ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 265 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#154547 01/26/06 01:48 AM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
I hear rumors 250.32(B)(2) may be going away and that 210.12(B) will expand to all 15 and 20a 120v receptacles (outlets?).


Greg Fretwell
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

#154548 01/26/06 10:24 AM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,374
R
Moderator
Regarding 250.32(B), that is true at this point in the game. I wrote the proposal, and talked with Mike Holt who sat in on the panel meeting with CMP 5.


Ryan Jackson,
Salt Lake City
#154549 01/26/06 06:38 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Ryan if you don't mind what was the safety reason for the change?

And of course my next question is if that practice is unsafe how can services be safe?

Bob


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
#154550 01/27/06 10:37 AM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,374
R
Moderator
The safety reason for the change is that bonding enclosures with a cuurent carrying conductor is not a good idea.

Regarding services...if this passes I plan on submitting the same concept for services in 2011. Of course, services don't typically fall under the scope of the NEC, but as written now, you don't have the option of installing an EGC from the transformer and bonding it to the enclosure, and floating the nuetral at the service.


Ryan Jackson,
Salt Lake City
#154551 01/27/06 01:50 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
That certainly sounds like a hard sell. You will need to coordinate this change with the NESC and I bet the utilities who sit on those CMPs will veto it.
I do see the value of the idea but I doubt the utilities will.
This is the kind of idea that needed to be established back when Edison and Westinghouse were deciding what the grid would look like.
It will certainly make me want some stock in Landis & Gyr and Thomas & Betts. They will have an instant market for a couple hundred million meter bases.


Greg Fretwell
#154552 01/27/06 02:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,374
R
Moderator
They can't "veto" anything. All they can do is vote against it.


Ryan Jackson,
Salt Lake City
#154553 01/27/06 05:10 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
If the NESC CMPs are anything like the NEC CMPs they are packed with industry reps. If the industry doesn't want something it don't happen. On the other hand, if they have a product they are pimping it gets fast tracked to the front of the line, ready or not. I only have to point to 210.12 and products that were put in the code, in spite of the fact they didn't exist.
Personally I think the whole process is broken, bordering on being corrupt.


Greg Fretwell
#154554 03/11/06 07:22 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 354
P
pdh Offline
Member
bump...

Even I, a non-electrician, can see the safety advantage of not doing things as in 250.32(B)(2). I'd be happy to see that go away.

But as for 210.12(B) being expanded, I'd say we are not really ready for that, yet. We may not be for quite a while. But I do think we could live with it expanding provided that some better exceptions are made available, such as for dedicated circuits. Maybe it could be expanded to some additional areas of the home. Maybe an exception could be made for some areas (where cords are unlikely to be an added safety hazard) when AC, MC, or metallic conduit protects the wiring.

We could end up seeing a lot more AFCI breakers for sale on EBAY as homeowners end up doing their own replacements. What may be more influencial regarding this would be how homeowner insurance policies are written. If existance of AFCI protection is required for lower rates (and undocumented substitution discovered after a fire results in non-payment), then I can see more of this coming about. While I could imagine the insurance industry would back this change, I would think they could effect the change through their rate structures, too.

#154555 09/12/06 01:55 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 545
A
Member
I think they ought to do away with allowing wrapped ridgid underground in the 2008 code. There are too many areas they still rust out in with high acidic soil. Should be PVC only.


The Golden Rule - "The man with the gold makes the rule"
#154556 09/12/06 08:13 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,374
R
Moderator
Regarding the expansion of AFCI's...I think the NFPA is setting itself up for a huge blackeye with this one. Considering the fact that the AFCI's must be the combination type, and nobody has a functioning AFCI type available yet, I can't see how the NEC would require a device to be installed throughout the entire house, when we don't even know if it works!


Ryan Jackson,
Salt Lake City
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5