panel - nfpa · feeder for mobile homes has never been defined from the mast weatherhead or the...

Log # 280 19- 48 - (550-21): Accept SUBMITTER: W. Creighton Schwan, Hayward, CA RECOV~HENDATION: Starting in line 2, change "115/230 volts, nominal" to "120/240 volts, nominal." SUBSTANTIATION: Section 550-4(d) requires a mobile home to be marked "120/240 volt" while Section 550-21 requires the mobile home park to provide a 115/230-volt system. Section 551-43, for recreational vehicle parks specifies a 120/240-volt system, while Section 550-21 for mobile home parks specifies 115/230 volts. How is the operator of a premises with accomodations for both mobile homes and recreational vehicle~ to reasonably comply?

In the 1981 Preprint, Page 302, Proposal 2, Panel 19 expressed a preference for 115/230 volts, and referred in other proposals for both mobile homes and recreational vehicles to this Panel Comment. To be consistent at least within Articles 550 and 551, i f not with the rest of the Code, i t is suggested that the voltage selected be uniformly cited throughout both articles. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANELACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1272 19- 49 - (550-23(d)): Accept SUBMITTER: IAEI RECO~IENDATION: Location, Mobile home service equipment shall be readily accessible and shall be located not more than 30 feet (9.14 m) from the exterior wall of the mobile home i t serves, SUBSTANTIATION: There are many installations where, due to the present wording of this section, the installer must come out of the ground with the feeders and attach them to the mobile home many feet from where the feeders actually enter the mobile home. This makes for extra junctions, bends, etc. and of course increases the chances for fai lure. With the proposed wording the feeders could remain underground until a point is reached directly below where they would enter the mobile home thereby eliminating the jogs and excess f i t t ings, etc.

Also, being readily accessible is important because many times an obstruction such as a high fence can be much closer to the mobile home than 30 feet which then eliminates the use of the main disconnect at the service equipment in an emergency situation, at least for a much longer period of time than could or should be tolerated. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 2012 19- 50 - (550-23(f)-(New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Idaho Chapter IAEI ~ A T I O N : Add a new Section - 550-23(f). Feeder. Mobile home feeder equipment shall consist of an approved type cord, as required by Section 550-3(e), or a permanently installed feeder containing four continuous, insulated, color-coded conductors, one of which shall be identified by a continuous solid green color of insulation or by factory coloring or painting the insulation green. SUBSTANTIATION: The requirements for the permanently installed feeder for mobile homes has never been defined from the mast weatherhead or the junction box underneath or the feeder directly from the adjacent service to the panel inside the mobile home. There is a need for this in Part B. of Article 550.

The green insulated conductor has been a problem especially when Section 250-57, Exception No. I allows No. 4 and larger conductors that must be insulated to be colored green where exposed. Also, avai labi l i ty of green insulated conductors is not the best at times, regardless of the reason why. The above proposal would alleviate many d i f f i cu l t problems in the f ield since i t has come to our attention manufacturers can readily supply surface color-coded or painted conductors. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Identify as a new Section 550-24 t i t led "Feeder." Add the words "factory installed in accordance with" after the

word "cord." Delete the words "as required by." PANEL COMMENT: Changed for coordination and clari f ication. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1365 " 19- 51 - (550-X-(New)): Reject

SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group RECOMMENDATION: Add new section to Article 550 as follows:

Service for Communications Systems. All mobile homes shall be provided with a means for the entrance of communication conductors. This shall consist of a length of conduit, 1/2-inch or larger in diameter which shall:

(a) Project below the underside of the mobile home a minimum of 3 inches; and

(b) Terminate at least 12 inches above the finished floor in a suitable flush mounted enclosure that is located in a wall or part i t ion; and

(c) Is provided with a suitable cap on the exterior end.

SUBSTANTIATION: Provision for the entrance of telephone and cable television conductors is not included in the design and construction of mobile homes. Communications installers must d r i l l through the shell of the home to provide entrance for the conductors. In some cases electrical wiring has been contacted, resulting in injury to the installer. In others, wiring insulation has been damaged which resulted in energization of the mobile home shell, sometimes at a later date. These accidents have increased in recent years because of the wide-spread use of mobile homes as residences.

We believe that in the interest of safety i t would be of benefit to both communications installers and mobile home residents i f the need for dr i l l ing through the exterior of the home were reduced as much as possible. This problem has been recognized in Canada where a rule similar to the above proposal has been incorporated into the Canadian Electrical Code, Part 1, Section 70-106.

Our proposal differs from the Canadian Code in several respects as follows:

1. The use of metallic conduit and boxes is not specified, because we see no reason why they need to be metallic.

2. The communications entrance enclosure is not described in detail, because enclosures that are more suitable for the purpose than standard (listed) electrical outlet boxes may be developed in the future. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: I t is impossible to predetermine the location of communication equipment during the manufacture of the unit. Installation of such an out l) t wi l l not necessarily eliminate the need for further modifications. Additionally, in the past, the Panel has found i t necessary to remove restrictions on locations of u t i l i t y entries to mobile homes. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 66 19- 52 - (550-xxx (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Ervine Brown, Salem, OR ~ A T I O N : Additional paragraph, t i t led: Communication Outlets.

Three outlets shall be provided in each mobile home. i . One above counter level in the kitchen area. 2. One in living room/family room area. 3. One in master bedroom preferably on wall common to adjacent

bedroom. Communication outlets shall be the same height above floor as

electric outlets. Additional outlets may be provided by manufacturer. The outlets shall be standard or shallow boxes with 1/2 inch

I.D. tubing attached and extended vert ical ly through underside of the mobil home, plugged or capped with a removable material to comply with rodent proof requirements. The outlet box and tubing may be either metal or nonmetalic material. SUBSTANTIATION: Provision for telephone and cable television service is not included in the design and construction of mobil homes. Of primary concern is dr i l l ing through the wall or f loor of a manufactured house that contains previously installed electric, gas, water, or sewer lines that are hidden from view.

Substantiation for proposal is attached document t i t led: Testimony Before the National Mobil Home Advisory Council,

(Note: A copy of the document may be obtained from NFPA on request.) PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Same as Proposal 19-51. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 551 -- RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS

19- 53 - (551-3(b)(4)c, Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 19 RECOMMENDATION: Relocate existing exception from Section 551-3(b)(4)c to Section 551-3(b) between (1) and (2).

No change in text. Relocation only. SUBSTANTIATION: I t specifically applies to the statement that copper conductors shall be used for low-voltage circuits and has no applicabil i ty insofar as wire types and marking requirements. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

319

19- 54 - (551-3(d)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 19 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new third sentence to read as follows:

"When compartment doors are equipped for vent i lat ion the openings shall be within 1 inch (25.4 mm) of the top and bottom." SUBSTANTIATION: Of primary concern is' battery compartment access doors. A Formal Interpretation rendered in the past stated that the openings for venti lat ion were to be located at the extremo top and bottom. This can only logical ly apply to a battery box and not to a compartment containing an exterior access door. From a practical standpoint, the fabrication of a compartment door that would meet the l i te ra l intent is self defeating. The doors contain louvers, top and bottom, to provide venti lat ion while preventing moisture penetration. Placing these vents at the extreme top and bottom would destroy the structural integr i ty of the compartment door. The 1-inch proposal wi l l s t i l l afford adequate vent i lat ion. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NEGATIVE: Barker.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: BARKER: The louver or venting could be put at the top and

bottom with a properly constructed door without destroying the in tegr i ty . I am concerned with the volume of gases that could be trapped within that one (1)-inch spacing.

Log # 596 19- 55 - (551-5(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Robert M. Burdick, Onan Generators RECOMMENDATION: a) Remove "The generator f ie ld shall be protected by appropriately rated, approved equipment."

b) Alternate to a). Add before sentence: " I f required" the generator f ie ld . . . . . . . .

SUBSTANTIATION: The last sentence requires that "the generator f ie ld shall be protected by appropriately rated, approved equipment." This statement is not necessary because not al l generators require this protection. I f protection is necessary, i t wi l l be included because the generator, as well as all appliances, must be 3rd party approved, and are tested for short-c i rcui t and overload. Ref: 1) ANSI/RVIA-EGS-1-1976 (American National Standard for engine generator sets for recreation vehicles) Par. 5.14.

2) UL Standard 1248 (Engine-Generator Assemblies for Use in Recreational Vehicles) Sections 29 & 30. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add the words " I f required" to the beginning of the last sentence. PANEL COMMENT: The alternate as proposed is preferred by the Panel. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 597 19- 56 - (551-5(b)): Accept SUBMITTER: Robert M. Burdick, Onan Generators RECOMMENDATION: Change f i r s t sentence to read: " Approvea equipment, "incorporating a posit ive off mode," shall be installed to ensure that current-carrying conductors from the engine generator and from an outside source are not connected to a vehicle c i rcu i t at the same time. SUBSTANTIATION: Not al l people disconnect public power before start ing the generator or stop the generator before plugging into public power. I f the switching device (switch, c i rcu i t breaker, or relay) does not break (including the arc) before the oncoming supply is connected, i t ' s possible the device could explode. RV's that use the power supply assembly to switch from one to the other provide a positive of f between connections. UL does not have a specific standard to cover this type of device, although they may take this into consideration when l is t ing one. This section should be changed to ensure any approval or l is t ing includes this protection. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

DUKS: The proposal, as worded would not permit use of a number of automatic and manual transfer devices which have been tested for the purpose, because they do not have an "of f " position required by the proposal. Such devices even without an "of f " position can ensure that current carrying conductors from the engine generator and from the outside source are not connected to a vehicle c i rcu i t at the same time.

I t is suggested that the f i r s t sentence be changed to read: "Equipment identif ied for transfer use shall be installed . . . . " (remainder of sentence unchanged).

19- 57 - (551-5(f)-(New)): Accept in Principle SUBMII-TER: Robert M. Burdick, Onan Generators

Log # 598

RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph ( f ) . ( f ) Compartment Construction. Generator compartments shall be

constructed of galvanized steel, not less than 22GA thick. Seams and joints shall be lapped, mechanically secured and made vaportight to the inter ior of the vehicle. Alternate materials and methods of construction may be used i f they provide equivalent qual i ty, strength, effectiveness, f i re resistance, durabi l i ty and safety. Fuel lines and exhaust systems shall not penetrate into the l iv ing area. Holes for electr ical conduit, conductors or cables into the l iv ing area shall be sealed vaportight. SUBSTANTIATION: The construction of the generator compartment should be covered in this standard. At present, any insta l ler outside of California can line the cc~npartment with plywood, fiberglass, foam, etc. and not properly seal openings or seams nor give any protection from f i re or carbon monoxide. Addition of a sealed metal l iner w i l l give much needed added protection, at the time of California adoption, requirement of 22GA steel was accepted in the R.V. Industry. Ref. - California Administrative Code - Ti t le 25, Section 4626. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change the words "constructed of" to "lined with" and "22GA" to "26GA" in the f i r s t sentence. PANEL COMMENT: Using the words "lined with" provides better c la r i t y . Changing 22GA to 26C~A wi l l represent recognized practice. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Aff irmative.

19- 58 - (551-7(b)(3)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 19 ~ A T I O N : Revise Section 551-7(b)(3) to read as follows:

"Adjacent to counter top spaces of 100 square inches or larger and having both width and depth dimensions of 6 inches or larger," (remainder of sentence unchanged.) SUBSTANTIATION: The wording in this paragraph has caused continuing problems in interpretation and enforcement. The addition of "and depth" wi l l al leviate the many interpretations originating from the lack of specified depth. A shelf 14 inches wide and i inch in depth could be interpreted as requiring a receptacle outlet but clearly does not qual i fy as a counter top (or working area). PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: BARKER: I do not believe this would c lar i fy . I t wi l l be more

confusing and rest r ic t ive. Most counter tops are more often 18- to 30-inches deep. I have never seen one 1-inch in depth. This would require an outlet for any normal counter space 6-inches wide where the present requirement is 12 inches.

19- 59 - (551-8): Accept Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating

Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. SUBMII-TER: CMP 19 ~ A T I O N : Revise to read as fo l lows: "551-8. Branch Circuits Required. Each recreational vehicle containing a 120-volt electr ical system shall contain one of the following:

(a) One 15-ampere c i rcu i t to supply l ights, receptacle outlets and fixed appliances. Such recreational vehicles shall be equipped with one 15-ampere c i rcu i t breaker and a 15-ampere'rated main power supply assembly.

(b) One 20-ampere c i rcu i t to supply l ights, receptacle outlets and fixed appliances. Such recreational vehicles shall be equipped with one 20-ampere c i rcu i t breaker and a 20-ampere rated main power supply assembly,

(c) Two or more 15- or 20-anloere circuits to supply l ights, receptacle outlets and fixed appliances. Such recreational, vehicles shall be equipped with a 30-ampere rated main power supply assembly.

See Section 210-23(a) for permissible loads. See Section 551-11(c) for main disconnect and overcurrent protection requirements.

(d) A 40- or 50-anloere power supply assembly which shall be calculated in accordance with the following method:" SUBSTANTIATION: The current wording of Section 551-8 has been a constant problem source for both manufacturers and enforcement o f f i c ia ls . I t is written in such a manner as to invoke confl ict ing opinions among the users. For example, Section 551-8 begins by stating that the branch circui ts be determined in accordance with subparagraph (a), (b), (c) "or" (d) below. This clearly indicates the RV manufacturer has a choice of any one of the four options. Yet, in the case of subparagraph (a), there are those who insist that when this option is selected subparagraph (d) must also be employed. To further confuse the issue, i f subparagraph (b) is applied, the calculations under (d) are not required. This means that extensive calculations must be made for a single 15-ampere c i rcu i t but none (under (b)) are required when two or more 15- or 20-ampere circui ts are installed. RVIA is of

320

the opinion that the terms "not more than eight outlets" and "more than eight outlets" are unnecessary parameters for determining the number and size circuits to be installed. I t cannot be argued that these are present as a safety consideration since Sections 551-9, 551-10 and 551-11 collectively applied provide all necessary overcurrent protection without any af f i l ia t ion with these parameters. Additionally, each park service connection is also equipped with an overcurrent protection device.

As far as individual circuit loading is concerned the requirement for con~)liance with Section 210-23 is sufficient to preclude designed overutilization that may lead to nuisance tripping of the overcurrent protection device. Therefore, in view of sufficient guidance concerning overcurrent protection, sizing of power supply assembly and circuit loading, the provisions of Section 551-8 should be basic, yet functional. The proposed text meets that requirement.

The proposed text was submitted to CMP 19 by the previous Intersectional Electrical Task Force Committtee for consideration for the 1981 edition of the NEC. The CMP rejected the proposal but gave no technical explanation for the rejection. The CMP did agree with the intent but elected to substitute its own proposal which modified Section 551-8(c) only. (1980 NFPA Report of the I~ATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE Committee, page 306, Proposals 37 and 37A.) PANEL ACTION: Accept. , PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 19-61. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Af f i rmat ive . COMMENT ON VOTE:

DUKS: In Subsections (a) and (b) change "circuit breaker" to "overcurrent device," to permit other acceptable types of overcurrent devices.

Log # 1216 19- 60 - (551-8(a),(b'), and (c)): Reject SUBMITTER: R. E. Wilkinson, Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: "The branch circuits required in a recreational vehicle shall conform to Section 551-19 and be determined in accordance with subparagraphs (a) or (b) below. When provisions are made to fac i l i ta te future installations of an electrical appliance, the anticipated load of such appliance shall be counted in determining the applicability of (a) or (b) below, and when making the calculation in (c) below.

