to include
the spaces between joists and studs in residential housing where
the wiring passes through such spaces perpendicular to the long
dimensions of the space.
SUBSTANTIATION: At the present time the wording, "and other
factory-assembled multiconductor control or power cables cable
which is specifically listed for the use shall --- etc.," is the
only deviation from the requlrement'that the wiring method be
noncombustible. There is nothing in this sub-section that would
indicate to the laboratory that would be "specifically listing"
these types of cables what the intention of the Code is concerning
them. I t is reasonable to assume that such cables, which would be
replacing a noncombustible wiring method should also be
noncombustible. I f this assumption is not true then why has the
Code-Making Panel gone to the trouble of listing only
noncombustible wiring methods? There is no mention of any of the
combustible wiring methods that are certainly approved for use in
other parts of the Code. We have seen some of the products that
are "specifically listed" for this purpose and we have seen the
results of tests that wore used to ascertain their acceptability
by that testing agency. I t is our opinion that the tests are
falacious and that the results based upon these unrealistic tests
are useless.
I t seems to us that we should face the problem head on. What we
are, in the 1981 edition of the NEC as well as in the 1962 edition
of the NEC when CMP 6 f i r s t made the basic change, really trying
to accomplish is the containment of f i r e and smoke that originate
in the electrical system to the smallest possible area. When you
have a false ceiling space that extends over an entire floor of a
building and you permit combustible wiring methods in that false
ceiling space, you are not accomplishing the true intent of the
Code. The smoke and products of combustion from the combustible
wiring method are going to be spread throughout the entire floor
and all other floors and spaces served by the same air-handling
system. We are either going to shoulder the responsibility placed
upon us by Section 90-I(a) of the Code or we are not! We are
either going to be liable for the results of our decisions or we
are not! I t is not an easy decision, but then neither is the
death of the f i r s t person who dies because we have permitted
combustible materials to be installed in air-handling spaces.
The difference between, "low smoke producing" and
"noncombustible" is not all that great in terms of dollars and
cents, but there is a world of difference in the end result of the
Code rule. We will be able to say that we have taken the steps
necessary for the, "practical safeguarding of persons and property
from the hazards arising from the use of e l e c t r i c i t y . "
Additional substantiation for proposals made by William P. Hogan
et. al. on Sections: 110-3(a)(8), 230-43, 300-22(b), 300-22(c),
338-2, 338-3, 340-5, 344-2, 347-2, 351-2, 352-21 and 370-23.
116
"In the case of a rapid electrical overload in PVC insulated
wire, smoke which is usually the f i r s t indication of f i r e , is only
noticeable AFTER significant quantities of HCL have been
rel eased." *
"Calculations show that f o r 100 pounds of PVC pyrolyzed
(chemically decomposed by heat) in an apari~ent 8 feet X 25 feet X
50 feet (10,000 cubic feet) a concentration of HCL as high as
57,385 ppm could be reached, about 57 times the concentration that
will cause lung edema on very short exposure." *
Referring to the MQMf i r e deaths the Clark County
Coroner-Medical Examiner reports, "The fact that the concentration
of carboxyhemoglobin in most of the victims was not high enough to
have caused death indicates that other toxic gases or smoke
articles MUST also have been involved." * (carboxyhemoglobin is
he result of carbon monoxide in the blood).
• A Literature Study of the Combustion Hazards of PVC and ABS.
Judith E. Hall and Eric L. Tolefson, University of Calgary.
In a discussion concerning the Beverly Hills Supper Club Fire,
Deborah Wallace, who is a Toxicologist and the President of Public
Interest Scientific Consulting Service states the following about
the causes of death at that f i r e , " - - - , the carboxyhemoglobin
levels found during the autopsies showed that all assayed victims
but one had concentrations well below lethal levels. Manywere as
low as i0%." Yet they all died of something that they inhaled.
There was a tremendous amount of PVC in that building!
Jay A. Young, Ph.D., a Chemical Consultant has this to say,
"Structural disintegration of PVC Conduit in a f i r e situation.
Such disintegration allows the release of hydrogen chloride or
phosgene, or both, formed from the decomposition of PVC insulation
on the wiring inside, the conduit and confined inside the conduit
until the conduit disintegrates." "The thermal decomposition of
PVC has been observed at temperatures below 100 degrees C,
although most studies show that the evolution of HCL in
significant amounts requires temperatures of about
200-300 degrees C. That is, long before the PVC has reached the
temperature at which i t will burn, well in advance of the tithe
when any combustible structural components near PVC conduit would
be l i k e l y to be burning in a f i r e situation."
Dr. Young further states, "Hydrogen Chloride is an i r r i t a t i n g
~as At concentrations in air as low as 5ppm, i t causes choking
in most people."
Dr. Young continues, "Concentrations of lOOppm are rated as,
"Immediately dangerous to l i f e and health" by OSHA and the
National Institute f o r Occupational Safety and Health. Unless
removed immediately from an atmosphere containing a concentration
of lOOppm death by suffocation will follow."
