I hear 250.32(B)(2) is going away. That will muddy up the water a little here.
**LACK OF PROTECTION
**
http://ecmweb.com/mag/603ecmIC2.jpg
This installation was discovered during a kitchen remodel rough inspection in an apartment building. As per 300.4(B)(1), “In both exposed and concealed locations where nonmetallic-sheathed cables pass through either factory or field punched, cut, or drilled slots or holes in metal members, the cable shall be protected by listed bushings or listed grommets covering all metal edges that are securely fastened in the opening prior to installation of the cable.”
Clearly, the so-called bushing in the right side of this photo does not meet this requirement.
Found a Code Violation? E-mail your photos to Joe Tedesco at joseph.tedesco@yahoo.com.
Greg:
Why? Home Inspectors are not “Code Inspectors”, can you please expand on the proposal and what it will mean?
There is always the confusion about whether a 3 wire feeder to the shed is legal. Now you will also need the build/code cycle info to see if it was a permitted/inspected/legal at the time installation.
BTW Roper wrote the proposal.
** Information Only for 2008 NEC changes that affect dwellings too.**
January 17, 2006
Mr. Vince Baclawski
Director Codes & Standards
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
1300 N. 17th Street
Rosslyn, VA 22209
Subject: Report on Proposals for CMP 2
Dear Vince,
Code Making Panel 2 of the NEC met in Hilton Head the week of January 8th to consider 361 proposals to the 2008 National Electrical Code. There were two panel proposals created and three NEMA proposals in the final package. There were 12 eligible voting members at most of the meeting. The NAHB representative missed a portion of the meeting leaving 11 eligible voters during that portion.
NEMA Proposals
Proposal 2-197 210.52(A)(1)
Panel Action: Reject Vote: 8 to 4 (NEMA, UL, IBEW and IAEI voted negative)
There was little support for reducing the receptacle spacing to cover 3’ of wall space instead of 6’. UL indicated that a move to 5’ spacing may be appropriate because a number of the product standards for lamps, etc. have reduced the minimum cord length to 5’ from 6’.
The NEMA reps recommend voting against the panel action (see voting comments section of this report).
Proposal 2-198 210.52(A)(4)
Panel Action: Reject Vote: 11 to 1 (NEMA voted negative)
There was no support for this proposal. All of the panel members indicated that although there may be some applications where a floor receptacle may make sense, it was not practical to require a contractor to install a receptacle “somewhere” when the furniture layout and arrangement would not be known at rough in (or at final in most cases).
The NEMA reps recommend supporting the panel action.
Proposal 2-229 210.52(E)
Panel Action: Accept in Principle Vote: 12 affirmative
The NEMA position to add receptacles to balconies was not only accepted, but it was expanded to include decks and porches. The final panel text for 210.52(E) is as follows:
(E) Outdoor Outlets. Outdoor receptacle outlets shall be installed in accordance with (E)(1) through (E)(3).
**(1) One-Family and Two-Family Dwellings. **For a one-family dwelling and each unit of a two-family dwelling that is at grade level, at least one receptacle outlet accessible at grade level and not more than 2.0 m (6 1/2 ft) above grade shall be installed at the front and back of the dwelling.
(2) Multi-Family Dwellings. For each dwelling unit of a multifamily dwelling where the dwelling unit is located at grade level and provided with individual exterior entrance/egress, at least one receptacle outlet accessible from grade level and not more than 2.0 m (6 1/2 ft) above grade shall be installed.
(3) Balconies, Decks and Porches. Balconies, decks and porches that are attached to the dwelling unit and are accessible from inside the dwelling shall have at least one receptacle outlet installed accessible from the balcony, deck or porch.
The NEMA representatives recommend supporting the panel action along with an affirmative comment on vote (see voting comments section of this report).
Panel Proposals
CP 200 (should be sequenced as 2-118a)
Recommendation:
Add a new FPN after the main paragraphs of 210.12(B) to state:
FPN No.2: See 11.6.3(5) of NFPA 72-2007, National Fire Alarm Code® for information related to secondary power supply requirements for smoke alarms installed in dwelling units.
Substantiation:
At the request of the NFPA 72 Technical Correlating Committee, the panel has added a new FPN to reference the specific requirement in NFPA 72 for a secondary power source for smoke alarms that are installed on AFCI protected circuits. The panel notes that the provision for a secondary power source is required for all new installations of smoke alarms under the provisions of NFPA 72 and the addition of the FPN correlates with the revision by the NFPA 72 Technical Correlating Committee to require that all AC powered smoke alarms (whether new installation or retrofit) that are supplied by an AFCI protected circuit must have a secondary power source.