(a) Not More than Eight Outlets. Recreational vehicles with not more than eight lighting and receptacle outlets combined shall be permitted to have either:

(1) One 15-ampere general purpose branch circuit and a power supply assembly rated not less than 15 a~eres, 115 volts, provided the total rating of fixed appliances connected to this circuit does not exceed 600 watts, or

(2) One 20-ampere general purpose branch circuit and a power supply assembly rated not less than 20 a~eres, 115 volts, provided the total rating of fixed appliances connected to this circuit does not exceed 1,000 watts, or

(3) Branch circuits in accordance with Section 551-8(b) below. Vehicles wired in accordance with (a)(1) or (a)(2) above shall

not be equipped with electrical heating or cooking appliances. (b) More than Eight Outlets. Recreational vehicles with more

than eight lighting and receptacle outlets combined, greater branch-circuit loads than permitted in Section 551-8(a)(1) or (a)(2) above, or with electrical heating or cooking appliances shall have either:

(I) Two or three 15- or 20-an~oere branch circuits and a power assembly rated not less than 30 amperes, 115 volts, or

FPN: See Section 210-23(a) for permissible loads. FPN: See Section 551-11(c) for main disconnect and overcurrent

protection requirements. (2) More than three branch circuits and/or circuits exceeding

20 an~)eres and a power supply rated not less than calculated load. FPN: See Section 210-23(a) for permissible loads. FPN: See Section 551-8(c) below for power supply load and load

distribution calculations. FPN: See Section 551-10 for power supply assembly requirements. FPN: See Section 551-11(c) for main disconnect and overcurrent

protection requirements. (c) Calculations for Lighting and Appliance Load. When Section 551-8(b)(2) is applied, the following method shall

be e~loyed in computing the load distribution between legs and the capacity of the power supply assembly and panelboard for the recreational vehicle." SUBSTANTIATION: This section is written in confusing terms. The f i r s t sentence states that "(a), (b), (c), or (d)" applies. Yet, either (a) or (b) always applies, (~) may apply simultaneously with (a) or (b) and (d) applies with either (a) or (c) (according to the f i r s t sentence of (d)). Because the application of these subparagraphs is unclear, i t is d i f f i cu l t to determine the number of circuits and feeder sizes requiring load calculations. Furthermore, there appears to be no provision for circuits larger than 20 amperes, which should be permitted on 40- or 50- a~ere 230-volt power supplies.

The wording reorganizes Section 551-8 and addresses all requirements and alternatives. This proposal assumes that Panel 19 intended that calculations wil l be required Whenever more than 3 circuits are installed on a 30-ampere power supply and whenever 40- or 50- anloere power supplies are provided. Circuit size is not limited to 20 amperes when load calculations are made. Emphasis on balancing the loads between A and B legs has been added. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 19-59. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1217 19- 61 - (551-8(d)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. SUBMITTER: R. E, Wilkinson, Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change portions A, E, G and I of the calculations as follows:

"A. Lighting. I f electric lighting is provided either directly or indirectly (through a voltage converter) by the 115 volt or 115/230 volt system, calculate l ightin 9 wattage at 3 watts per square foot using exterior dimensions (exclusive of hitch and cab) as follows:

Length (feet) X width (feet) X 3 = lighting watts."

"E. Add nameplate an~)eres for motors and heater loads (exhaust fans, air conditioners*, electric, gas or oi l heating*). Also include anticipated loads in above categories when prewired outlets or circuits are installed for other than factory-installed major appliances.

* Omit smaller of heating or air conditioning load, except include any motor common to both functions."

"G. Add nameplate anlperes of the following appliances. Include anticipated loads when prewired outlets or circuits are installed for other than factory-installed major appliances.

Disposal Water Heater Wall-Mounted Ovens Cooking Units

Total** **When number of appliances is four or more, use 75 percent of

tota l . " " I . (Delete this portion)

SUBSTANTIATION: This calculation procedure is not clear concerning the method of calculation for low voltage converter-supplied lighting loads. Also, i t is l ikely that the motor starting loads for prewired outlets intended for major appliances ( i .e . , air conditioners) wil l not be considered for portion F of the calculation.

The changes to the calculation outlined will c lar i fy that 3 watts per square foot applies to converter-supplied low voltage lights, and wil l add the anticipated loads at prewired appliance outlets to portion E of the calculation in order that they be considered for starting load in portion F. The 3 watts per square foot lighting load is adequate for converter-supplied lighting systems because low voltage lanlps normally use considerably less power (18 to 25 watts) than 115 volt lamps. This reduced low voltage lighting load offsets losses due to voltage converter efficiencies. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete asterisks from "Total" and "When." Relocate asterisks ** to appear in front of the word "Include" in G. PANEL COMMENT: Asterisks relocated for proper reference. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

DUKS: For clar i ty in Item G, the double asterisks should be deleted and the LAST SENTENCE relocated immediately after the second sentence.

lg- 61A - (551-9(b),(c)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 19 RECO~ENDATION: In Section 551-9(b) delete the words "considered adequate" and insert the words "permitted for . "

In Section 551-9(c) delete the word "considered" and insert "permitted to be." SUBSTANTIATION: To conform with Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Control Circuit Protection. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOtE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

321

Log # 138 19- 62 - (551-11(b) and 551-11(b), Exception): Accept

Secretary's Note: This Comment (No. 70-10, CMP-19) was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See NEC-TCD-1980 Annual Meeting. SUBMITTER: Bruce A. Hopkins, Recreation Vehicle Industry Assn. ~ A T I O N : Delete the exception and revise Section 551-11(b) to read as fol lows:

"The distr ibut ion panelboard shall be installed in a readily accessible location. The basic working clearance area shall not be less than 20 inches wide and 22 inches deep. When the bottom of the panelboard is less than 21 inches above the f loor of the recreational vehicle either the depth or the width clearance must increase to a minimum of 30 inches. When panelboards are installed in closets, cabinets or compartments a vert ical access opening to the basic working clearance area must be provided which is sized in accordance with Table 551-11(b). In no case can the access opening be smaller than the panelboard i t se l f . The clearance d i rect ly in front of the panelboard cover screw shall not be less than 6 inches." SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended change enclosed to Proposal 41 is submitted because as presently written, equity is not offered to instal lat ion of various size distr ibution panelboards. The primary result which Proposal 41 is attempting to acquire is a suff ic ient working area d i rect ly in front of the panelboard so that examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance can safely and conveniently be conducted. While Section 110-16 of the NEC now addresses this subject and sets forth a minimum of 30 X 36 inches and Proposal 41 offers a deviation for recreational vehicles to 24 X 30 inches (using the exception the dimensions could be a minimum 22 X 24 inches), i t is our opinion that the working space is not suf f ic ient ly addressed as height is not covered. While we agree that a basic working area is needed, 24 X 30 inches does not address the fact that recreational vehicles have very limited space and the arms of a person can extend from the body to ef fect ive ly and safely reduce the working area.

The vehicles most adversely affected by Proposal 41 are vans, truck campers, and micro mini homes which are limited to usable space by design.

Our enclosed recommendation is based on the following: An RV's average cabinet depth is 24 inches with aisle spaces of

22 inches. The width of the average male adult at the shoulders and appendages as i l lustrated in architectural graphic standards by Ramsey and Sleeper (see Attachment A).*

Distribution panelboards used in RV's, which range in size from 4 X 4 inches to 14 X 14 inches, in conjunction with the fact that Section 551-11(c) l imits the panelboard to the dead front type which by design, mandates that all features are accessible from d i rec t ly in front of the panelboard i t se l f .

Therefore, the worst case of a 4 X 4-inch panelboard mounted 24 inches deep in a cabinet was the starting point (understanding that i f our recommendation worked for a 4 X 4-inch panelboard, i t would also work for a 14 X 14-inch panelboard.

The basic working area of 20 inches wide by 22 inches deep was derived from the 20 inches width of the shoulder of the average male adult and the 22 inches was the width of this man in the stooping position measured from his knee to his heel (see Attachment A--page 2*). We found that any panelboard mounted below 21 inches (height of knee to f loor) would cause a distort ion in the normal stoop position and therefore f e l t that the width of the clearance area must expand to a minimum of 30 inches to take this into account.

Looking at the exception in Proposal 41 of allowing the panelboard to be mounted behind the aisle's finished surface providing the cover was within 2 inches of same, needs to be expanded. With Table 551-11(b) we introduce the height and width requirement of an access opening to the basic working area. This access opening would allow both working room and vision allowance for safe and convenient inspection and repair from the basic working clearance area.

The size of the access openings were calculated based on the formulas and diagram in Attachment B* which ut i l ized as a worst case condition a 20 X 20 inch opening to provide shoulder room while reaching 24 inches to obtain access to a 4 X 4 inch panelboard.

Additionally, we f e l t that a clearance to the panelboard cover screw should be addressed. The 6 inch figure was based on a stubby screwdriver which is normally B 1/2 inches long and 2 1/2 inches for hand room below.

Table 551-11(b)

Depth From Finished

,Aisle Surface to Min. Access Panelboard cover Opening Size

0 - 2 in. Size of Panelboard 2 - 3 in. 6 X 6 in. 3 - 6 in. B X 8 in. 6 - 9 in. 10 X 10 in. g - 12 in. 12 X 12 in.

12 - 15 in. 14 X 14 in. 15 - 18 in. 16 X 16 in. 18 - 21 in. 18 X 18 in. 21 - 24 in. 20 X 20 in.

*Sent to CMP 19.

PANEL ACTION Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


COMMENT ON VOTE: HOPKINS: Table 551-11b which appears in the substantiation, or

comment section, was to be enclosed as part of the recommendation of the paragraph i t se l f . EXPLANATION OF VOTE:

BARKER: This proposal was based upon the 1978 Code which was changed in the 1981 to add the exception because the required space by Section 110-16 was changed from 30 to 36 inches. The present rule would be adequate. The table referred to is not a part of the proposal, therefore the proposal is incomplete. I f this is overcome the table is in too many increments to be practical for use or enforcement.

Log # 1218 19- 63 - (551-13(b)): Accept. SUBMII-FER: R. E. Wilkinson, Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. ~ A T I O N : Change the second paragraph of Section 551-13(b) to read as follows:

"The cord exposed usable length, measured to the point of entry on the vehicle exterior, shall be a minimum of 23 feet (7.0 m) when the point of entrance is at the side of the vehicle, or shall be a minimum 28 feet (8.5 m) when the point of entrance is at the rear of the vehicle.

When the cord entrance into the vehicle is more than 3 feet (0.9 m) above the ground, the minimum cord lengths above shall be increased by the vert ical distance of the cord entrance heights above 3 feet (0.9 m).

FPN: See Section 551-13(e)." SUBSTANTIATION: This section requires a far longer cord on some vehicles than is needed to reach the park service. Conservative cord length calculations and f u l l scale tests show that a 23 foot cord when entering the vehicle on the road side within the areas permitted by Section 551-13(e) w i l l reach "a l l " park services located in accordance with Section 551-47(a). (Please see attached diagrams.) Calculations and tests also show that cords entering the rear of the vehicle need only be 28 feet long to reach a l l park services. This section as written can require the rear entry cord to be 39 feet long.

The need to stock and provide many lengths of cords from 20 to 39 feet long and the need to provide unnecessarily long cords places an unreasonable cost burden on the manufacturers, and f i na l l y , on the consumers. I t is more reasonable and e f f i c ien t to require only two lengths of cord, 23 feet for vehicle side entry and 28 feet for rear entry.

The wording is proposed to provide beneficial regulation causing required cord length to be based on the actual lengths needed to reach from the RV to the service for al l entrance and service locations permitted in Sections 551-13(e) and 551-47(a), respectively. The text is based on tests and calculations in accordance with the attached diagrams. The cord analysis assumes that the camper w i l l be able to park his RV with its rear even with the rear of the site, and with the RV centerline on the centerline of the site. The park service connection is assumed to be 6 1/2 feet above the ground. An 18 inch rear bumper extension is assumed on rear entry cords to assure maximum calculated length (adds 1 foot to length). The analysis also allows for the fact that the cord is quite s t i f f and does not bend into right-angle corners, and that the plug faces 900 to the cord axis.

322

c°~--1 [ I

~1 STA NT LOCATION

SERVICE ,qT NeST DISTANT

t 2

S~VIC_E HEIGHT = ( . / i VEHICLE; ENTRy FIEIGHT = ~

CC R D - ~

/ ~ ' + . ~rr

5"~5'

~ D LENGTH= ,LS"', &l '+ IQS'+ 31'~- I.I,' : Z 3 . I '

L~SE Zg' CORD

I

Side Wall Entry Cord Length Diagram

SE~VIOJ5 H~I6"H~ = 6~z ' RV,~_~F VEHICLE ENTKY PZIGHT = Z'

I i COP.D

O_DF.D L~NSTt~ = ~,St S, le /Z,4 ¢ 3,1 ~DIST4NF LCC/tTIO,V

SE RV~..E #FI- hlOST J)ISTAWT U3(!~T~ON.

5

= Z5.1 '

CLSE Z 3 ' CORD

Side Floor Entry Cord Length Diagram

7~V ~ ~ se,~u~c~ ~cioH~ ~ (~'f'z ' , \ I I w ~ l ~ ENTITY HI31&flT = :3

I I I - . ~ i ~ #/--....

I ,( ~

I

• ~ LLSE Z6' CO~_?)

~EA~ VI£W

Rear Entry Cord Length Diagram

PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Af f i rmat ive.

19- 64 - (551-14(p)-(New)): Accept SUBMITFER: CMP 19 ~ A T I O N : Add a new Section 551-14(p) as fol lows:

(p) Method of Connecting Expandable Units. ( I ) That port ion of a branch c i r c u i t that is ins ta l led in an

expandable uni t shall be permitted to be connected to the port ion of the branch c i r c u i t in the main body of the vehicle by means of an attachment plug and cord l is ted for hard service. The cord and i ts connections shall conform to a l l provisions of A r t i c l e 400 and shall be considered as a permitted use under Section 400-7.

(2) I f the receptacle provided fo r connection of the cord to the main c i r c u i t is located on the outside of the vehicle i t shall be protected with a ground-faul t c i r c u i t - i n t e r r u p t e r fo r personnel and be l is ted for wet locations.

(3) Unless removable or stored wi th in the vehicle i n te r i o r , the cord asse~ ly shall have permanent provisions fo r protect ion against corrosion and mechanical damage while the vehic le is in t r ans i t .

(4) The cord shall be insta l led so as not to permit exposed l l ve attachment plug pins. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed tex t is necessary to provide a standard fo r connecting expandable uni ts of recreat ional vehicles to the main body. There is cur rent ly no guidance on th is subject. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


COMMENT ON VOTE: DUKS: Add to (p ) (2 ) : "A cord located on the outside of a

vehicle shall be iden t i f i ed fo r outdoor use." The cord should be sui table for condit ions to which i t may be exposed fo r extended periods of time. EXPLANATION OF VOTE:

BARKER: This would be acceptable only i f i t were l imited to t ipout units that were sel f-contained and did not require addit ional or ex ter io r support s t ructure.

19- 65 - (551-14(q)-(New)): Accept SUBMITFER: CMP 19 ~ A T I O N : Add a new Section 551-14(q) to read as fol lows:

"(q) Prewiring fo r Air Conditioning I ns ta l l a t i on . Prewiring ins ta l led for the purpose of f a c i l i t a t i n g future a i r condit ioning i ns ta l l a t i on shall conform to the fo l lowing and other applicable port ions of th is a r t i c l e . The c i r cu i t shall serve no other purpose.

( i ) An overcurrent pro tect ive device with a rat ing compatible with the c i r c u i t conductors shall be insta l led in the d i s t r i bu t i on panelboard and wir ing connections completed.

(2) The load end of the c i r c u i t shall terminate in a junct ion box with a blank cover. I f a junct ion box is u t i l i zed , the free ends of the conductors shall be adequately capped or taped.

323

(3) A label conforming to Section 551-13(d) shall be placed on or adjacent, to the junction box and shall read:

AIR CONDITIONING CIRCUIT. THIS CONNECTION IS FOR AIR CONDITIONERS RATED 110/125 VOLT AC, 60 HZ

AMPERES MAXIMUM. DO NOT E~X-CEI~ --- CIRCUIT RATING.

