Please see the Contents in the 2005 NE

Question: What items here are not "installed"? What would you call "Inspect-able"?

Edited to remove the list.

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 12-29-2004).]

Joe,
What purpose is served by posting the table of contents for the 2005 NEC?
Don

Don:

So that snyone who may be interested could discuss, and pick out:

"What items here are not "installed"? What would you call "Inspect-able"?"

The code should cover the "installation and use" of electrical equipment.

Get It Now!!

PS: Many members may appreciate the effort I made so that they could use this as a fast finder if they wanted!

I continue to contribute to this forum, and I don't ask people why they reply.

I also continue to receive lots of messages that want me to post their images and stories in the violations forum.

JT

Joe,
No, I don't. We all have code books and know how to read. The table of contents does not have any specifics to let anyone respond to your question. The specific items are found in the code text itself.
In my opinion, a large part of what is covered in Article 422 is outside the scope of the code. Actual product design should be left up to the product standards and has no place in a construction code.
Don

Don: Go ahead and delete the contents in my message and think about a proposal for the following.

90.2 Scope.
(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation and use of electrical
conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and
communications conductors, appliances equipment, and raceways; and
optical fiber cables and raceways for the following:

(1) Public and private premises, including buildings, structures,
mobile homes, recreational vehicles, and floating
buildings

(2) Yards, lots, parking lots, carnivals, and industrial substations

FPN to (2): For additional information concerning such installations
in an industrial or multibuilding complex, see ANSI
C2-2002, National Electrical Safety Code.

(3) Installation and use of conductors and equipment that connect
to the supply of electricity

(4) Installations used by the electric utility, such as office
buildings, warehouses, garages, machine shops, and
recreational buildings, that are not an integral part of a
generating plant, substation, or control center.

Joe,
How can we expand the scope to cover the use and things like appliances that the inspector will never see? If it happens after the final inspection, what method would be used for enforcement? I agree that there are often problems caused by the use and misuse of things that are not "installed". I just don't see how we can cover them in the NEC.
Don

Don:

I agree, but believe that the current makeup and membership of the NFPA NEC Committees would not agree with deleting the subject of appliances, etc.

What about Articles 280 and 285, they are not required, and if they are installed then they will be inspected.

I am sure that the number of appliances, such as electric ranges, installed in the USA are many, and there are probably millions with 30 ampere cords, and many without the right connector, and some with pennies behind the old Edison base 30 ampere fuse under the right rear burner.

I really think that the 70E document is a step in the right direction, and can be expanded upon to become the inspectors tool.

What if we researched the entire NFC and especially 70B and 70E with the thought of installations only and an appliance code?

Joe,
I still think that the appliance type equipment has to be addressed in the product standards. These items are not in place at the time of the electrical final and the inspector has no legal right to come back into the building after the final without the owners permission or a search warrent.
In many areas the other fire codes are not adopted by the local or state governments and therefore are not enforcable.
Don

Don, a gas furnace is called an appliance and so is a water heater.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Charlie,
Yes, they are appliances and their construction is covered by product standards not the NEC. I can understand the NEC rules that tells us how to supply power to these appliances, but not those that tell how to use or construct portable appliances. I guess I should say that the use and construction of non-permanently installed appliances should not be in the code. An example is the new rule requiring vending machine cords to have built-in GFCI protection. This rule has no business being in the NEC. It belongs in a product standard. The code seems to be expanding the rules in this area, and it is my opinion that such rules are not within the scope of the NEC. I think that the following rules in Article 422 (2002 NEC) are not within the scope statement shown in 90.2 and should be removed from the NEC: 422.4, and 422.40 though 422.50. I’m not sure how you can apply 422.10 and .11 to portable appliances that are not present at the time of design or inspection.
Don

Sorry Don, I didn’t understand what you were talking about. EEI has been working on the concept that the Code doesn’t jump out of the wall. Therefore, the extension cords in 240 have been taken out of the Code and they will be covered by the product standard. I believe there are other places where that sort of thing is being pursued.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Charlie: I was looking the other day at the 2005 article 240, and I understand what you are saying. Basically, there is a new section that clarifies the fact that listed cord cord sets and cords of listed appliances do not apply to the rules of the NEC. While I appreciate the clarification, I still question whether or not it is really neccassary. I mean, did the code ever govern what you plug into the outlet, such as cord sets? I read the change and really scratched my head.

BTW: I completley agree with Don regarding the vending machine (and article 422) issues...they have no business in the code.

Actually Ryan, the 2002 does cover cords where the 2005 has taken them out. This is especially true of the appliance cords. We have treated the appliance cords and extension cords in the same manner so there is no confusion (famous last words, right?).

240.5
(1) Supply Cord of Listed Appliance or Portable Lamps. Where flexible cord or tinsel cord is approved for and used with a specific listed appliance or portable lamp, it shall be considered to be protected when applied within the appliance or portable lamp listing requirements.
(3) Extension Cord Sets. Flexible cord used in listed extension cord sets shall be considered to be protected when applied within the extension cord listing requirements.
(4) Field Assembled Extension Cord Sets. Flexible cord used in extension cords made with separately listed and installed components shall be permitted to be supplied by a branch circuit in accordance with the following:
20-ampere circuits — 16 AWG and larger

This is all intended to place the responsibility of protecting the cords on the listing agency and the product standards. Ad Don has already stated, it has no place in the Code.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Annex A Product Safety Standards includes the following statement:

"This informational annex provides a list of product safety standards used for product listing where that listing is required by this Code."

Look at it and count the items that deal with products that are not installed!

Joe,
That doesn't make it correct. Anything that is not "installed" is outside of the scope of the NEC.
Don

Joe, you are letting your inspector side show. The annexes are not part of the NEC and not enforceable, they are in fact just informational. It will be nice if EEI gets their way and we can get all that superfluous stuff out of the Code.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Don:

Exactly, I agree! "Anything that is not "installed" is outside of the scope of the NEC."

Charlie: I asked for a review of Annex A, not if it was enforceable!

And your point is? Are you telling me that I can’t make comments on enforceability because it wasn’t your idea and this is your thread?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

I now repeat, and remember that we are advised that an Annex is not enforcable, but Annex A seems to give some direction to those who have an interest in product safety standards. How does 110.3(B) fit here?

Annex A Product Safety Standards includes the following statement:

"This informational annex provides a list of product safety standards used for product listing where that listing is required by this Code."


Required? .....

I now repeat, “The annexes are not part of the NEC and not enforceable, they are in fact just informational.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Charlie:

Now that you mention it again, I agree, however after searching on my new NFPA NEC 2005 Fantastic CD, I found many NEC Articles that include FPN's with ANSI/UL standards included in various sections, so now I believe that some of the Annex A UL, ISA, and IEEE entries are probably duplicated, or if they are additional UL standards, then they should be put in the proper location in their respective articles and sections.

I will spend some time on this in between other work so that I can begin to prepare a proposal for each CMP, in a Positive Sense only!

I am sure that our friends in the NEMA Community and others will really appreciate this recommendation!

Joe,
There are a number of places where the NEC requires the use of listed products. Take a look at the xxx.6 section of the raceway articles.
Don