Commentary: The NFPA 72 TCC took action to resolve the conflict between NFPA 72 and the NEC regarding smoke alarms on AFCI protected circuits. At the NFPA 72 TCC meeting, the TCC overturned the SIG-HOU committee action to prohibit smoke alarms on AFCI protected circuits and added language to make it clear that any smoke alarm supplied through an AFCI protected circuit must have a secondary source of power (which is a basic requirement of NFPA 72 for new construction). The 72 TCC requested that CMP 2 add a FPN pointing to the requirements of NFPA 72 for secondary source requirements. This action correlates with the NEMA position on AFCIs and smoke alarms that was approved by NEMA C&S last year.
**CP 201 **(should be sequenced as 2-206a)
Recommendation:
Revise Figure 210.52 as follows:
In both diagrams, change the words “Outlet(s) not required” to “Space exempt from wall line measurement”.
In both diagrams, change the caption on both diagrams from “Sink or Range” to “Sink, Range, or Counter-Mounted Cooking Unit”.
Substantiation:
The panel has revised the diagram to make it clear that the space in question is exempt from the wall line measurements if the dimension between the sink and wall are as shown in the drawings. The figure caption has been revised to “Determination of Area Behind a Sink, Range, or Counter-Mounted Cooking unit” to be consistent with the terms defined in Article 100.
Recommended Voting Actions
The representatives recommend voting affirmative on all panel actions except as shown below:
Proposal 2-70:
Affirmative Comment Recommendation: This comment is to provide some additional clarity to the panel action text of this proposal. The panel accepted revising the existing item (4) to say “Outdoors”. The existing Exception in 210.8(B) should remain as “Exception to (3) and (4)…” The new exception added by the panel should say “Exception No. 2 to (4)…” This will make it clear that the new exception applies to 210.8(B)(4) only.
Proposal 2-197:
**Recommend Negative NEMA vote with the following voting comment: **NEMA recognizes that the panel was not in support of reducing the receptacle spacing to 3’ coverage of wall space. However, the discussions of the panel did reveal that since the inception of the 6’ rule, the product standards have changed to allow a minimum cord length of 5’ of many appliances (e.g. table lamps). Given this reduction, it is prudent for the panel to consider reducing wall space coverage for a single receptacle from six feet down to four or five feet. This issue should be revisited in the comment stage so that the code requirements are consistent with the requirements on cord length.
Proposal 2-229:
Affirmative Comment Recommendation: The new item (3) added by the panel may need some additional clarification. The discussions of the panel indicated that the intent of the requirement is to require a receptacle be installed on any porch, deck or balcony. This receptacle was intended to be in addition to those that are installed to meet (1) or (2). It may be clearer if the new item (3) were written as “(3) Balconies, Decks and Porches. Balconies, decks and porches that are attached to the dwelling unit and are accessible from inside the dwelling shall have at least one receptacle outlet installed accessible from on the balcony, deck or porch.” This will prevent the argument that a receptacle installed elsewhere on grade can meet the requirement of (3) because you can walk down the steps of the porch or deck. The panel’s language in item (1) makes it clear that a receptacle on a deck could only serve as the receptacle meeting item (1) if it is accessible AT grade level.
It should also be noted that the panel is intentional in its use of differing language (AT grade level versus FROM grade level) in items (1) and (2) because of the configurations of multi-family dwellings.
**Proposal 2-242: **
**Affirmative Comment Recommendation: **With this change, the panel should consider revising the title of 210.60 to “210.60 Guest Rooms, Guest Suites and Dormitories” to make it clear that dormitories are now included.
Highlights of Significant Changes
Proposal 2-10 – Will require common disconnect of all ungrounded conductors of all multi-wire branch circuits installed in all locations.
**Proposal 2-16 **– Will require that each grounded conductor of a multi-wire branch circuit be identified as to what ungrounded conductors it is associated with.
Proposal 2-17 – Will require that the ungrounded and grounded conductors of a multi-wire branch circuit be “grouped” using wire ties (or something similar) in at least one location within a panelboard. The grouping is not required if the multi-wire branch circuit is unique to one cable or one raceway.
Proposals 2-23 and 2-24 – Revises the requirements for identification of the ungrounded conductors to require ID at the termination, connection and splice points. In addition, it clarifies that the ID must be for both phase and system. Lastly, it permits the ID scheme to be available in documentation instead of posted at each panel. Similar changes made to feeders in 215.
Proposals 2-40, 2-41, 2-50, 2-51, 2-56 and 2-57 - Deletes the existing exceptions to the GFCI provisions in garages and unfinished basements. The panel has taken the position that equipment produced today is compatible with GFCIs and that the exceptions are not necessary. The panel did retain an exception in the unfinished basement for a power supply to a fire alarm panel.