Am ampere rating, not to exceed 80 percent of the circuit rating, shall be legibly marked in the blank space." SUBSTANTIATION: Prewiring for air cohditioning has been practiced within the industry for some time. The addition of a standard practice for this subject is considered necessary and appropriate. There is currently no guidance on this subject. PANEL ACTION:' Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

BARKER: When the other method of termination was deleted the last sentence of (2) was not reworded ( I f a junction box is util ized) should be deleted.

DUKS: In (q)(2) second sentence, delete " I f a junction box is u t i l i zed , ' . . . A Junction box is required.

19- 68 - (551-24): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 19 ~ A T I O N : Revise t i t l e and Section 551-24 to read as follows:

"Appliance Accessibility and Fastening. Every appliance shall be accessible for inspection, service, repair and replacement without removal of permanent construction. Means shall be provided to securely fasten appliances in place when the recreational vehicle is in transit." SUBSTANTIATION: ANSI/NFPA 501C-1977 requires each fuel burning appliance to be secured in place to avoid displacement. Article 551 does not address this requirement in regard to electrical appliances. I t is important that each be secured, particularly in the case of the larger, free standing appliances. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

BARKER: While voting in the affirmative, I believe good workmanship would dictate this without a Code requirement. There is a difference in connections of fuel-burning and electrical appliances. Large free-standing appliances do not have a place in a recreational vehicle used for the purpose i t is designed for.

19- 66 - (551-14(r)-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 19 I~O-~:N-D-ATION: Add a new Section 551-14(r) to read as follows:

"(r) Prewiring for Generator Installation. Prewiring installed for the purpose of fac i l i ta t ing future generator installation shall conform to the following and other applicable portions of this article.

(1) Circuit conductors shall be appropriately sized in relation to the anticipated load.

(2) Where junction boxes are util ized at the circuit originating and/or terminus points, free ends of the conductors shall be adequately capped or taped.

(3) When devices such as overcurrent protection, receptacle outlet, transfer switch, etc., are installed, the installation shall be complete including circuit conductor connections. All devices shall be listed and appropriately rated.

(4) A label conforming to Section 551-13(d) shall be placed on the cover of each junction box containing incomplete circuitry and shall read, as appropriate, either:

GENERATOR CIRCUIT. THIS CONNECTION IS FOR GENERATORS RATED 110/125 VOLT

AC, 60 HZ AMPERES MAXIMUM.

OR GENERATOR CIRCUIT. THIS CONNECTION IS FOR GENERATORS RATED 115/230 VOLT

AC, 60 HZ AMPERES MAXIMUM.

The correct ampere rating shall be legibly marked in the blank space." SUBSTANTIATION: Prewiring for generator installation has been practiced within the industry for some time. The addition of a standard practice for this subject is considered necessary and appropriate. There is currently no guidance on this subject. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: BARKER: This would be acceptable only i f an overcurrent device

is installed rated not more than the circuit conductors at their point of supply. This conductor must be protected regardless of the size of the generator.

Log # 869 19- 69 - (551-42): Reject SUBMII-FER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA ~ A T I O N : Add a new f i r s t sentence as follows:

"Every recreational vehicle site with electrical supply shall be equipped with at least one 15- or 20- ampere, 125-volt receptacle." SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording has allowed the avoidance of ground-fault circuit protection for personnel by the use of 30-ampere receptacles and non-listed adapters, creating a safety hazard.

I t is noted that there is an inconsistency with Section 551-44, which deals with load calculations where site is equipped only with 20-ampere supply fac i l i t ies . PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that requiring a 15- or 20-ampere, 125-volt receptacle at every site is not necessary for sites accommodating recreational vehicles with 30-ampere cords. RVIA and manufacturers have advised that over 75 percent of the recreational vehicles manufactured have 30-ampere power supply cords. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NEGATIVE: Kruezer.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: KREUZER: The present wording continues to allow the avoidance

of ground-fault circuit protection for personnel by the use of 30-ampere receptacles and nonlisted adapters creating a safety hazard.

Log # 870 19- 70 - (551-42): Accept SUBMITTER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA ITE'~TO~i~N~}ATION: Change second paragraph to read as follows:

All 15- or 20- ampere, 125- volt receptacles shall have approved ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel. Additional receptacles shall be permitted, for the connection of electrical equipment outside the recreational vehicle within the recreational vehicle park, and all such 125- volt, single-phase, 15- and 20- ampere receptacles shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel. SUBSTANTIATION: To clar i fy that GFCI protection should be provided throughout the park rather than just at the recreational vehicle, PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

19- 67 - (551-20(a)): Accept SUBMII-FER: CMP 19 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 551-2(a) to read as follows:

"Any combustible wall or ceiling finish exposed between the edge of a f ixture canopy, or pan and the outlet box, shall be covered with noncombustible material or a material identified for the purpose." SUBSTANTIATION: The use o f asbestos has been all but precluded by governmental intervention. There are other materials available that are equally applicable to this installation. The proposed text has been changed to read the same as Section 410-13. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 098 19- 71 - (Table 551-44): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William R. Hudson, Fort Lauderdale, FL ~ A T I O N : I t is proposed that Table 551-44 include a statement to the effect that the demand factors may be inadequate in areas of high extremes of temperature with a loaded circuit . SUBSTANTIATION: In my campground, and some other campgrounds in Florida, when the circuit is fu l l and air conditioners or heaters are turned on, there is a strong possibil ity the circuit wil l t r ip . Had I been aware of this problem I would have insisted on more amperage available to each 30 ampere riser. I now have 11 amperes available on the average. An air conditioner draws 16 to 18 amperes alone. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add a FPN to Section 551-44(c) to read as follows: "These demand factors may be inadequate in areas of extreme hot

or cold temperature with loaded circuits for heating or air conditioning." PANEL COMMENT: To further clar i fy and properly locate. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

324

Log # 1311 19- 72 - (Table 551-44): Accept SUBMITTER: Ph i l ip R. Wanroy, Kampgrounds of America, Inc. RECOMWENDATION: Delete the Demand Factor (Percent) and change to the fo l lowing:

i I00 10-12 47 2 i00 13-15 45 3 100 16-18 44 4 89 19-21 42 5 71 22-40 40 6 63' 41-100 39 7-9 53 101-plus 37

SUBSTANTIATION: The demand factors have not been changed f o r many years while recreat ional vehicle units have increased t he i r c i r cu i t s and appliances. Five years of tests (see attachments) substant iate increasing the minimum demand factors fo r feeders and service-entrance conductors fo r park s i tes.

(Note: A copy of attachments is avai lable from NFPA on request.) PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Af f i rmat ive .

Log # 1310 19- 73 - (551-44(c)): Accept SUBMITTER: Philip R. Wanroy, Kampgrounds of America, Inc. ~ T I O N : In this sentence we would like to change the "26 percent" to "42 percent," the "936 watts" per site, to "1512 watts" per site and total of "18,720 watts" to "30,240 watts." SUBSTANTIATION: This change is requested to correspond with the recommended change in Table 551-44. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 555 - - MARINAS AND BOATYARDS

Log # 2039 20- I - (Ar t i c les 555, 680): Reject

Secretary 's Note: The Correlat ing Committee feels that th is proposal is ed i to r ia l in nature and that i t is unnecessary to repeat information already in the Code. SUBMITTER: Ivan P.,Nordstrand, Consumers Power Company RECOMNENDATION: Propose each a r t i c l e have the Panel designation thus:

A r t i c l e gO - In t roduct ion (Panel No. I ) Article 100 - Definitions (Panel No. I) Article 110 - Requirements for Electric Installations (Panel No. 1) Article 200 - Use and Identification of Grounded Conductors (Panel No. 5) Article 210 - Branch Circuits (Panel No. 2) Etc...

SUBSTANTIATION: The present format of the published Code b~ok makes i t d i f f i cu l t and time consuming to determine the appropriate Panel responsible for the art icle in which a problom is developing. The addition of one line in parentheses under the article number giving the Panel designation will quickly provide the proper source. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The Index of the Code already includes the articles for which each Panel is responsible, therefore i t would only be a duplication throughout the Code to republish the Panels by articles. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i rmat ive .

Log # 1648 20- 2 - (Articles 555, 680): Reject SUBMITTER: Allen KnioKrehm, Los Angeles, CA I~'I~O-~RE']qI~ATION: Delete the word "approved" when used to mean the use of alternate method(s) or materials. SUBSTANTIATION: The NEC is incorporated in most construction contract documents by reference. Therefore, the authority having jurisdiction - the owner or the owner's representative, will not be the third party qualified person contemplated by the Code-Making Panel. Section 90-4 covers the case for governmental bodies exercising legal jurisdict ion. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Already covered by reference in other sections of the Code, e.g. Sections 680-2 and 680-3. The author i ty having j u r i s d i c t i o n was not to be the contractor owner. Any al ternate methods as set f o r th in Section 90-4 must be acceptable to the enforcing author i ty . VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i m a t i v e .

325

Log # 1210 20- 3 - (555-3): Reject SUBMI~ER: Dick E. Pfoertsch, Metro E lec t r i c Ltd. RECOMMENDATION: Change as fo l lows:

555-3. Receptacles. Receptacles that provide shore power for boats shall b e rated not less than "30 amperes" and shall be single and of the locking and grounding types. SUBSTANTIATION: This would be a change from 20 to 30 amperes and could be fo r receptacles on ly .A l l pleasure boats come thru wired by manufacturer for 30 amperes. Al l cords made fo r boats are 30 amperes. Adapters are always necessary and never avai lable. People end up forc ing 30 amperes into 20-ampere receptacles and making up adapters themselves and connecting up wrong causing shorts, accidents, and problems. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Twenty-ampere ship to shore service is a substantial port ion of pleasure boat usage. The el iminat ion of 20-ampere receptacles would not solve the problem of the use of adaptors. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i rmat ive .

2 0 - 4 - (555-3, FPN-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 20 ~ T I O N : Add a second FPN:

"In locat ing receptacles consideration should be given to the maximum t ide level and wave action due to boats and wind." SUBSTANTIATION: Many problems of these receptacles being swamped when high waves from boats h i t docks. In some cases, on waterways having f re igh te r t r a f f i c and large cruisers, a wave of from 4 to 5 fee t may h i t dock. This swamping has caused ou t le t and box to be f i l l e d wi th water. This causes power outages and causes the receptacle and attachment cap to corrode. By locat ion the height of a receptacle should be set by the local j u r i sd i c t i on . PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i rmat ive .

Log # 1012 20- 5 - (555-4): Accept in Pr inc ip le SUBMITTER: G. L. (G'il) Thompson, Maryland E lec t r i ca l Inspectors Association RECOMMENDATION: Add at end of present 1981 section the fo l lowing;

" I t shall be permitted to run mul t iwire c i rcu i ts to a junct ion box or conduit f i t t i n g but only a two-wire connection to each single supply of shore power to a boat. The mul t iwire c i rcu i ts shall each feed only one single ou t le t of the type specif ied in Section 555-3." SUBSTANTIATION: The above proposal would permit a three- or four-wire c i r c u i t to be run on the pier but would s t i l l provide the same capacity as two or three indiv idual c i r cu i t s , i f connected as proposed. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le . From the ex is t ing Code wording inser t the words "or mul t iwire" a f te r " ind iv idual ." PANEL COMMENT: The rev is ion is to c l a r i f y that e i ther an indiv idual or a mult iwire branch c i r c u i t may be used with a common neutra l . VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i rmat ive .

Log # 1761 20 -6 - (555-6, Exception No. 1): Reject SUBMITTER: Joseph Harackiewicz, Hanover, MA RECO~DATION: Exception No. i : Where f l e x i b i l i t y is required, other types iden t i f i ed fo r the purpose, such as Type W or G cables or other approved underwater cables. SUBSTANTIATION: Underwater wir ing is being done on the east and west coasts. I h~ve personally romoved much less sui table and hazardous wir ing materials from underwater locations such as f l e x i b l e metal condu i t - l iqu id t i g h t - and Type SO neoprene jacket cord. I have addressed several manufacturers as to what product should be used underwater, and as of th is time, the question has not been answered in wr i t i ng , and has not been addressed by qualified testing laboratories. Approved cables should be rated for ambient temperatures, temperature extremes, and chemical and corrosive attack. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: No information is available to CMP 20 on Types W and G cables. Referred to CMP 6 for an investigation. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 2030 20- 7 - (555-6(3)) : Reject SUBMII~FER: Idaho Chapter IAEI RECOMMENDATION: Re~ve from Section 555-6 the fo l lowing:

(3) nonmetall ic cable SUBSTANTIATION: Most e lect r ic ians wi l l only read Section 555-6 which permits nonmetall ic cable as an acceptable wir ing method, but since nonmetall ic cable containing an insulated equip~nt copper grounding conductor as required by Section 555-7(b) is not read i l y ava i lab le . This delet ion is in order to a l l ev ia te the confusion that now exists causing many marinas to be wired in v io la t ion of the Code.

PANEL ACTION : Reject. ~ : This type wiring method is available, even i f not readily available; therefore, there is no just i f icat ion for removing i t as a wiring method. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1013 20- 8 - (555-7(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: J. H. (Jim) Richards, Maryland Electrical Inspectors ~ o n RECOMMENDATION: Change Section 555-7(b) as follows:

{bJ Type of Equipment Grounding Conductor. The equipment grounding conductor shall be an insulated "or covered" copper conductor with a continuous outer finish that is either green or

~ reen with one or more yellow stripes. UBSTANTIATION: Since Section 555-6 Wiring Methods permits

nonmetallic cable and this cable often has a covered rather than an insulated grounding conductor and since the main reason for not using an uncovered or uninsulated ground is to prevent corrosion why not permit a covered grounding conductor? PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COM~NT: The Panel feels that the hostile environment at a marina demands the best grounding system available and to accept the proposal could lessen the degree of protection• VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1223 20- 9 - (555-22): Accept SUBMII-FER: Richard Lloyd, Huntington, NY ~ T I O N : Add the following sentence at the end of the section:

"The floating dwelling unit service equipment shall be located adjacent to the floating dwelling unit and not mounted in or on the unit." SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement will insure that the supply conductors to the floating dwelling unit can be disconnected in an emergency, such as a storm, where the unit needs to be moved quickly. I t also provides overcurrent protection where supply conductors may develop excessive leakage where located under water, or where other fault may occur. PANEL ACTION: Accept. PANEL COMMENT: CMP 20 recommends to the NEC Correlating Committee that an ad hoc committee be appointed to research the problems of grounding of floating dwelling units. I t is also suggested that the committee explore the possibil ity that floating dwelling units be made a separate article within the NEC. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 600 - - ELECTRIC SIGNS AND OUTLINE LI~TING

Log # 1596 18- 49 - (600-5, Exception No. 2): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Pollak, The Aluminum Association, Inc. I~:'-~IT~E'-NI~TION: After "No. 14" add "copper or No. 12 aluminum..." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is submitted to clar i fy the proper size equivalent of aluminum conductor for the application and to make the article consistent with the referenced Article 250.

The size limitation is based upen an ampacity requirement which can be met with an aluminum conductor sized to provide the required ampacity. The Panel is referred to Section 250-97. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Aluminum is clearly permitted by Section 110-5. This proposal is unnecessary• VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 242 18- 50 - (600-6(b) and (c)): Reject SUBMII-FER: H.K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc. ~ T I O N : Delete present text of Section 600-6(b) and replace with "600-6(b)-At least one outlet and branch circuit shall be installed in accordance with Section 220-3(X)(X)."