There are no less than 132 books, papers and articles available
to you on this subject. You can rest assured that each will point
out the t o x i c i t y of the products of combustion of PVC and of the
t o x i c i t y of HCL which is produced simply by heating PVC Conduit or
insulation. You may be able to ignore this information, but we
can not. As far as we are concerned, the facts are in front of
you and you must act. We have, - with these proposals.
The problem is not going to go away by i t s e l f . Nor is i t going
to lessen in intensity. You can be absolutely sure that i t and
you will be in the public eye and in every form of mass news media
as long as people are killed in f i r e s .
I t will make headlines and
bring more and more court cases, which will further highlight the
shortcomings of the Code. Itseems to be a foolish course of
action, or is i t INACTION, to wait until public furor forces us to
change. I f we in NFPA through the NEC i n i t i t a t e the act, we at
least retain the respect and confidence of the people we serve.
I f we do not, you can be assured that those same people will have
no respect f o r this organization or us.
I t is f u t i l e to deny, or attempt to minimize, the presence of
the harmful chemicals in the materials used to manufacture
insulations and raceways that not only can, but do, emit toxic
gases in amounts sufficient to cause instantaneous paralysis when
exposed to temperatures in excess of their ratings, or f i r e . The
peaceful attitudes of so many of their victims is grim testimony
to the speed of these killers and the fact that the victims were
t o t a l l y unaware of their impending fate.
Our proposals are intended to minimize or eliminate the exposure
of human beings to this peril.
Note: I t is most important to understand that this proposal is
not intended to do away with a l l , nor any, nonmetallic wiring
method. This proposal and all others like i t that we have
submitted f o r the 1984 edition of the NEC are intended to
eliminate the MATERIALS which emit toxic fumes or gases under
various conditions of use. I t is our opinion that the
manufacturers of this equipment or these MATERIALS must prove that
their products do NOT emit toxic gases or harmful chemicals under
the. conditions specified. I t should not be the responsibility of
the NFPA nor any Code-Making Panel to perform the tests or make
the investigations that are needed to prove the presence of the
toxic ases, fumes or harmful chemicals.
PANEL ~OTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 3-63.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 6
~EGATIVE: Wood.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
WOOD: I agree with the submitter's substantiation. The term
combustible and noncombustible are used in the NEC. EX. Articles
410 and 725.
~
Log # 1173
3- 65 - (300-22(c)): Reject
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee that this proposal be reported as "Reject" because less
than two-thirds of the members eligible to vote have voted in the
affirmative and be referred to the NFPACommittee on Air
Conditioning for comment.
SUBMITTER: Walter G. Wells, American Iron and Steel Institute
RECOMI4-NDATION: "Connections and f i t t i n g s used with electrical
metallic tubing, intermediate metal conduit, and rigid metal
I conduit shall be made of the same base met'al as the tubing or
conduit ."
SUBSTANT~TION: There have been numerous instances of early
f a i l u r e , melting, and disintegration of raceway components made of
material other than ferrous, in f i r e situations. Early failure in
plenums or other spaces used for environmental air risks more
rapid transmission of gases and combustibles. Documentation is
available to illustrate early failures of nonferrous materials and
retention of the integrity of ferrous components in at least the
following f i r e s : Henry Grady Hotel Fire Test, Atlanta, Georgia
(1972); Carlyle Apartment Fire, Lakewood, Ohio {1974); Cedarwood
Tower Apar~ent Fire, Rochester, New York (1976); and the
Occidental Tower Fire, Los Angeles, California (1976).
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Add a new sentence: "Zinc alloy f i t t i n g s shall be prohibited."
PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment f o r Proposal 3-61.
VOTE ON PANELACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 0
NE~TIVE: Adelman, Cox, Lawry, Mottern, Schier, Whittington,
Wood.
EXPLANATION OF VOTE:
ADELMAN: Need to receive additional documentation to
substantiate the claims of the proposer of early failure of
nonferrous materials in the submitter's reference fires. Fire
reports received of the Carlyle Apartment f i r e , and the Cedarwood
Tower f i r e , make no mention of early f a i l u r e of nonferrous
electrical components. Reports of the Henry Grady Hotel f i r e , and
the Occidental Tower f i r e , have not been submitted to the Panel
members.
COX: I do not believe t h a t the substantiation adequately
supports the p r o h i b i t i o n of t h i s widely used m a t e r i a l .
LAL~RY: See comment f o r Proposal 3-61.
MOTTERN: Same as that f o r Proposal 3-61.
SCHIER: I voted n e g a t i v e l y on Proposal 3-61 a f t e r reviewing
public comment from L.E. Mason Co., the Halex Company and the Zinc
I n s t i t u t e Inc.
WHITTINGTON: This proposal is inconsistent with the wording of
Section 90-1(a), the substantiation used with respect to noted
f i r e s has been found not to contain references supporting the
proposal, and other studies have concluded that the p r o h i b i t i n g of
zinc a l l o y f i t t i n g s is not j u s t i f i e d .
WOOD: This is no substantiation that the use of zinc alloy
fittings
has added to r i s k or the transmission of combustibles.
Log # 642
3-66 - (300-22(c)): Accept
Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating
Committee t