ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Suggested Proposals for the 2008 NEC

Here is the present 2008 Revision Cycle Information:

Proposal Closing Date:
11/4/2005

Report on Proposals (ROP) Date:
6/23/2006

Comment Closing Date:
10/20/2006

Report on Comments (ROC) Mailing Date: 2/23/2007

Revised Edition Date: 2007

SUGGESTED PROPOSALS:

1. Get rid of the words "sufficient" and "adequate" throughout the NEC, they violate the NEC Style Manual

2. Put all FPN's in a separate ANNEX. Not enforceable anyway

3. Change the term "Grounding" and "Grounding Methods" in most Titles of Parts to "Grounding and Bonding Methods", etc., to catch up with the new Article 250 Title

4. Change the word "unless" to except throughout the NEC.

5. Put all Residential requirements in a separate Article, like Article 212.

6. Change NM, NMC, and NMS to NM-B, NMC-B, and NMS-B everywhere in the NEC, currently this is the correct way these products are identified.

7. Add 70E for "Electrical Safety in the Workplace" as a NEW Article in the NEC entirely!

I am willing to go anywhere to sit with any group to discuss these and other items that have been suggested in the past, let me know.

Joe: Would the residential requirements you suggest going into a new Article 212 include the existing 210.6? If so, how would you reword it?

So you would delete (C) and (D)?

pdh

The voltages in (C) and (D) are not used in a dwelling unit, so Yes they would be deleted when 210.6 was used in any residential areacode.

I did have a copy of the 2005 One and Two Family Electrical code published by NFPA, but gave it away. I am not sure if it is available on line as a download.

I would use it exclusively for electrical inspections on those properties instead of the others now available.

Neither (A) nor (B) (because they refer to 120 volts between conductors) permits circuits or loads with 240 volts between conductors (120 volts to ground). So that leaves (C) as the only means to permit that. Leaving out (C) would thus be making those circuits not legal.

Additionally, some very large homes do have higher voltages. I've heard of a few being supplied 480Y/277 by the utility (obviously reducing it down to 120 volts to ground with a transformer for the majority of branch circuits), and tapping the 480 for a few things, such as large water heater systems (25 kW and up). Is there a good reason to restrict these to 240 or 208 volts?

Also, if this is going into a new article just for dwelling units, why not just merge (A) and (B) together? They only seem to be separate now so (A) can apply only to dwellings while (B) applies everywhere.

[This message has been edited by pdh (edited 05-10-2005).]

I use the 2002 NEC Handbook. I like the FPN's right where they are. They may not be enforceable, but they are great for clearing up confusion.

Joe
Are you supporting the change that would replace the term equipment grounding with equipment bonding? Will the term ground fault be simplified to fault with a definition of fault as unintended contact between current carrying conductors and non current carrying conductive elements of the structure?
--
Tom Horne

Tom

No. I will continue to stay with the work that was written by Soares.

Heres my input on the new book.

Put the table they are explaining on the same page!!!!!!

You read a page about a table, and the table they are talking about is 2 pages before or after. How hard is that to proofread?


Dnk.....