Delete present text of Section 600-6(c) and replace with "600-6(c)-The computed load for the required branch circuit shall be in accordance with Section 220-XX." SUBSTANTIATION: Article 220-1-Scope states "This article provides requirements for determining the NUMBER OF BRANCH CIRCUITS REQUI~D and for computing BNANCH CIRCUIT and feeder loads•"

The/text of Sections 600-6(b) and 600-6(c) more appropriately bel~gs within the scope of Art icle 220. C~mpanion and correlating proposals have been submitted to CMP 2

a~d CMP 18. ~ANEL ACTION: Reject.

/PANEL COMMENT: Chapters I , 2, 3 and 4 apply general ly. Chapter 6, of which A r t i c l e 600 is a par t , is f o r special occupancies. Therefore, in the Panel's opinion, th is requirement is in the appnopriate Code section. VOTE (]~ PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i rmat ive .

Log # 868 18- 51 - (600-6(b) and (c)): Reject SUBMITTER: H. Brooke Stauffer, NEMA RECOM{VI-NDATION: Delete present text of Section 600-6(b) and replace with "600-6(b). At least one outlet and branch circuit shall be installed in accordance with Section 220-3(X)(X)."

Delete present text of Section 600-6(c) and replace with • "600-6(c). The computed load for the required branch circuit

shall be in accordance with Section 220-XX." SUBSTANTIATION: Section 220-1. Scope states "This article provides requirements for determining the "number of branch circuits required" and for computing "branch circuit" and feeder loads ."

The submitter believes the text of Sections 600-6(b) and 600-6(c) more appropriately belongs within the scope of Article 220.

Companion and correlating proposals have been submitted to Code Making Panels 2 and 18. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 18-50. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 567 18- 52 - (600-8(g)): Accept SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI ]~:'-C~-R'-~iZ--N-DATION: Revise the 1st sentence of Section 600-8(g) to:

(g) Enclosures Exposed to Weather. Enclosures for outdoor use shall be weatherproof and shall have at least 2 drain holes, each not larger than 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) or smaller than 1/4 inch (6.35 nIn). SUBSTANTIATION: The porpose of this proposal is to eliminate "ample" in accordance with Section 4-7 of the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents 1978. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 873 18- 53 - (600-11): Reject SUgMITTER: H. Brooke Stauf, fer, NEMA ~ D A T I O N : Change text to:

600-11. Outdoor Portable Electric Signs. The wiring of portable electric signs, including the power-supply cord and internal wiring, shall be protected by ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel. SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording fa i ls to provide protection for the most cri t ical element in the portable sign wiring -- the power-supply cord. The power supply cord and plug are most l ikely to be miswired, misused, and abused. A portable sign frame energized by the power supply cord would not be protected by an installation made to the present Code wording• PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The submitter's substantiation is incorrect since the portable sign frame is protected by the present requirement. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 6 NEGATIVE: Naysmith, Short, Wells.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: NAYSMITH: Portable sign is not protected by GFCl as required by

present Code. SHORT: The proposal would improve safety since i t would protect

the individual from shock i f the line cord shorted to the frame as i t enters the sign before the GFCI.

WELLS: I do not believe the Panel Comment is completely accurate• Since the GFCI is installed after the suppl~y cord has entered the sign or the OFCI enclosure attached to the sign, a frayed supply cord contacting the sign frame or GFCI enclosure at the point of entry could energize the sign frame and would not cause the GFCI to operate because the ground-fault would occur on the unprotected side of the GFCI.

I t is also important to recognize that sign manufacturers should be permitted as much f l e x i b i l i t y in equipment selection as possible so long as the intent of the requirament is met and the GFCI is suitable for the application. While the proposal wording does not satisfactori ly resolve this, i t does, I believe i l lustrate the problem and I believe the Panel should develop wording which addresses this.

18- 54 - (600-21(b)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 18 RECOMMEN~TION: Replace "approved" with " l isted." SUBSTANTIATION: This is the sense of Proposal 18-5. Approval is provided for in Section 110-2. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

326

Log # 1597 18- 55 - (600-21(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Pollak, The Aluminum Association, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: After "No. 14" add "copper or No. 12 aluminum..." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is submitted to c lar i fy the proper minimum size equivalent of aluminum conductor for the application.

The size limitation is based upon an ampacity requirement which can be met with an aluminum conductor sized to provide the required ampacity. The Panel is referred to Section 110-5 which provides for the re~gnition of materials in addition to copper when the conductor slze is changed "accordingly."

Conductor sizes can be changed in many ways: to provide equal resistance, ampacity or tensile strength, to name a few. This proposal clarif ies the minimum aluminum size equivalent for the application. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 18-49. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1598 18- 56 - (600-31(b)): Reject SUBMII-FER: Peter Pollak, The Aluminum Association, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: After "No. 14" and "copper or No. 12 aluminum..." SUBSIANTIATION: This proposal is submitted to c lar i fy the proper minimum size equivalent of aluminum conductor for the application.

The size limitation is based upon an ampacity requirement which can be met with an aluminum conductor sized to provide the required ampacity. The Panel is referred to Section 110-5 which provides for the recognition of materials in addition to copper when the conductor size is changed "accordingly."

Conductor sizes can be changed in many ways: to provide equal resistance, ampacity or tensile strength, to name a few. This proposal clarif ies the minimum aluminum size equivalent for the application. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 18-49. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 604 -- MANUFACTURED WIRING SYSTEMS

Log # 969 19- 74 - (604-1): Accept

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 19 that article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Acti on. SUBMITTER: Murray L. Quin, Day-Brite Lighting, Div. of Emerson ~ C o . RECOMMENDATION: In the second or third lines, insert the words "remote-control circuits" between the words "branch circuits" and the words "signaling circuits." SUBSTANTIATION: All energy management systems ut i l ize remotely controlled devices to operate building equipment and lighting systems according to a planned program for eff icient power consumption. Some systems transmit operating commands over communication cables while others ut i l ize Class 2 remote-control circuits to activate/deactivate devices by a voltage pulse.

Manufactured subassemblies of remote-control circuits should not be excluded from the scope of Article 604, because they do perform an important function in building energy management systems. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 966 19- 75 - (604-3): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMII-TER: Murray L. Quin, Day-Brite Lighting, Div. of Emerson Electric Co. RECOVaV~-NDATION: In the second line, delete the words "plen~ns and," and replace them with the words "air-handling."

In the last l ine, add "(c)" following "Section 300-22" SUBSTANTIATION: The 1981 Code served well to end long-time confusion over terminology formerly used to define differences between ducts, plenums and other air-handling spaces of Section 300-22. Therefore, Section 604-3 will be edi tor ia l ly improved to eliminate any reference to "plenums," a term which now applies specifically to Section 300-22(b). The intended application for manufactured ~r ing systems is Section 300-22(c) and should be so stated. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: More restr ict ive than the present Code and no substantiation for the need. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 653 19- 76 - (604-5): Reject SUBMITTER: Nils Jonsson, RELOC Division of Lithonia Lighting RECOMMENDATION: "Other Articles," delete in its entirety and replace with the following: 604-5. Other Articles. Installation shall conform with but not be limited to applicable sections of the following articles: 210, 220, 230, 250, 300, 410. SUBSTANTIATION: To refer to more than these articles tends to cause confusion since each inspector has his own interpretation of the exact methods used in install ing and supporting the system. The support of the system should be spelled out more precisely'in a separate section. (See proposed Section 604-8.) PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COICJ~ENT: CMP 19 does not agree that this is causing any confusion.

Reference to the art ic les on the type of basic wiring systems used in manufactured wiring systems is necessary for installation of these systems, especially with respect to mounting. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 928 19- 77 - (604-5): Reject SU~MITTER: Roger P. Picard, Anaconda Metal Hose Div. Anaconda ~ s RECOMMENDATION: Add: Articles 349 and 351. SUBSTANTIATION: Since Article 350 is mentioned, i t would be an oversight not to include the above mentioned articles because they are all types of f lexible metal conduit. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COF~EKIT: No substantiation for the su i tab i l i ty of these materials in these systems. This was not an oversight. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 654 19- 78 - (604-6(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: Nils Jonsson, RELOC Division of Lithonia Lighting ~ D A T I O N : Delete in i ts entirety and replace with the following: Cable shall be l isted Type ACT or listed flexible metallic conduit of 3/8 inch nominal trade size containing 2, 3 or 4 insulated No. 12 AWG Copper Conductors and one (1) bare No. 12 AWG Ground Conductor. SUBSTANTIATION: Cable used in manufactured wiring systems are neither AC or MC but they are in fact ACT or f lexible metallic condui t .

References to AC o~ MC tends to confuse the electrical inspectors that think of AC as conventional "BX" Cable.

Furthermore, i t is of equal importance to refer to the size 3/8 inch since much of the Code references size of conduits, size of wire, etc. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COI~vI~NT: Art icle 333 includes ACT. Some manufacturers may desire to use any or all of those listed. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 10 NEGATIVE: Duks.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: DUKS: The technical issues contained in the proposal have not

been addressed in the Panel Comments. The 3/8-inch f lexible conduit should be permitted (in longer than 6 foot lengths) because the products covered by this article are of f -s i te factory-made assembl i es, fabricated using special manufacturing equipment and subjected to inspection and test before shipment. The earl ier limitation imposed by Section 350-3 was due to potential damage to conductors by f r ic t ion during the pulling operation in on-site installations. These conditions are not present during factory production. Dielectric withstand tests, which are conducted on these factory-made assemblies cannot be reasonably conducted at the site. To clar i fy the proposal and to take into account the Panel Comments, i t is suggested that the proposal for Section 604-6(a) be reworded as follows:

Section 604-6(a), Cable or Conduit Types. i . CabIe shall be listed armored cable or metal-clad cable

containing nominal 600 vol t No. 12 AWG copper insulated conductors with a bare No. 12 AWG copper grounding conductor.

2. Conduit shall be listed f lexible metaI conduit with nominal 600 volt No. 12 AWG copper insulated conductors and with an insulated or bare tinned No. 12 AWG copper grounding conductor. A 3/8-inch electrical trade size f lexible metal conduit assembly manufactured, tested and identified for the intended use, shall be permitted to be longer than 6 feet.

Each section shall be marked to identify type of cable or conduit.

Log # 620 19- 79 - (604-6(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: J. K. Daugherty, Flint, MI RECOMMENDATION: "(a) Cable or Conduit Types. Cable shall be listed armored or Type MC with 600 vol t , No. 12 AWG copper conductors; or, l isted f lexible metal conduit with 600 volt, No. 12 AWG insulated copper conductors with a No. 12 AW~ insulated copper grounding conductor. Each section shall be marked to identify the cable or conduit type."

327

SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed revision is to correct and clari fy Section 604-6{a).

"Armored" replaces "Type AC" since Types ACT and ACL should also be acceptable (See Article 333).

Armored cable is acceptable for grounding per Section 250-91(b)(6). Type MC cable is acceptable for grounding per Section 334-23. There is no purpose in requiring an additional grounding conductor. Neither Proposal 1 of the then proposed Article 544 of the 1981 NEC-TCR nor NEC-TCD required a separate grounding conductor. This was something that was entered afterwards without an opportunity for public comment.

There is no need to state "insulated" since all conductors in armored and Type MC cable are insulated (See Section 333-4 and 334-1). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Present requirements are the intent of Panel. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 968 19- 80 - (604-6(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: Murray L. Quin, Day-srite Lighting, Div. of Emerson ~ C o . RECOMJVENDATION: In the fourth and f i f t h lines of the f i r s t sentence, delete the words "insulated No. 12 AWG copper ground conductor" and replace them with the words "bare, tinned solid No. 12 AWG copper grounding conductor." SUBSTANTIATION: The convolution-to-convolution tightness of listed f lexible metal conduit is not controlled, nor is the ohmic resistance per unit length of conduit specified as is the case with listed armored cable. The present wording provides for equipment grounding, but no provision is made for bonding the metal sheath to minimize inductance. When two or more conductors are run in parallel and encased in metal the resultant EMF can create impedance. A bare, tinned, solid copper grounding conductor should make contact at frequent intervals along a cable for suitable bonding, and tinning of the copper would prevent galvanic action betwee~ bare copper and the zinc-coated metal. An insulated grounding conductor cannot serve this purpose. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The grounding conductor should be insulated for a continual and assured grounding path without opening by shorting to sheath or other causes.

Section 333-4 requires a bonding strip for the purpose of this proposal. I f cables being used do not comply with this they should not be approved. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1602 19- 81 - (604-6(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: Donald H. Mclntosh, E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. ~ T I O N : Add:

Each cable shall be equipped with its own neutral conductor. A common neutral shall not be permitted." SUBSTANTIATION: The safety hazards so common in the electrical trade today from shared neutrals are aggravated where shared neutrals are used in manufactured wiring systems. I f a GFCI is used in the circuit , i t will not perform satisfactori ly where the shared neutral is used. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COM~I'NT: This should be directed to other articles. I t is of general concern and not peculiar to this article to jus t i f y i ts inclusion in this article. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 964 19- 82 - (604-6(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: Murray L. Quin, Day-Brite Lighting, Div. of Emerson ~ C o . RECOMMENDATION: Add subparagraph as follows:

"System cables of Class 2 remote-control circuits shall be listed f lexible metal conduit having conductors in accordance with Section 725-40(a)." SUBSTANTIATION: In the interest of energy conservation, many new building projects have used and are being planned to use Class 2 remote-control circuits in the operation of lighting systems. Progremmable master controls are being used for time-of-day operation, multilevel switching and load shedding in lighting systems. The proposal will provide for manufactured wiring system cables of Class 2 remote-control circuits which have physical characteristics similar to line voltage cables of a system. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Not applicable to Article 604.

VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE : 10 NEGATIVE: DUKS.

328

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: DUKS: I t is the Panel position on Proposal 19-74 to accept the

inclusion of "remote-control circuits" in the scope of Article 604, consequently, the inclusion of wiring requirements for these circuits is applicable. I t should be acceptable to use wiring materials permitted by Section 726-40(a) in manufactured wirin~ systems intended for use in Class 2 remote-control circuits. To minimize the possibil i ty of misapplication of the assemblies covered by the proposal, i t is suggested that the intent of the proposal be clarif ied by adding at the end of the proposed sentence: "...and shall be marked for use in Class 2 circuits only."

Log # 966 19-83 - (604-6(a), Exception-(New)): Reject SUBMII-FER: Murray L. Quin, Day-Brite Lighting, Div. of Emerson ~ C o . RECOMMENDATION: Add subparagraph ( ) and exception as follows:

( ) System cables of Class 2 remote-control circuits shall comply with Section 725-40(a).

Exception: System cables of Class 2 remote-control circuits listed as having adequate f ire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics shall be permitted for use in accordance with Section 725-2(b), Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: In the interest of energy conservation, many new building projects have used and are being planned to use Class 2 remote-control circuits in the operation of lighting systems.

The proposal is needed to provide for manufactured wiring system cables of the types allowed for use with programmable master controls for time-of-day operation, multilevel switching and load shedding in lighting systems. PANEL ACTION : Reject. PANEL OOM~ENT: See Proposal 19-82. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 137 19- 84 - (604-8-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: This Comment (No. 70-22, CMP 18) on Proposal 7 was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See NEC-TCD-1980 Annual Meeting. SUBMITTER: Bruce L. Nelson, 3M RECOM~ENDATION: 604-8 Receptacles and plugs shall be listed for breaking under load. SUBSTANTIATION: These systems are designed to be maintained by maintenance workers. I t is common practice in the industry to break all connections under load. Since many loads such as CRT's, clocks, calculators, other memory devices, security and so on cannot be interrupted by turning off the circuit without great inconvenience. Wiring system connections which are not designed and listed for this application can be damaged by unplugging and plugging in under load (especially since many of these ty~es of systems are operating fu l l y loaded) resulting in potential building safety hazards. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COW,vENT: Present testing standards suff iciently cover the intent. See Section 110-3(b). VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 655 19- 85 - (604~8 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Nils Jonsson, RELOC Division of Lithonia Lighting RECOMIVENDATION: 604-8. Supports. Manufacturing wiring systems shall be supported at intervals not exceeding six (6) feet. SUBSTANTIATION: Numerous questions as to proper supports of manufactured cable sets are received in our office daily.

