Has anyone seen any Major Changes that seem to have been approved for the 2005 NEC?

Bill

Bill: I dont think this is major, but the change to add caloric energy to article 110.16 is one that I believe most electricians will struggle with. Either that or the manufacturers might be able to address it from the plant with factory installed labels. If the manufacturers do it, you may see some happy electricians.

Also, the change to allow rounding up to the next standard OCPD rating up to 1600A could save electricians a lot of money. I often refuse services during plan review that want to use (3) parrallel 500KCMIL's for their 1200A service. This change seems to be going full steam ahead according to Charlie the utility guy, who is on the CMP of art.240

Alright, I'm going to keep going until somebody tells me to shut up!

The definition of the word kitchen will help enforcement of 210.8. IMO, it will include break rooms in a business occupancy.

Also, the deletion of article(s) 3xx.10, uses permitted is a step in the right direction.

210.8 for the addition of GFCI's in other than dwelling units for outdoor receptacles accessible to the public is a HUGE change, IMO. (I guess we don't care to protect "other than the public though).

If you are interested in the 2005 NEC, IAEI has a GREAT slide show of ROP'S at their site, http://www.iaei.org/anniversary.htm

If you've never used power point before, open that link, download it, run it and push F5 to start it. ENJOY!



[This message has been edited by Ryan_J (edited 10-02-2003).]

Was that discussed in Orlando? Just wondering what viewpoints were brought up on this if it was.

Bill

P.S. keep going ....

Nothing about which way is "up" when installing a receptacle?

Ducking and running...

We need to be careful here. The 2005 code is not set in stone at this time. I've seen proposals that were unanimously accepted in the ROP be unanimously in the ROC, and some changes are even made on the floor at the May meeting where the code is adopted by the NFPA.
Don

I for one do not like the proposed definition of kitchen for 2005. It is too vague and will only be a problem as I read it.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in principle

Kitchen: An area used, or designated to be used, for the preparation of food.
1-114 p.105 of the ROP

The proposal for a neutral is also something I do not like.
1-122 p. 118 0f the ROP

Panel Meeting Action;Accept in Principle

Neutral Conductor: A conductor, other than a grounding conductor, that is connected to the common point if a wye connection in a polyphase system or the point of a symmetrical system which is normally at zero voltage.

They are adding an FPN to Qualified Person.
1-130 p.123

Pierre

Don,

Can you give an example(s) of things that have been changed at the 11th hour?

Bill

Bill,

I agree with Don.

With-out looking in the ROP's and the TCR's that I have since 1986 , there has been many cases as Don has noted.

I have made several proposals over the code cycle years and a very few have been accepted.

Noted the complete reversal of several CMP decisions between the Proposal stage and the actual NEC when printed.

I think it is impossible for anyone working a job would have time to read each proposal and to make comments in the short time to do so.

Get busy and make comments on any of the proposals, but you've got about 28 days to do so and less if you use the USPS.

Gwz

imho, there are many whom simply never heard the term 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' involved

the majority of what is addressed seems clerical, definitional, or that which still remains terminology challenged

or that which futher exasperates exceptions to exceptions...

to insinuate that much is done via 11th hour turnabout basically trashes any methodical order, and reeks of the 'squeeky wheel' scenario

Q~ do manufactures reps hold filibusters??

The ' consensus ' method of the NFPA for the NEC is IMHO is the best method for updating the NEC.
It does have it's faults, but anyone who takes the time to make proposals will have that proposal considered by the Code Making Panel (CMP) during the proposal stage [ Report On Proposal (ROP)] portion. Then during the comment stage [ Report On Comment (ROC)] anyone who takes the time can support the proposal, disagree with the proposal, suggest re-wording of the proposal and the CMP will address those comments.
I really do not know what happens during the May meeting ( NFPA World Fire Safety Congress and Exposition ) stage. It seems then, many of the actions of the ROP and ROC are reversed.

I still believe the NFPA method for CODE actions is much better than having a 'handful' people decide what 'their' CODE will be.