Proposal 2-70 – This proposal expands GFCI protection to all outdoor locations in other than dwelling units. A new exception was added to allow the assured equipment grounding conductor program in limited industrial establishments.
Proposal 2-73 – Revises the GFCI requirement for Commercial and Institutional kitchens to include “other nonresidential kitchens”.
Proposal 2-81 – Expands the GFCI requirements in “other than dwelling units” to include all receptacles that are within 6’ of any sink.
Proposal 2-87 – Expands GFCI protection to include all 240V and less boat hoists whether cord and plug connected or hard wired.
Proposal 2-142 – Expands AFCI requirements to all 15 and 20 ampere branch circuits in the dwelling unit.
**Proposal 2-147 – **Removes from the exception to 210.12(B) to require that metal conduit or metal sheathed cable be used for the 6’ of unprotected branch circuit when the AFCI is located at other than the origin of the branch circuit. The AFCI must still be installed within 6’ of the origin of the branch circuit.
Proposal 2-166 – Adds a new exception to 210.19(A)(1) to make it clear that a grounded conductor that is not connected to an overcurrent device can be sized at 100% of continuous and noncontinuous load. Similar changes made in feeders.
**Proposal 2-184 **– Revises 210.25 on common area branch circuits to split up the requirements and applies the rule that common area equipment cannot be supplied from the equipment for an individual tenant to all multi-occupancy locations.
**Proposal 2-190 **– Revises 210.52 to make it clear that a “switched” receptacle cannot be used as meeting the requirements of 210.52(A) for receptacle spacing. This section would still allow a duplex to have one-half switched and still meet the requirement.
**Proposal 2-229 – **Revises the outdoor receptacle requirements of 210.52(E) to arrange the section into multiple subsections. In addition, it adds a new item (3) to require a receptacle be installed on all decks, porches and balconies that are attached to a dwelling unit.
**Proposal 2-242 – **The proposal adds “dormitories” to the list of occupancies that require receptacles be installed in accordance with 210.52(A) and (D).
Rejected Proposals of Significant Interest
**Proposal 2-138 – **This proposal would have required that AFCI protection be installed when the circuit protection devices are replaced as part of an upgrade or repair. The panel rejected the proposal, but requested additional comment on these wiring systems and compatibility with AFCI protection.
**Proposal 2-88 – **This proposal was to add a requirement that all 277V lighting circuits be provided with a system of GFCI protection. The “system” outlined in the proposal was conceptual and patented by Chevron. The major concern with this proposal is that the substantiation is based on workers being injured because they worked on lighting systems while they were energized. Adding this type of system to compensate for improper and ineffective work practices would have established a significant trend of concern relative to working on energized equipment.
**Proposal 2-356 – **This is a proposal from the American Chemistry Council requesting that calculations in industrial locations be performed under engineering supervision and that the engineer can determine the demand factor to be applied. The proposal was too broad in its present form, but the panel will likely entertain a more structured and focused approach at the comment stage.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Pauley – NEMA Principle Dan Kissane – NEMA Alternate
Proposal 2-10 – Will require common disconnect of all ungrounded conductors of all multi-wire branch circuits installed in all locations.
**Proposal 2-16 **– Will require that each grounded conductor of a multi-wire branch circuit be identified as to what ungrounded conductors it is associated with.
Proposal 2-17 – Will require that the ungrounded and grounded conductors of a multi-wire branch circuit be “grouped” using wire ties (or something similar) in at least one location within a panelboard. The grouping is not required if the multi-wire branch circuit is unique to one cable or one raceway.
I Like these…
How do you guys feel about the new rule about requiring tamperproof receptacles in dwellings
For safety;s sake Yes!
NEST IN THE ATTIC
http://ecmweb.com/mag/403ecm30pic1.jpg
Chris VanderWoude, owner, Van’s Electric, Inc., Franklin, N.C., found this mess in an attic while troubleshooting a residential light fixture that wouldn’t work. How many Code violations can you list? I’ve run out of room on my violation notice. The lack of any type of junction box, no support for the cables, and about a dozen other rules have been violated in this installation (Art. 314, 334, and 300). The “neat and workmanlike” issue is a contender for the worst violation of all.