We, therefore, recommend this additional paragraph: Section 604-8. We should not treat support of manufactured cable any different than we treat a "pigtai l" on a f ixture. Here we ~low a drop to run 6 feet supported in each end. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: This system does not warrant special supporting requirement over the same material used in other wiring systems. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 605 --- OFFIC~ FURNISHING Log # 404

18- 57 - (Article 605-(New)): Accept in Part Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 18 that

art icle scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action on the scope. SUBMITTER: Stephen D. Channer, The Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer' s Association RECOMMENDATION:

ARTICLE 605 --- OFFIC~ FURNISHING (coNsISTING OF LIGHTING ACCESSORIES AND WIRED PARTITIONS)

A. General 605-I. Scope. This article covers branch-circuit electric assemblies manufacturing for use as part of a "premises wiring system."

Ca) use. These assemblies shall be installed and used only as provided for by this art icle.

(b) Other Articles. Except as modified by the requirements of this art icle, the requirements of articles of Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall apply. Wherever the requirements of other articles of this Code and Art icle 605 d i f fe r , the requirements of Art icle 605 shall apply.

(c) Hazardous (Classified) Locations. Where used in hazardous (c lass i f i ed ) locat ions manufactured wir ing systems shall conform to Ar t i c les 500 through 517 in addi t ion to th is a r t i c l e . B. Systems f o r Use in Areas Where Components of the System Are Readily Accessible 605-2. General. Wiring systems shall be iden t i f i ed as su i tab le f o r providing power f o r l i gh t i ng accessories and in wired pa r t i t i ons . 605-3. Wireways. Al l conductors and connections shall be contained within wir ing channels of metal or other material i den t i f i ed as su i tab le fo r the conditions of use.

(FPN) Conductors as used in th is section do not include f l e x i b l e cord, 605-4. Par t i t i on Interconnections. The e lec t r i ca l connection between par t i t i ons shall be a f l e x i b l e assembly i den t i f i ed fo r use with wired pa r t i t i ons .

Exception: F lex ib le cord shall be permitted fo r the connection between par t i t i ons provided al l of the fo l lowing conditions are met,

I~l The cord is extra-hard usage type. The par t i t i ons are mechanically contiguous.

(c) The cord is not longer than necessary f o r maximum pos i t ion ing of the par t i t i ons but in no case to exceed 2 feet (610 ram).

(d) The cord is terminated at an attachment plug and cord-connector with strain re l ie f . 605-5. Lighting Accessories. Lighting equipment identified for use with wired partitions shall comply with all of the following:

(a) Support. A means for secure attachment or support shall be provided.

(b) Connection. Where cord- and plug-connection is provided, the cord length shall be suitable for the intended application. Connection by other means shall be identified as suitable for the condition of use.

(c) Receptacle Outlet. Convenience receptacles shall be permitted in lighting accessories where identified as suitable for the condition of use.

(d) Lighting accessories shall not be permitted to be energized from the convenience receptacle outlet of another lighting accessory. 605-6. Fixed-Type Partitions. Wired partitions that are fixed

• (secured to building surfaces) shall be permanently connected to the building electrical system by one of the wiring methods of Chapter 3. 605-7. Free-Standing Type Partitions. Partitions of the free-standing type (not fixed) shall be permitted to be permanently connected to the building electrical system by one of the wiring methods of Chapter 3. 605-8. Free-Standing Type Partitions - Cord- and Plug-Connected. Individual partitions of the free-standing type or groups of partitions which are mechanically contiguous shall be permitted to be connected to the building electrical system by a single f lexible cord and plug provlded all of the following conditions are met: (1) the f lexible power-supply cord shall be of the type identified or suitable for the conditlons of use with No. 12 AWG or larger conductors with a green grounding conductor and not exceedlng 6 feet in length; (2) the receptacle supplying groups of partitions shall be on a separate circuit serving no other loads; (3) individual partitions or groups of individual partitions where connected together shall contain single-phase circuits; and (4) individual partitions or groups of interconnected individual partitions shall not contain more than thirteen 15-ampere, 125-volt receptacle outlets. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal concerns i tse l f with wiring systems as provided by members of our industry with off ice furniture systems that are now being used extensively in offices throughout the United States. Although not exclusively, office furniture systems are primarily used in areas referred to as "open plan" or "landscape" office Iayouts.

Within our industry, off ice systems furniture has grown in popularity to a great extent over the past several years. Today the sales of this type of furniture are well over $800 million dollars annually and growing. Due to energy conservation requirements users have demanded the inclusion of task and ambient l ighting with this type of furniture. Current industry estimates show that approximately 80 percent of all office furniture systems sold contain electrical power. When such power is provided by manufacturers within our association, safety is foremost in their consideration and all wiring systems have been or are in the process of being submitted to and listed by Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

\

Our industry is very proud of its concern for product safety and performance and the good record that is currently enjoyed. Our purpose in submitting the enclosed proposal to the National Fire Protection Association is to establish a category within the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE that deals specifically with products made within our industry that contain wiring systems and to provide in writing the standard of quality that must be adhered to by those making such systems.

Your review and favorable consideration of this proposal will be very much appreciated by the business and institutional furniture industry. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part. PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 18-58.

605-2. In the Panel's opinion these partitions should not extend from floor to ceiling effectively becoming walls. The Panel does agree with the supmitter that the previous limitation of 7 feet is not necessary. Further, the Panel feels that these systems need to be suitable for providing power to appliances. 605-2(b). The wording submitted indicated that only Chapters 1,

2, 3 and 4 apply unless modified by this art icle. The Panel proposal requires compliance with all chapters unless modified by this art icle.

605-3, The Panel agrees with the submitter and further believes that the channel must be free of conditions which may damage the insulation of the conductors creating a f i re or shock hazard.

605-5(b). The Panel agrees with the supmitter and further feels that the maximum length of cord must be limited to 8 feet because excessive lengths of cords expose the cords to damage which may consequently create a hazard.

605-5(c) and (d). The Panel disagrees with the submitter and recommends that convenience receptacles be prohib i ted from i ns ta l l a t i on in l i gh t ing accessories. One of the potent ia l misuses of such receptacles is pointed out in submit ter 's proposed Section 605-5(d). The connection of addit ional l i gh t i ng accessories from such receptacles cannot be restricted by a Code requirement because such a requirement is unenforceable. The only way to prevent this misuse is to prevent the installation of such receptacles. Further, the Panel believes these convenience receptacles could be used for supplying high load appliances such as coffee pets, hot plates and the l ike. Neither the convenience receptacle nor the wiring supplying them is intended for this use.

605-8. The Panel believes an adequate number of supply receptacles are necessary to provide power to the partition. Further the Panel believes the number of assembled panels supplied by a single cord should be limited. The recommended wording would allow more than six panels, provided they were not electr ical ly connected and do not exceed a total assembled length of 30 feet to be connected by a single cord.

605-8(a). The Panel feels the supply cord should be extra-hard usage type. This is consistant with the type cord specified by the submitter for the panel interconnect cord. Further, in the Panel's opinion the distance between the panel and the supply receptacle should be minimized to prevent damage to the supply cord and reduce the tripping hazard. Therefore, the length of the supply cord should not signif icantly exceed the distance from the panel .to the supply receptacle.

605-8(b). The Panel agrees with the submitter that the supply receptacle should be a separate circuit . Further, the Panel believes the receptacle should be located near the panel served to l imit damage to the supply cord and tripping hazard.

605-8(d). The Panel agrees with the submitter that cord- and plug-connected panels should not contain three-phase circuits and, in a similar fashion believes that such partitions should not contain multiwire single-phase circuits. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Af f i rmat ive .

18- 58 - (Article 605-(New)): Accept Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 18 that

art icle scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action on the scope. SUBMII-FER: CMP 18 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Article 605 as follows:

ARTICLE 605

Office Furnishings (Consisting of Lighting Accessories and Wired Partitions)

605-1. Scope. This article covers electrical equipment, l ighting accessories and wiring systems used to connect, or contained within, or installed on relocatable wired partitions. 605-2. General. Wiring systems shall be identified as suitable for providing power for l ighting accessories and appliances in wired partitions. These partitions shall not extend from floor to cei Iing.

Ca) Use. These assemblies shall be installed and used only as provided for by this art ic le.

(b) Other Articles. Except as modified by the requirements of th is art ic le, all other articles of this Code shall apply.

(c) Hazardous (Classified) Locations. Where used in hazardous (classified) locations, manufactured wiring systems shall conform with Articles 500 through 517 in addition to this art icle.

329

605-3. Wireways. All conductors and connections shall be contained within wiring channels of metal or other material identified as suitable for the conditions of use. Wiring channels shall be free of projections or other conditions that may damage conductor insulation.

FPN: Conductors as used in this section do not include f lexible cord. 605-4. Partition Interconnections. The electrical connection between partitions shall be a f lexible assembly identified for use with wired partitions.

Exception: Flexible cord shall be permitted for the connection between partitions provided all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The cord is extra-hard usage type.

I b) The partitions are mechanically contiguous. c) The cord is not longer than necessary for maximum

positioning of the partitions but in no case to exceed 2 feet (610ram).

(d) The cord is terminated at an attachment plug and cord-connector with strain re l ie f . 605-5. Lighting Accessories. Lighting equipment identified for use with wired partitions shall comply with all of the following:

(a) Support. A means for secure attachment or support shall be provided. • (b) Connection. Where cord- and plug-connection is provided,

the cord length shall be suitable for the intended application, but shall not exceed 8 feet (2.44 m) in length. Connection by other means shall be identified as suitable for the condition of use.

(c) Receptacle Outlet. Convenience receptacles shall not be permitted in lighting accessories. 605-6. Fixed-Type Partitions. Wired partitions that are fixed (secured to building surfaces) shall be permanently connected to the building electrical system by one of the wiring methods of Chapter 3. 605-7. Free-Standing Type Partitions. Partitions of the free-standing type (not fixed) shall be permitted to be permanently connected to the building electrical system by one of the wiring methods of Chapter 3. 605-8. Free-Standing Type Partitions, Cord- and Plug-Connected. Individual partitions of the free-standing type; or groups of not more than six individual partitions which are electrically connected, mechanically contiguous and do not exceed 30 feet (9.14 m) when assembled shall be permitted to be connected to the building electrical system by a single flexible cord and plug provided all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The f lexible power-supply cord shall be extra-hard usage type with No. 12 AWG or larger conductors with an insulated grounding conductor and not exceeding 2 feet (610 mm) in length.

(b) The receptacle supplying power shall be on a separate circuit serving no other loads and shall be located not more than 12 inches (305 ram) from the partition which is connected to i t .

(c) Individual partitions or groups of interconnected individual partitions" shall not contain more than thirteen 15-empere, 125-volt receptacle outlets.

(d) Individual partitions or groups of interconnected individual partitions shall not contain multiwire circuits. SUBSTANTIATION: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 18-57. PANEL ACTION: Accept. PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels th is revised wording better satisfies the submitter's intent. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 610 -- CRANES AND HOISTS

Log # 1166 12- 5 - (610-12(b)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. SUBMITTER: C. L. Pittman, Aluminum Company of America RECOMMENDATION: Delete "dc" in third line. SUBSTANTIATION: In some cases, the presence of the "dc" requirement has prevented the application of this section to "ac" equipment such as contact conductors, collectors, resistors, brakes and power circuit l imit switches.

The use of bushings as covered in this section should be allowed for ac as well as dc equipment. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete "and" after "brakes" and before "power." Insert a semi-colon in place of the period after "switches." Relocate the phrase "dc spl i t frame motors" and insert after "switches" preceded by the word "and." PANEL COMMENT: The Panel Action accomplishes the intent of the submitter while maintaining the present content of the paragraph. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. {X]MMENI UN VOl~::

RUTKOWSKI: In Panel Action: 1) semi-colon should be comma. 2) add the period at the end of the sentence. 3) delete the comma after "motors" and before "unenclosed." ~) delete the comma after "controls" and before "or." ccepted wording would then be:

" . . . . where the raceway terminates at unenclosed controls or similar equipment including contact conductors, collectors, resistors, brakes, power circuit l imit switches, and dc spl i t frame motors.

330

Log # 259 12- 6 - (Table 610-14(a)): Reject SUBMII-TER: C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN RECOMMENDATION: Extend the table to include ampacities for 125oc rated cables. Tabular calculation follows:

AWGI MCM 60 Min 30 Min 14 44 49 12 51 58 10 63 71

8 83 92 6 114 122 5 125 137

4 138 155 3 156 179 2 178 208

i 205 246 1/0 240 293 2/0 284 352

3/0 339 426 4/0 408 521 250 470 603

300 549 711 350 629 818 400 708 926

450 788 1030 500 867 1140

SUBSTANTIATION: Several users have expressed interest in having -such cables. The table is calculated by extending the present

cri teri a. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Inadequate substantiation.

See Panel Con~nent on Proposal 12-7. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 877 12- 7 - (Table 610-14(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: James F. Farley, Association of Iron and Steel

RECO~MENDATION: Table 610-14(a). 1. Add to Table Heading: "Based on ambient temperature of

30Oc (86OF). '' 2. Add to Table: Temperature correction factors from Table

310-16 and 310-18. 3. Add to Table: Ampacities for 125°C maximum operating

temperature.

PROPOSED SHORT TIME RATINGS - 125°C WIRE TYPE SA, AIA

Ampacity at 125°C Rating Size 60 Min. 30 Min.

12 51 57 10 67 72 8 79 87 6 99 112 4 138 161 3 157 182 2 175 204 1 188 228

1/0 252 309 2/0 294 354 3/0 367 447 4/0 397 496 250 475 549 300 610 779 350 663 871 400 714 917 500 867 1068

SUBSTANTIATION : 1. Table 610-14(a) does not specify the ambient temperature upon which the table is based. Article 310 of the NEC(1), specifies 30°C (86°F) as the base ambient. This should be noted in Table 610-14(a).

2. Article 310 requires derating of wire ampacities for higher ambients. I t is recommended that the derating factors of Art icle 310 be applied to ampacities in Table 610-14(a).

3. Short-time ratings for 125°C insulation are not tabulated in Table 610-14(a). This rating is in common use in steel mills. Short-time ratings for this type of wire are proposed. Graph t i t led: Wire Ratings Vs. Duty Cycle, Sh. i to 6 are available showing the proposed ratings to be consistent with ratings poblished in the tables. The proposed short time ratings for

o 125 C have the same ratio to the 110°C rating as the continuous ratings.

(Note: A copy of graphs available from NFPA on request.)

PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COM~NT: Panel feels that the substantiating data provided appears to be in error. We have two sets of cr i ter ia submitted which are in conflict. The Panel encourages the submitter to provide additional data to allow further consideration. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 662 12- 8 - (610-14(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: James E. Farley, Association of Iron and Steel Engineers RECOMMENDATION: 610-14(b). Secondary Resistor Conductors.

Change heading to: Resistor Conductors. Change f i r s t sentence from: "Where secondary resistor is

separate..." to "Where the resistor is separate..." SUBSTANTIATION: The application rules refer only to wound rotor ac motors, whereas dc motors are more common in the steel industry. The rules should be the seme for both and the recommended change to Section 610-14(b), Secondary Resistor Conductors, removes this inconsistency. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The Panel's intent is for alternating current motors, not direct-current motors.