IMHO, the manufactures, utilities and a few others do have a lot of proposals for the NEC, but there is the CMP to watch over the procedure.

On the other hand, what if one of the 'handful' people on the other CODES planning has a HUGE interest in a particular method, etc., there is not a CMP to keep an 'eye' on the proceedings.

Support the NEC !

Gwz

Bill,
The example that I am most familiar with is the rule that says you can't use a single screw to support a receptacle. I made the original proposal (18-51 for the '90 code) on that subject and it was accepted by all of the panel members in the ROP(TCR), (comments 18-26 through 18-31) but rejected by all in the ROC(TCD). There have been many others over the years. Just look at any of the code changes books that are published early. These early publications are written based on the ROP and there are always things that change in the ROC and even at the May meeting.
I'm hoping that the ROC will accept my proposed change on the term equipment grounding conductor. CMP 5 accepted my proposal, but was one vote short of the required 2/3s majority. Comments on this proposal may result in a change. We all have a voice in the code writting process and if you don't like what you see in the ROP, you should submitt a comment.
Don

Don, I would be happy to support your proposal.

I have always figured the CMP would think I was not qualified to comment on code proposals and any comments I would send would land in the round file, (trash barrel)

How do I properly make comment on your proposal and where do I send it?

There are a lot of CMP members who would welcome comments from the people in the field, they are not looking for rocket scientists, and they know that many in the field are very savy.
Go to www.NFPA.org to find out how to make a comment. The last date of accepted comments is October 31st.

Piere

Well I went NFPA.org and found it to be not user friendly, what a surprise.

Could you be little more specific, there is so much information that for me to poke around pdf files different pages etc. with a dial up connection I could be looking for a long time.

Oh and I am not sure how to take the "Rocket Scientist" remark. LOL

Bob

Bob,

You'll find the ROPs on the following page as well as a comment form that you can print out to send in.
http://www.nfpa.org/nec/2005_NECR/2005ROP/2005rop.asp

You may also be able to submit a comment online; http://forums.nfpa.org:8081/pcsubmit/pctop.html

Bill

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/03_d/magazine_03d_johnston1.htm

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 06-08-2004).]

Thank you Bill and Joe, I have saved the pdf file and printed a form out.

I may have more questions about filling it out.

It looks like the form is to make a new proposal, how do I make it clear that I want to support someone else's proposal.

Looking at the list Joe put up it seems Don's proposal is known as 5-1.

Please Download the NFPA 2005 NEC® Report on Proposals (ROP), Report on Comments (ROC), and the draft of the 2005 National Electrical Code
Download the "NFPA FORM FOR COMMENTS ON 2005 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE® REPORT ON PROPOSALS"

INSTRUCTIONS — PLEASE READ CAREFULLY Type or print legibly in black ink. Use a separate copy for each comment. Limit each comment to a SINGLE section. All comments must be received by NFPA by 5 p.m., EDST, Friday, October 31, 2003, to be considered for the 2005 National Electrical Code. Comments received after 5:00 p.m., EDST, Friday, October 31, 2003, will be returned to the submitter. If supplementary material (photographs, diagrams, reports, etc.) is included, you may be required to submit sufficient copies for all members and alternates of the technical committee.

Draft: http://www.nfpa.org/nec/2005_NECR/2005_necr.asp

Download Comment Form: http://joetedesco.com/nec/NEC05Comment.pdf

it is interesting that some would tout such a democratic order in a system that has an on-line mode for those whom would opt to howl in the wilderness

such an apt roundfile....

hey, i've carted the NEC around now almost 20 years like some sort of missionary here, for what gain may i ask?

perhaps the addage should be 'Ask not what the NEC can do for you, ask what you can do for your NEC' should be on the cover eh?

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 10-04-2003).]

Sparky,

I don't understand your comments, please explain.

Bill

Were do we stand on the change in names for the Equipment Grounding Conductor to Equipment Bonding Conductor?
--
Tom Horne

Tom,
That propsal was placed on hold and a task force has been appointed to study the issue for the '08 code. The name of Article 250 has been changed to include bonding.
Don