HOW HOT IS HOT?
http://ecmweb.com/mag/403ecm30pic2.jpg
Steve Wiggins, an HVAC contractor from Waco, Texas, took a photo of this 10-ton electric heat rooftop package unit to show just how hot those wire nuts can get when the connection is bad. The “drooling” wire connector appears to be hopelessly undersized for the application, based on the exposed strands of the black conductor. Because of different characteristics of dissimilar metals, devices like pressure terminal or pressure splicing connectors and soldering lugs shall be identified for the material of the conductor and shall be properly installed and used (110.14). There also appears to be other evidence of localized overheating, possibly due to an intermittent/failed “indoor” fan. The black wire looks like part of some modification — maybe THHN “building wire” creatively connected to the red “appliance wiring material” — made by an “unqualified person.” The black crusty stuff (bottom left in picture) on the red vinyl conductor supports the theory that gross overheating is the likely culprit.
THEY PLUMP WHEN YOU COOK 'EM
http://ecmweb.com/mag/403ecm30pic3.jpg
Tom Clements, Miller Blue Ribbon Beef, Swift & Co., Hyrum, Utah, found this split conduit near a steam water separator in his plant. The separator had failed and let steam escape into the cold surrounding air, which in turn condensed vapor in the conduit, thus splitting it open.
There’s a good chance the installer forgot to properly seal the raceway. The NEC requires portions of a cable, raceway, or sleeve known to be subjected to different temperatures in places where condensation is known to be a problem to be filled with an approved material to prevent the circulation of warm air to a colder section of the raceway or sleeve. An explosionproof type seal isn’t required for this purpose [300.7(A)].
HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?
http://ecmweb.com/mag/403ecm30pic4.jpg
An employee from Jerry’s Electric in Rhode Island submitted this photo. Without applying any of the exceptions, service-drop conductors can’t be readily accessible and must comply with the requirements of 230.24(A), which covers clearances for services less than 600V, nominal. When installed above roofs, service drop conductors are required to have a vertical clearance of at least 8 feet above the roof surface. This vertical clearance must also be maintained for a distance of no less than 3 feet in all directions from the edge of the roof.
A service drop is defined in Article 100 as, “The overhead service conductors from the last pole or other aerial support to and including the splices, if any, connecting to the service-entrance conductors at the building or other structure.” See 230.28 for the requirements of using service masts as supports for service-drop conductors
Here is the link to the NEC Online:
Thanks for all the info Joe, and keep it coming.
UL Lists over 5 different types of AFCI’s:
Inspecting Electrical Services
Articles 90, 100, 110, Annex A, Annex G
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 210, 215, 220, Annex D, Examples 1-6
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 300, 590, 720, 725, 760, Chapter 9, Tables 11(a) and (b), Tables 12(a) and (b)
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 225, 230
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 200, 250, 280, 285
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 310, 400, 402, Chapter 9 Tables 5 through 9, Annex B
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 320, 322, 324, 326, 328, 330, 332, 334, 336, 338, 340, 382, 394, 396, 398
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 342, 344, 348, 350, 352, 353, 354, 356, 358, 360, 362, 366, 368, 370, 372, 374, 376, 378, 380, 384, 386, 388, 390, 392, Chapter 9 Tables 1-4, Annex C
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 312, 314, 404, 408, 450, 490
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 240, 780
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 409, 430, 440, 460, 470, Annex D, Example D8
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 610, 620, 625, 630, 640, 645, 647, 650, 660, 665, 668, 669, 670, 685, Annex D, Examples D9 through D10
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
???
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 510, 511, 513, 514, 515, 516
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 517, 518, 520, 525, 530, 540
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 770, 800, 810, 820, 830
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 422, 424, 426, 427, 680, 682
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 406, 410, 411, 600, 605
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
Articles 545, 547, 550, 551, 552, 553, 555, 604, 675, Annex D, Examples D11 and D12
http://www.iaei.org/images/clear-clear.gif
**CMP-20 **(Pre-2005 Code)
Hi Joe I would like to know how many service entrance conductor are allowed in one service mast. Is it regulated by conduit fill
Generally speaking “one set”. Unless you can fit into one of the exceptions (different voltages etc) you can only have one service per building.
Greg,
What are you referring to as “service per building”?
I have seen different (separate) drops and segregated meter pans on many buildings. I would not consider them as a single service.
I was looking at a photo I have of four separate meters off of a single service, with a 5th meter along side the rest on its own service.
Utility company installed it and blessed it…
See the NEC Section 310.4 for conductors in parallel, and Yes See Annex C for conductor’s all of the same size for fill in a single conduit.
http://www.llr.state.sc.us/pol/bcc/PDFfiles/2002%20NEC%20website.pdf
Also, they are required to be derated as well, and must be sunlight resistant.
Look here too:
http://www.electrician2.com/calculat…alculator.html
PS: For the subject of Greg’s reply see 230.2 
Roper? - was he a member of the SS of E?
I thought Roper owned an apartment building in California, and lived downstairs from two girl tenants and a boy he presumed to be gay.