See Table 430-23(c). VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 330 12- 9 - (610-42 and 610-42(a), Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMI1-FER: L. West Shea, The Material Handling Insti tute, Inc. ~ D A T I O N : Change heading to read:

Branch-Circuit "Short-Circuit and Ground-Fault" Protection Change Exception No. 2 by deleting running overcurrent and

replacing with overload to read: ...and i f each motor is protected for "overload" according to

Section 610-43. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial revisions consistent with the definitions of overcurrent and overload in Art icle 100 and corresponding revisions to sections of Article 430. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 611 12- 10 - (610-42, Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBMIITI~R: George C. Gingher, Association of Iron and Steel Engineers RECOMMENDATION: Add: "Exception No. 3: On direct-current intermittently-duty rated motor circuits, instantaneous-overload relays in controllers may also be used to serve as the motor branch-circuit protection when sized in accordance with the instantaneous ratings of Table 430-152. SUBSTANTIATION: "Section 610-43 was new in the 1975 Code and was submitted by 'The Material Handling Inst i tu te. ' The supporting comment, in brief, was that this Section was needed to specify and remove any doubt that crane service may be considered intermittent duty and thus fa l ls under provisions of Section 430-33, which, in turn, permits motor protection to be the same as branch-circuit protection, as specified in Table 430-152 and in Section 430-52. Rather than referring directly back to Section 430-33, Section 610-43 refers to Section 610-42, but the outcome is essentially the same.

Table 430-152 can be traced back as far as the 1956 Code (we have no earlier editions) as Table 27, but Section 4341 of the 1956 Code (equivalent to Section 430-52) does not prohibit the use of an instantaneous only circuit breaker i f not part of a combination starter as in Section 430-52. This provision in Section 430-52, in turn, was new in the 1968 Code.

Prior to 1975, Section 610-42 referred in general to Art icle 430 for crane motor protection. Consequently, up to the 1968 Code, instantaneous only breakers were permitted for branch-circuit protection and for running protection for intermittent duty motors.

I n summary, i t appears that this requirement evolved from protection practices on general duty motor applications and no consideration was given to actual experience with dc cranes" where instantaneous only overloads on the individual controllers or crane protective panels have proven to be quite satisfactory." PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Proposal does not provide the required level of branch-circuit protection. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 663 12- 11 - (610-42(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: George C. Gingher, Association of Iron and Steel

RECOMMENDATION: Change the words "fuses or inverse-time circuit breakers" in the f i r s t sentence to read: "fuses, overloads, or circuit breakers..."

SUBSTANTIATION: The change proposed would allow the use of magnetic overload devices, which is the only feasible manner of protection on motor branch circuits for large dc supplied cranes. Experience has shown that such applications can be properly designed for safe and reliable operation. PANEL ACTION: Reject. FANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 12-10. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 331 12- 12 - (610-43): Accept SUBMITTER: L. West Shea, The Material Handling Inst i tute, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change heading to read:

Motor and "Branch-Circuit Overload" Protection Change opening statement to read: Each motor, "motor control, and branch-circuit conductors" shall

be protected from "overload" by one of the following means: Change (3) to read: ...during an "overload" condition of either motor. Change Exception No. i to read: . . . . the "overload" protective device . . . . Change Exception No. 2 to read: . . . and are controlled as a unit by a single set of "overload"

devices . . . . Change Exception No. 3 to read: ...do not require individual motor "overload" protection.

SUBSTANT~TION: Editorial revisions consistent with the definitlons ot overcurrent and overload in Article 100 and corresponding revisions to sections of Article 430. PANEL ACTION : Accept. ~ L ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1334 12- 13 - (610-43, Exception No. 4-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: David C. Morton, Association of Iron and Steel ~'-n-gl n eer s RECOMMENDATION : "Add:

Exception No. 4: Running overcurrent protection shall not be required for direct-current motors. SUBSTANTIATION: This provision as i t presently stands has evolved from protection standards on general duty motor applications and is oriented toward ac drives. Field experience ovefmany years with over 600 cranes with dc motors in this plant, has shown that instantaneous only overloads on individual controllers or crane protective panels are effective means of protection. These cranes are operated in conditions ranging from indoor, relat ively clean areas, to outdoor dir ty areas, and hot (120°C) to cold (-18oc), and in applications from handling hot metal to stand-by

maintenance service. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMME'NT: Substantiation doesn't give sufficient reason for excluding dc motors from overload protection. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 507 12- 14 - (610-43(2)): Accept SUBMITTER: Richard Schneider, GTE Products Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Substitute the word "elements" for the word "heaters ."

The changed paragraph is to read as follows: (2) Overload relay elements in each ungrounded circuit

conductor, with all relay elements protected from short circuit by the branch-circuit protection. SUBSTANTIATION: Magnetic overload relays are almost exclusively used on dc crane control. These relays have "coils" for magnetic actuation of the relay, rather than "heaters" which are used on thermal overload relays. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 620 -- ELEVATORS, DUMBWAITERS, ESCALATORS, AND MOVING WALKS

Log # 744, 841, 1314 12- 15 - (620- i ) : Accept SUBMITTERS: R. Droste, National Elevator Indust ry , Inc. i-~-gFF-TT~ 4)

Jim O'Boyle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. (841) David A. Wizda, ASME A17 Elevator and Escalator Committee (1314)

RECOMMENDATION: Change f ine p r in t note to read: "For fu r the r information, see Safety Code f o r Elevators and

Escal at()rs (ANS I/ASME A17.1-1981) ." SUBSTANTIATION: To make reference to la tes t ed i t ion of the Elevator Safety Code. T i t l e in 1981 ed i t ion was changed from "Safety Code f o r Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators and Moving

Walks (ANSI A17.1-1978)" to "Safety Code fo r Elevators and Escalators (ANSI/ASMB A17. l - lgSl ) . " PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

331

Log # 745, 953, 1315 12- 16 - (620-2(a)): Accept SUBMITTERS: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc.

yle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. (953) David A. Wizda, ASME A17 Elevator and Escalator Committee (1315)

RECOMMENDATION: Delete "300 volts" after ".,..and related equipment, including door operator motors:" SUBSTANTIATION : Editori al. PANEL ACTION: Accept.

ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1317 12- 17 - (620-2(b), Exception No. 2-(Now)): Reject SUBMITTER: David A. Wizda, ASME A17 Elevator and Escalator t ~ RECOMMENDATION: (a) Change present "Exception" to "Exception NO. i "

(b) Add new "Exception No. 2" to read as fol lows: Exception No. 2: Maximum 300 vol ts fo r pr ivate residence

elevators. SUBSTANTIATION: To agree with ANSI/ASME AI7.1 Rule 500.5c of AI7.1-1978.

Al l duplications of e lec t r ica l requirements wi l l be removed from the Elevator Safety Code per ANSI/ASME AI7.1 Main Committee direct ive (4/29/81 meeting) fo l lowing NEC approval of above pro pos al . PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The 1981 edi t ion of ANSI/ASME A17.1 does not now l im i t the voltage to 300 vo l ts . VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Af f i rmat ive.

Log # 844 12- 18 - (620-2(b), Exception Nos. 1 and 2-(Now)): Reject SUBMITTER: Jim O'Boyle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. RECOMMENDATION: (a) Change present "Exception" to "Exception No. 1."

(b) Add new "Exception No. 2" to read as follows: Exception No. 2: Maximum 300 volts for private residence

el evators. SUBSTANTIATION: To agree with ANSI/ASME A17.1 Rule 500.5c of A17.1-1978.

All duplications of electrical requirements will be removed from the Elevator Safety Code per ANSI/ASME A17.1 Main Committee directive (4/29/81 meeting) following NEC approval of above proposal. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 12-17. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affimative.

DROSTE: Proposal 12-18 is identical to Proposal 12-1.7 ( i .e. , the same proposal number could have been assigned.)

Log # 746, 843, 1316 . 12- 19 - (620-2(b)): Accept SUBMITTERS: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. T~'IT)-CT~6)

Jim O'8oyle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. (843) David A. Wizda, ASME #.17 Elevator and Escalator Committee (1316)

RECOMMENDATION: Delete "600 volts" after " . . . . and motor-generator sets ." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Aff imatlve.

Log # 747, 845, 1318 12- 20 - (620-11(c)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. SUBMITTERS: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. T~'TT)--FF~7)

Jim O'Boyle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. (845) David A. Wizda, ASME A17 Elevator and Escalator' Committee (1318)

RECOMMENDATION: Add the following after last sentence: "The wiring to the hoistway door interlocks from the hoistway

riser shall be type SF-2, or equivalent" SUBSTANTIATION: To agree with ANSI/ASME A17.1, Rule 102.1b requirement:

All duplications of electrical requirements will be removed from the Elevator Safety Code per ANSI/ASME A17.1Main Committee directive (4/29/81 meeting) following NEC approval of abeve

~ ropos al • ANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Reidentif:( paragraphs as follows: Change (b} to (c), (c) to (d), (d) to (e). Change (d) to (e) in Section 620-11. Insert the following as paragraph (b):

"(b) Hoistway Door Interlock Wiring. The conductors to the hoistway door interlocks from the hoistway riser shall be flame-retardant, moisture-resistant, and suitable for a temperature of not l.ess than 200°C (392°F)." PANEL COMMENT: Proposal is more inclusive as compared to the original proposal. Provides specific cri teria for the cable select ion. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

DROSTE: Under Panel Action; second line should read "change (b) to (c), (c) to (d) and (d) to (e) in Section 620-11." Strike third line which reads "change (d) to (e) in Section 620-11."

Log # 748 12- 21 - (620-21, Exception No. 3): Accept SUBMITTER: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. (NEll) RECOMMENDATION: Change wording of Exception No. 3 to read:

Type S, SO, ST, STO, "SJ, or SJO," shall be permitted as flexible connections between the fixed wiring on the car and "devices" on the car doors or gates. "Type S, SO, ST or STO shall be permitted as flexible connections for the top-of-car operating device or the car-top work l ight." These . . . . . conductors. SUBSTANTIATION: To allow more flexible and twist free connections in these ~reas where current-carrying requirements are minimal. PANEL ACTION: Accept. PANEL COMMENT: Panel agrees with submitter's substantiation that less flexible cords may incur damage. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE_:

DROSTE: I thought I agreed to revise my Substantiation statement to read: '~fo allow more flexible and twist-free connections in these areas where the risk of damage is minimal." I concur with Panel that "current-carrying requirements" are not appl icabl e.

Log # 858, 1329 12- 22 - (620-21, Exception No. 3): Accept SUBMITTERS: Jim O'Boyle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. (858)

David A. Wizda, ASME A17 Elevatoi" and Escalator Committee (1329) RECOMMENDATION: Change wording of Exception No. 3 to read:

Type S, SO, ST STO, "SJ, or SjO," shall be permitted as flexible connections between the fixed wiring on the car and "devices" on the car doors or gates. "Type S, SO, ST or STO shall be permitted as f lexible connections for the top-of-car operating device or the car-top work l ight." These . . . . conductors. SUBSTANTIATION: To allow more f lexible and twist free connections in these areas where current carrying requirements are minimal and the risk of damage is minimal. PANEL ACTION: Accept. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Coment on Proposal 12-21. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 842 12- 23 - (620-21, Exception No. 5-(Now)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jim O'Boyle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. I~'-CDI~I]~rRI~TION: Add new Exception No. 5:

Traveling cable shall be permitted to be run without the use of raceway or conduit for a distance not exceeding 6 feet (1.83 m) in length as measured from the f i r s t point of support on the elevator car or hoistway wall, providing the conductors are grouped together and taped or corded, or in the original sheath.

Traveling cables may be continued to elevator control panels and to elevator car connections, as fixed wiring, providing i t is suitably supported and protected from damage. SUBSTANTIATION: Due to the nature of application, present industry practice for fastening traveling cables (see NEIEP Attachment) is not recognized by NEC. No hazard exists with the method used and stated in (2) above.

(Note: A copy of attachment available from NFPA on request.) PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. FANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 12-28. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1313 12- 24 - (620-21, Exception No. 5-(New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David A. Wizda, ASME A17 Elevator and Escalator ~ommi ttee RECOMMENDATION: Add now Exception No. 5: Traveling cable shall be permitted to be run without the use of raceway or conduit for a distance not exceeding 6 feet (1.83 m) in length as measured from the f i r s t point of support on the elevator car or hoistway wall, providing the conductors are grouped together and taped or corded, or in the original sheath.

Traveling cables may be continued to elevator control panels and to elevator car connections, as fixed wiring, providing i t is suitably supported and protected from damage.

332

SUBSTANTIATION: Due to the nature of application, present industry practice for fastening traveling cables (see NEIEP Attachment) is not recognized by NEC. No hazard exists with the method used and stated in (2) above.

(Note: A copy of attachments available from NFPA on request.) PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PI~NEL WMMLN[: See Panel Action on Proposal 12-28. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 764 12- 25 - (620-21, Exception No. 5-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. (NEll) I~'-(~-~E'I~[~LATION: Add the following as a new Exception No. 5:

"Flexible metal conduit of 3/8 inch nominal trade size shall be permitted in lengths not in excess of 6 feet (1.83 m)." SUBSTANTIATION: To allow use of 3/8 inch f lexible metaI conduit for runs of 6 feet or less in these areas where i t affords protection of the conductors and gives the added f l ex i b i l i t y usually required.

To agree with the proposed 1982 supplement of ANSI/ASME A17.1-1981. Rule 102.1b (TR 81-20). PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Lo~ # 846. 1319 12- 26 - (620-21, Exception No. 6-(New)): Accept in vrinciple SUBMITTERS: Jim O'Boyle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. (846)

Wizda, ASME A17 Elevator and Escalator Committee (1319) RECOM~NDATION: Add the following as a new Exception No. 6:

"Flexible metal conduit of 3/8 inch nominal trade size shall be permitted in lengths not in excess of 6 feet (1.83 m)." SUBSTANTIATION: To allow use of 3/8 inch f lexible metal conduit for runs of 6 feet or less in these areas where i t affords protection of the conductors and gives the added f l e x i b i l i t y usual ly requi red. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL CDMWENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 12-25. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 752 12- 27 - (620-41): Accept

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Con~mittee directs that this , proposal be referred to C~ 6 for comment.

SUBMITTER: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. (NEll) ~ T I O N : In paragraph 2, add the following after item (3):

(3) by suspending from the supports by a means that automatically tightens around the cable when tension is increased "for unsupported lengths up to 200 feet (61 m)." SUBSTANTIATION: There is confusion concerning the length of cable that can be hung without a steel supporting member. Section 620-41 presently implies that there is no maximum length of nonsupported cable that can be hung by a self-tightening grip, but Note 6 to Table 400-4 states that "Cables exceeding 100 feet (30.5 m) between supports shall have steel supporting members."

Tests by a leading manufacturer of travel cable investigating such areas as copper creep, grip strength, grip cable interface and ultimate strength have shown that there is a maximum length of unsupported cable that can be hung by a self-tightening grip.

I t was found that the two (2) main problems in hanging long lengths of cable (either supported or nonsupported) using self-tightening grips (e.g., Kellems) were (i) strength of the grips and (2) the grip jacket interface.

Static (750 Ib & 1000 Ib weights) and dynamic (cyclic load from 200 to 1000 Ibs) tests, using stainless steel doubleweave grips on nonsupported cables, have shown no damage to the jacket or core after three (3) million cycles. Tests also showed that standard self-tightenlng grips can fa i l under cyclic loading up to 250 Ibs.

According to the manufacturer conducting the tests, data so far indicates cable safety factors in excess of 15 on nonsupported cables hungto 200 feet. PANEL ACTION: Accept. PANEL COMMENT: CMP 12 requests that CMP 6 reviews this Panel's Action on Proposal 12-27. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

SUBSTANTIATION: Due to the nature of application, present industry practice for fastening traveling cables (see NEIEP Attachment) is not recognized by NEC. No hazard exists with the method used and stated in (2) above.

Since elevator traveling cable is now in accordance with NEC requirements for stationary wiring, i t should be allowed for this application ( i .e . , Paragraph 2 of proposal). The advantages are:

(1) inherent problems associated with intermediate hoistway and car junction box terminations are eliminated.

(2) increased probability of being able to trouble-shoot from the elevator machlne room improves safety and efficiency.

(Note: A copy of attachment available from NFPA on request.) PANEL ACTION : Accept. VUIL ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COW,VENT ON VOTE:

I]ROSFE: Under Substantiation: opening paragraph, fourth l ine, delete "in (2)."

Log # 756, 849, 1323 !

12- 29 - (620-51): Accept SUBMI1-TERS: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. i-~-TT)-~ 6)


RECOMMENDATION: Add the following after opening paragraph: "Where there is more than one driving machine in a machine room,

disconnecting means shall be numbered to correspond to the number of the driving machine which they control ." SUBSTANTIATION: To agree with ANSI/AS~ A17.1, Rule 210.5 & 306.7 requirements.

All duplications of electrical requirements will be removed from the Elevator Safety Code per ANSI/AS~ A17.1 Main Committee directive (4/29/81 meeting) following NEC approval of above pro pos al. PANEL ACTION: Accept. vUIL ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 755, 848, 1322 12- 30 - (620-51): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. SUBMITTERS: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. T~-~-CT~5 )

Jim O'Boyle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. (848) David A. Wizda, AS~ A17 Elevator and Escalator Committee (1322)

RECOM~EN~TION: Addthe following after opening sentence: "...power-supply conductors for each unit," including control

valve operating magnets and to the pump motor or motors in case of el ectrohydraul ic el evators ."

"Where multiple driving machines are connected in to a single elevator, escalator, moving walk, or pumping unit, there shall be one disconnecting means to disconnect the motor or motors." SUBSTANTIATION: To agree with ANSI/ASME A17.1, Rule 306.7 requirements.

All duplications of electrical requirements will be removed from the Elevator Safety Code per ANSI/A.SWE A17.1 Main Committee directive (4/29/81 meeting) following NEC approval of above proposal. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add the following after the f i r s t sentence: "Where multiple driving machines are connected into a single

elevator, escalator, moving walk, or pumping unit, there shall be one disconnecting means to disconnect the motor(s) and valve operating magnets." PANEL COMMENT: Proposed addition in f i r s t sentence was redundant. The function is inherent in electro-hydraulic elevators. The control valve operating magnet was incorporated into the second sentence for simplification reasons. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMFENT ON VOTE:

BEST: Panel Action: My notes indicate the addition of the word "control" in the third line. This would make the third line read:

"---one disconnecting means to disconnect the motor(s) and CONTROL valve---." See Panel Comment, third sentence for the intent to say "control valve operating magnet."

Log # 754 12- 28 - (620-44-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. (NEll) RECOM~NDATION: Add New Section: 620-44. Installation of Traveling Cables.

Traveling cable shall be permitted to be run without the use of raceway or conduit for a distance not exceeding 6 feet (1.83 m) in length as measured from the f i r s t point of support on the elevator car or hoistway wall, providing the conductors are grouped together and taped or corded, or in the original sheath.

Traveling cables may be continued to elevator control panels and to elevator car and machine room connections, as fixed wiring, providing i t is suitably supported and protected from damage.

Log # 759, 850, 1324 12- 31 - (620-51): Accept SUBMITTERS: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. ~-~-TT}-T~ B)


RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following paragraphs: On single and multicar installations where a separate power

supply is used for signals or lights or other equipment (multicar) common to the group, additional separate disconnecting means shall be provided to disconnect all such ungrounded conductors for these power supplies.

333

Where interconnections between control panels are necessary for operation of the system or multicar installations that remain energized from a source other than the disconnecting means, a warning sign shall be mounted on or adjacent to the disconnecting means. The sign shall be clearly legible and shall read "Warning - Parts of the control panel are not de-energized by this switch." SUBSTANTIATION: See new proposal for Section 620-52. (Log #760) PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 757, 853 12- 32 - (620-51(b)): Accept SUBMITTERS: R, Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. (NE LI) (/~Z~

Jim O'Boyle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. (853) RECOI~MEN~ATIOf~: Remove last sentence in opening paragraph:

"Where pract icable, the disconnecting means shall be located adjacent to the door of the machine room or enclosure." SUBSTANTIATION: To eliminate confusion with Sections 620-51(b) ( i ) and (2) which requires the disconnecting means to be located in the v i c in i t y or within sight of the cont ro l ler or motor s ta r te r . PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEl_ ACTION: Unanimously Af f i rmat ive,

Log # 758, 852, 1326 12- 33 - (620-51(b)(3)-(New)): Accept SUBMITTERS: R, Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. i-¢~n~}--CTS8)


RECOMMENDATION: Add (New) subsection (3) to read as follows: "On escalators and moving walks, the disconnecting means shall

be installed in the space where the controller is located or shall be mounted on the controller." SUBSTANTIATI~: To agree with ANSI/AS~E A17.1, Rule 806.4 and gOl.2(a).

All duplications of electrical requirements will be removed from the Elevator Safety Code per ANSI/AS~E A17.1 Main Committee directive (April 29, 1981 meeting) following NEC approval of above proposal. PANEL ACTION: Accept.

ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE : 10 NEGATIVE : Hogg.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE : HuL~: ~t was dlscussed and concluded that i t was not the

intention of ANSI/ANSE-A17.1 Rule 806.4 that escalators and moving walks be exempted from the working clearances of NEC Section 110-16.

The substantiation for this proposal is to effect agreement with ANSI/ANSE-A17.1 Rule 806.4, but there is no indication as to what the purpose or substantiation of Rule 806.4 is.

My understanding is that in fact the industry-wide practice is to provide the controller and disconnecting means in the space where the escalator or moving walk driving machines, controls, etc., are located. Even i f this were not the case, there is no suggestion that a disconnecting means located in accordance with NEC Section 430-102, when installed with a controller provided and located in accordance with NEC Section 430-86, would not be adequate.

Additionally, the proposal tends to be confusing in that i t would require that the disconnecting means be installed in the space where the controller is located or, I assume in those cases where i t is not located in the same space, shall be located on the controller. I have d i f f icu l ty visualizing a situation where the disconnecting means would be mounted on the controller but not be located in the space where the controller is located.

In summary, the proposal appears to lack substantiation, is superfluous in that Article 430 adequately addresses such installations, and is confusing.

Log # 760, 851, 1325 12- 34 - (620-52-(New)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. SUBMITTERS: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc.

(760) Jim O'Boyle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. (851) David A. Wizda, ASME A17 Elevator and Escalator Committee (1325)

RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 620-52. "Power from More than One Source."

(a) On single- and multicar installations, equipment receiving electrical power from more than one source shall be provided with a disconnecting means from each source of electrical power within sight of the equipment served.

(b) Where multiple disconnecting means are used and parts of the control panel remain energized from a source other than the one disconnected, a warning slgn shall be mounted on or adjacent to the disconnecting means. The sign shall be clearly legible and shall read "Warning - Parts of the control panel are not de-energized by this switch."

(c) Where interconnections between control panels are necessary for the operation of the system on multicar installation that remain energized from a source other than the disconnecting means, a warning sign shall be mounted on or adjacent to the disconnecting means in accordance with Section 620-52(b). SUBSTANTIATION: Replaces Section 620-51 paragraphs 2 and 3. Clarifies intent of Code and brings i t more in line with Section 430-113. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete the second and third paragraphs in Section 620-51 and replace with the following: "620-52. Power from More than One Source.

(a) On single- and multicar installations, equipment receiving electrical power from more than one source shall be provided with a disconnecting means from each source of electrical power within sight of the equipment served.

(b) Where multiple disconnecting means are used and parts of the control panel remain energized from a source other than the one disconnected, a warning sign shall be mounted on or adjacent to the disconnecting means. The sign shall be clearly legible and shall read "Warning - Parts of the control panel are not de-energized by this switch."

(c) Where interconnections between control panels are necessary • s

for the operation of the system on a multicar installation that remain energized from a source other than the means are disconnected, a warning sign in accordance with Section 620-52(b) shall be mounted on or adjacent to the disconnecting means." PANEL COMMENT: Editorial reasons. Paragraph (c) was changed to indicate that a "disconnecting means" is not a source and the requirements for conformance with Section 620-52(b) was moved in the sentence for clarif ication reasons. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMFENT ON VOTE:

BEST: Panel Action: Paragraph (c): My notes indicate the following wording for (c) was intended:

"(c) Where interconnections between control panels are necessary for the operation of the system on a multicar installation that remain energized from a source other than the ONE DISCONNECTED, a warning sign in accordance with Section 620-52(b) shall be mounted on or adjacent to the disconnecting means ."

DROSTE: Under Panel Action: Section 620-52 paragraph (c), third l ine, replace "means are" with "one."

HOGG: Regarding Section 620-52(c), my notes indicate this section should read, "Where interconnections between control panels are necessary for the operation of the system on a multicar installation that remains energized from a source other than the one disconnected, a warning sign in accordance with Section 620-52(b) shall be mounted on or adjacent to the disconnecting means ."

(The words "means are" before the word "disconnected" are replaced by the word "one.")

Log # 761, 859, 1332 12- 35 - (620-71 and Exception): Accept SUBMITTERS: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. T-~-FT)-C~ i)

Jim O'Boyle, Dover Corp./Elevator Div. (859) David A. Wizda, ASME A17 Elevators and Escalator Committee (1332)

RECOM~NDATION: Revise the f i r s t sentence as follows: "Elevator, dumbwaiter, escalator, and moving-walk driving

machines, motor-generator sets, "motor" controll ers, and disconnecting means shall be... " Delete "auxilary control equi pment ."

Revise the f i r s t sentence of the exception to read: "Dumbwaiter, escalator, or movi ng-wal k "motor" controllers shall

be permitted . . . . and the disconnecting means is located adjacent to the "motor" controller. Such cabinets . . . . " SUBSTANTIATION: This clarif ies the need to guard the motor controller as defined in Section 430-81 so as not to confuse them with motor control circuits as defined in Section 430-71.

I t is in the interest of safety that a disconnect switch be located near a driving machine and in view of i t . I t is appropriate that power circuits for the elevator driving motor be required to remain in the machine room, and that fuses for all control circuits be located there.

Requiring that the relay panel or logic panel be located in the machine room serves no safety purpose and penalizes modern advanced designs. I t is common practice today that door operator control devices are located on car tops adjacent to the operating motor.

The requirement that all devices and circuits covered under the "controller" definition be in the machine room is not necessary. I t may be that the term "controller" has become outdated as applied to modern elevator apparatus. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PT~NEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative,

Log # 1913 12- 36 - (620-73-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: P. Van Putten/B. Auger, Michigan Chapter IAEI RECOMIvENDATION: Add new Section 620-73. Elevator rooms shall be ~ired for at least one lighting outlet controlled by a wall switch, and one receptacle outlet.

3 3 4

SUBSTANTIATION: To provide lighting and power to service the equipment. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: This is a design oriented proposal and is not appropriate. The requirement is covered in ANSI A17.1 Rule 101.5a. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 10 NEGATIVE: Cartal.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: CARTAL: I voted to support the proposal. Field experience has

indicated the need for permanent lighting and receptacle avai labi l i ty for service and maintenance personnel.

Log # 762, 854, 1327 12- 37 - (620-73-(New)): Reject SUBMII-FERS: R. Droste, National Elevator Industry, Inc. ~ 2 )


RECOMMENDATION: Add (new) Section: 620-73. Clear Headroom. Elevator machine, control and

motor-generator rooms shall have a clear headroom of not less than seven (7) feet.

Exception. As permitted by ANSI/ASME A17.1. SUBSTANTIATION: I . To agree with ANSI/ASME A17.1 Rule 101.4 requirements.

2. NFPA 70, Section 110-16(f) allows a clear headroom of 6 feet 3 inches which is inadequate by A17.1 standards.

3. Elevator machine rooms are used on a regular basis, more often than electrical closets, thus necessitating more headroom. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: This is a design oriented proposal and is not appropriate. The requirement is covered in ANSI A17.1 Rule 101.4. VOTE C~ PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 10 NEGATIVE: Droste.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE : DROSTE: The intent of the proposal was to eliminate conflict

between two ANSI standards. I f CMP 12 feels strongly that the proposal is design oriented, then I suggest that CMP I remove the requirement from Section 110-16(f) also.

SUBSTANTIATION: The present format of the published Code book makes i t d i f f i cu l t and time consuming to determine the appropriate Panel responsible for the art icle in which a problem is developing. The addition of one line in parentheses under the art ic le number giving the Panel designation wil l quickly provide the proper source. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 11 NEGATIVE: Hitchens, Miner.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HITCHENS: The information is already included in the NEC. Its

inclusion throughout the NEC would be redundant. Since the proposal covers editorial changes pertinent to all articles of the NEC, the NEC Correlating Committee should make the final decision on the action on the proposal.

MINER: This change is editorial and the Correlating Committee and the NFPA should include or exclude this information in the Table of Contents i f they think i t is of any value. I t is f e l t such inclusion is redundant.

f Log # 1644 16- 2 - (Articles 640,650,720,725,760,800,810,820): Reject SUBMITFER: Allen KnicKrehm, Los Angeles, CA RECOMMENDATION: Delete the word "approved" when used to mean the use of alternate method(s) or materials. SUBSTANTIATION: The NEC is incorporated in most construction contract documents by reference. Therefore, the authority having jurisdiction - the owner or the owner's representative, will not be the third party qualified person contemplated by the Code-Making Panel. Section 90-4 covers the case for governmental bodies exercising legal jurisdiction. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: No specific proposal has been supmitted. Any review would be subjective on the part of the Panel to determine proposer' s intent. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 645 -- DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS

Log #1288 12- 38 - (620-73-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: IAEI I~'-CO-#~L~I~JATION: Add a new Section 670-73 as follows: At least one lighting outlet controlled by a wall switch, and one receptacle outlet shall be installed in each elevator machine room or enclosure. SUBSTANTIATION: To provide lighting and power to service the equipment. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 12-36. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 10 NEGATIVE: Cartal.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE : • CARTAL: I voted to support the proposal. Field experience has indicated the need for permanent lighting and receptacle avai labi l i ty for service and maintenance personnel.

ARTICLE 640 -- SOOND-RECORDING AND SIMILAR E(kIIPMENT

Log # 2043 16- 1 - (Articles 640,650,720,725,760,800,810,820): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee feels that this proposal is editorial in nature and that i t is unnecessary to repeat information already in the Code. I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be reported as "Reject" as i t is not within the scope of CMP 16. SUBMITTER: Ivan P. Nordstrand, Consumers Power Company RECOMMENDATION: Propose each article have the Panel designation thus:

Article 90 - Introduction (Panel No. 1) Article 100 .- Definitions (Panel No. I) Article 110 - Requirements for Electric Installations (Panel No. 1) Article 200 - Use and Identification of Grounded Conductors (Panel No. 5) Article 210 - Branch Circuits (Panel No. 2) Etc...

12- 39 - (645-1, FPN): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 12 RECOI~MENDATION: Change the fu l l size print in the f i r s t sentence to fine print and insert below Section 645-1 as a fine print note. SUBSTANTIATION: In conformance with NFPA Manual of Style. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 704 12- 40 - (645-1(a)-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 12 that art icle scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMITTER: James F. Meehan, New Haven, CT RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 645-1 by adding the following:

"(a) Data Processing Room. For the purpose of this art icle, a data processing room shall be defined as an enclosed area, with one or more means of entry, the prime purpose of which is to enclose the data processing equipment that is located therein." SUBSTANTIATION: Section 645-I - Due to the various discussions concerning "what constitutes a data processing room" - there is a need for such a definition. The suggested definition will f i l l such need. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Adequately covered in NFPA 75. VOTE ON PANEL'ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1492 12- 41 - (645-1(a)-(New)): Reject SUBMI1-TERS: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co.

Hogan, Chicago, IL Fred Smith, Elgin, IL Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT Anton Ganje, North Dakota Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN Bill Conrardy, The Conrardy Co. Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL Paul Moore, Chicago, IL Les Rinder, Chicago, IL Leo Nagel, North Dakota Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 645-I by adding thereto the following:

"(a) Data Processing Room. For the purposes of this article a data processing room shall be defined as an enclosed area with one or more means of entry, the prime purpose of which is to enclose the data processing equipment that is located therein."

335

SUBSTANTIATION: I t is obvious from the nu~er of discussions that nave taken place at many IAEI meetings during the past year that there is a definite need for a definition of a "data processing room." Our suggestion seems to f i t the definition that has been most commonly accepted by inspectors in many parts of the United States.

I t seems that as long as the t i t l e of the article is, "Data Processing Systems" and that we should use this term throughout the article, the introduction of the term, "COMPUTER ROOM" only serves to confuse the intent of the rules. All computers do fa l l under the generic heading, "data processing equipment." All data processing equipment are not computers. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment for Proposal 12-40. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1213 12- 42 - (645-2(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James F. Meehan, City of New Haven, CT IT-ER~O-RiQrE~T~ATION: Section 645-2(b) Delete "specifically approved" and replace with the word " l isted."

Section 645-2(b) Replace "computer cable" with "data processing cable." SUBSTANTIATION: Section 645-2(b) The equipment and conductors should be "listed" in line with Section 90-6 rather than depend upon an inspector who many times does not have the means or the manpower to conduct such test under standard conditions. Also "computer cable" should use the wording of the article with refers to "Data Processing Systems." PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the f i r s t sentence of Section 645-2(b) by inserting the words "or data processing" after "computer" and before "cable." PANEL COMMENT: As presently written, "specifically approved" meets the intent of the Panel. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 2069 12- 43 - (645-2(c)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee to direct the Panel to c lar i fy the Panel Action on this proposal with respect to grammer. SUBMITTERS: Leo Witz, Continental Electric Co. ~ a n , Chicago, IL

Fred Smith, Elgin, IL Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT Anton Ganje, North Dakota Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN Bil l Conrardy, The Conrardy Co. Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL Paul Moore, Paducah, KY Les Rinder, Chicago, IL Leo Nagel, North Dakota Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 645-2(c) by deleting therefrom the words, "and communication supply conductors." SUBSTANTIATION: "Communication supply conductors" are not defined in the Code and inject an entire new concept in this article of the Code. The term, "interconnecting cables" tel ls the entire story. They are listed as part of the data processing system and need no other definition. The presence of the words, "conmunication supply conductors" does not clar i fy the rule in any way, shape or form. I t does, however, confuse the subject. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete "communications supply cables." PANEL COMMENT: The Panel agrees with the submitter. Change is made to be compatible with Code language. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NEGATIVE: Helfer.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HELFER: I am against the Panel Action to accept this proposal

in principle. Communication cable and wire are necessary to feed input to the data processing system and its terminals. Communication circuits (which are defined in Article 100 and Section 800-1) require the saw f l e x i b i l i t y as power supply and interconnecting cables, and by deleting the words "Communication Supply Cables" would in effect, not permit them under raised floors and create additional hardship and expense to connect them to the data processing system.

Since i t appears communication supply cables are not defined in the Code perhaps the section should be rewritten as follows:

645-2(c). Under Raised Floors. The power supply and interconnecting cables and communication circuits shall be permitted under a raised floor provided:

! i } Same as present Same as present Same as present.

Log # 2070 12- 44 - (645-3): Accept SUBMITTERS: Led Witz, Continental Electric Co. --B-~FT'-F~gan, Chicago, IL

Fred Smith, Elgin, IL Jim Meehan, New Haven, CT Anton Ganje, North Dakota Kenny Gebert, Minneapolis, MN Bil l Conrardy, The Conrardy Co. Robert P. Brooks, Chicago, IL Paul Moore, Paducah, KY Les Rinder, Chicago, IL Leo Nagel, North Dakota Homer M. Lefler, Chicago, IL John W. Erickson, Boltswitch Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 645-3 by deleting thereform the word, "computer" and by inserting in lieu thereof the words, "data processing." SUBSTANTIATION: I t seems that as long as the t i t l e of the article is, "Data Processing Systems" and that we should use this term throughout the art icle, the introduction of the term, "COMPUTER ROOM" only serves to confuse the intent of the rules. All computers do fa l l under the generic heading, "data processing equipment." All data processing equipment are not computers. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1212 12- 45 - (645-3): Accept SUI~MII-FER: James F. Meehan, City of New Haven, CT RECOMMENDATION: Section 645-3 Replace "computer" with "data processing." SUBSTANTIATION: Data processing system is used throughout the article, the introduction of the terms "con~puter" and "computer cable" only serve to confuse and not clar i fy the intent of the rules. Computers fa l l within the generic heading of "data processing equipment" but all data processing equipment are not "computers." PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 668 -- ELECTROLYTIC CELLS

Log # 960 12- 46 - (668-30(c)): Accept SUBMII-FER: C. A. Langlois, Reynolds Metals Company ~ A T I O N : Add "to premises wiring systems" after "connected."

/~tUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies intent. This section (c) is intended 0 cover wiring connections between devices mounted on the cell

and premises wiring systems outside the cell line working zone. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1170 12- 47 - (668-30(c)(2)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: C. L. Pittman, Aluminum Company of America RECOMMENDATION: Add "or nonmetallic cable trays." after "raceways." SUBSTANTIATION: For safety reasons, a nonmetallic cable tray is often used to support cables between an electrolytic cell and the building wall. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete semicolon and replace with a comma. Insert the following after "raceways": "wire or cable in suitable raceways, metal or nonmetallic cable

trays." PANEL COMMENT: This action is consistent with the Panel Action taken on Proposal 12-48. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COF~4ENT ON VOTE:

ERICKSON: Editorial comment on Panel Action, should read - Change Section 668-30(c)(2) to read as follows: "Wire or cable in suitable raceways, metal or nonmetallic cable trays;"

Log # 1171 12- 48 - (668-30(c)(3)) : Accept SUBMITTER: C. L. Pittman, Aluminum Company of America ~ A T I O N : Delete.

Add a second sentence to Section 668-30(c)(2) as fo l lows: I f metal conduit, cable t ray , armored cable, or s imi lar meta l l i c

systems are used, they shall be insta l led with insulat ing breaks such that they w i l l not cause a po ten t ia l l y hazardous e lec t r i ca l condit ion. SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y the in tent . PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Af f i rmat ive.

336

ARTICLE 670 -- METALWORKING MACHINE TOOLS

Log # 1289, 1896 11- 80 - (Article 670 Note after Tit le and 670-4(b)): Accept SUBMI1-FERS: IAEI (1289) ~ / H . B. Love, Michigan Chapter IAEI (1896) RECOMMENDATION: Change References to NFPA 79-1981. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial and to provide latest standard. PANEL ACTION: Accept. PANEL COMMENT: The proposal is included in Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 11-82. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 130 11- 81 - (Article 670): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note No. 1: This Comment (No. 70-66, CMP 11) was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See NEC-TCD-1980 Annual Meeting.

Secretary's Note No.2:: The Correlating Committee advises C~ ) 11 that art icle scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action on the scope. SUBMITTER: John Bloodgood, NFPA 79 Committee for Metalworking Machine Tools RECOMMENDATION: Update of Art icle 670 as per proposed NFPA 79-1981

Article 670 - Metalworking Machine Tools and Plastics Machinery

For further information, see Electrical Standards for Metalworking Machine Tools, NFPA 79-1981 (ANSI).

670-I Scope. This article covers the size and overcurrent protection of supply conductors to metaIv~rking machine tools and plastics machinery and the nameplate data required on each such machi ne. 670-2 Definition. Metalworking Machine Tool and Plastics Machinery. For the purposes of this standard; a machine tool is defined as a power-driven machine not portable by hand, used to shape or form metal or plastic by cutting, impact, pressure, electrical techniques, or combination of these processes; plastics machinery is defined as a power-driven machine not portable by hand, used to shape or form plastics by application of thermal and/or mechanical energy, by cutting, impact, pressure, or a cc~nbination of these processes. 670-3 Machine Tool Nameplate Data. A permanent nameplate l ist ing supply voltage, phase, frequency, ful l- load currents (see notes below), ampere rating of largest motor or load, short-circuit interrupting capacity of the machine overcurrent-protective device i f furnished, and diagram number shall be attached to the control equipment enclosure or machine where plainly visible after install ation. Note i. The ful l- load current shall not be less than the sum of the ful l- load currents required for all motors and other equipment which may be in operation at the same time under normal conditions of use. Where unusual type loads, duty cycles, etc., require oversized conductors, the required capacity shall be included in the marked "ful l- load current." Note 2. Where more than one incoming supply circui t is to be provided, the nameplate shall state the above information for each circui t . 670-4 General.

(a) Circuit Conductors. The supply circuit conductors shall have an ampacity of not less than the marked ful l- load current rating plus 25 percent of the ful l- load current rating of the highest rated motor or load, as indicated on the nameplate. For the protection of supply conductors to the machine see Section 240 -3.

(b) Single Unit. A machine complying with NFPA 79-1981 (ANSI) shall be considered an individual unit equipment. I t shall he provided with a disconnecting means and shall be permitted to be supplied by branch circuits protected by either fuses or c i rcu i t breakers.

(c) Overcurrent Protection. The disconnecting means shall not be r~quired tp inc~)rporate overcurrent protection. Where the machlne namepiate 1 s marked "Overcurren~ protection provided at machine supply terminals," the supply conductors shall be considered either as feeders or taps as covered by Section 240-21.

"Overcurrent protection provided at machine supply terminals" means that provision has been made in the machine for each set of supply conductors to terminate in a single circuit breaker or set of fuses. SUBSTANTIATION: The NFPA 79 Committee realizes that there is no proposal to Art icle 670 1978 NEC for change. This public comment is submitted for consideration so Article 670 will appear editor ial ly updated to reflect the latest provisions. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL CDF~VENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 11-82. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 273 11- 82 - (Article 670): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee to direct the Panel to c lar i fy the Panel Action on this proposal. The Correlating Committee advises C~ 11 that article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Cc~mi ttee. SUBMITTER: John F. Bloodgood, ~PA 79 Committee for Metalworking Machine Tool s RECO~IENDATION: Reword Article 670.

Art icle 670-Metalworking Machine Tools and Plastics Machinery. For further information, see NFPA,79-1980 (ANSI) Electrical

Standard for Metalworking Machine Tools and Plastics Machinery: 670-1. Scope. This article covers the definition of, the slze

and overcurrent protection of supply conductors to, and the nameplate data required on metalworking machine tools and plastics mac hi n ery.

670-2. Definition of Metalworking Machine Tools or Plastics Machinery. For the purposes of this standard, a machine tool is defined as a power-driven machine not portable by hand, used t o shape or form metal or plastic by cutting, impact, pressure, electrical techniques, or combination of these processes; plastics machinery is defined as a power-driven machine not portable by hand, used to shape or form plastic by application of thermal and/or mechanical energy, by cutting, impact, pressure, or a combination of these processes.

670-3. Machine Nameplate Data. (a) A permanent nameplate l is t ing supply voltage, phase, frequency, ful l- load current, ampere rating of largest motor or load, short-circuit interrupting capacity of the machine overcurrent-protective device i f furnished, and diagram number shall be attached to the control equipment enclosure or mach!ne where plainly visible after installation.

The ful l- load current shown on the nameplate shall not be less than the sum of the ful l- load currents required for all motors and other equipment which may be in operation at the same time under normal conditions of use. Where unusual type loads, duty cycles, etc., require oversized conductors, the required capacity shall be included in the marked "ful l- load current."

Where more than one incoming supply circui t is to be provided, the nameplate shall state the above information for each circuit.

(b) Where overcurrent protection is provided in accordance with Section 670-4(b), the machine shall be marked "overcurrent protection provided at machine supply terminals."

670-4. Supply Conductors. (a) Size. The size of the supply conductor shall be such as to have an ampacity not less than 125 percent of the ful l- load current rating of all resistance heating loads plus 25 percent of the ful l- load current rating of highest rated motor plus the sum of .the ful l- load current ratings of all other connected motors and apparatus which may be in operation at the same time.

(b) Overcurrent Protection. A machine covered by NFPA 79 (ANSI) shall be considered as an individual unit and therefore shall be provided with a disconnecting means. The disconnecting means may be supplied by branch circuits protected by either fuses or circuit breakers. The disconnecting means may or may not incorporate overcurrent protection. When furnished as part of the machine, i t shall consist of a single circuit breaker or set of fuses and the machine shall bear the marking required in Section 670 -3. SUBSTANTIATION:. The above changes bring Article 670 into line with NFPA 79-1980. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add to Section 670-4(a) a f ine print note to read as follows: FPN: "For the protection of supply conductors to the machine,

see Section 240-3." In second sentence of Section 670-4(b) replace "may" with "shall

be permitted to." In the third sentence replace "may or may not" with "shall not

be required to." In the fourth sentence, replace " i t " with "overcurrent

protection." PAJWEL COMMENT: The Panel feels the FPN to Section 670-4(a) and the addition in Section 670-4(b) are necessary for guidance. Additional changes were made for mandatory wording. The changing of the word " i t " is for editorial clar i f icat ion. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NEGATIVE : Schram.

COF~MENT ON VOTE: ANANIAN: Under Section 670-4(b) after the last sentence ending

in Section 670-3 add "and the supply conductor shall be considered either as feeders or taps as covered by Section 240-21." EXPLANATION OF VOTE:

SCHRAM: According to my records, the Panel also agreed to add, at the end of Section 670-4(b) of the proposal, the wording "and the supply conductors shall be considered either as feeders or taps as covered by Section 240-21." I believe this wording should be added, but with the further editorial change of replacing "and" after "fuses" in the last sentence of Section 670-4(b) with a " , " . See Section 670-4(c) of Proposal 11-81. I f the wording quoted above had been included in the Panel changes, I would have voted affirmatively on the Panel Recommendation with comment on the editorial change.

337

ARTICLE 675 -- ELECTRICALLY DRIVEN DR CONTROLLED IRRIGATION MACHINES

Log # 1921 19- 86 - (675-4(a)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: LaVerne E. Stetson, Agricultural Research Service,

Department of Agriculture, and the Electrical Code for Agriculture Committee of American Society of Agricultural Engineers. RECOMMENDATION: Replace "nonhygroscopic" with "nonwicking." SUBSTANTIATION: Field experience has shown that water has entered enclosures through cables with nonhygroscopic f i l l e r material that wil l not retain water, but will conduct water by capillary action. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add "and nonwicking" after the word "nonhygroscopic" in present Section 675-4(a). PANEL COMMENT: The panel considers that the f i l l e r material shall not conduct water and i t shall not contain water. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1922 19- 87 - (675-7 to 675-26): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: LaVerne E. Stetson, Agricultural Research Service, U.'O~-.'.'.'.'.'.~TT. Department of Agriculture, and the Electrical Code for Agriculture Committee of American Society of Agricultural Engineers. RECOMMENDATION: Reorganize and amend to read: 675-7. Equivalent Current Ratings. Where intermittent duty is not involved the provisions of Article 430 shall be used for determining ratings for controllers, disconnecting means, conductors, and the like. Where irrigation machines have inherent intermittent duty the following determinations of equivalent current ratings shall be used.

(a) Continuous-Current Rating. The equivalent continuous-current rating for the selection of branch-circuit conductors and branch-circuit devices shall be equal to 125 percent of the motor nameplate full-load current rating of the largest motor plus a quantity equal to the sum of each of the motor nameplate full-load current ratings of all remaining motors on the circuit multiplied by the maximum percent duty cycle at which they can continuously operate.

(b) Locked-Rotor Current. The equivalent locked-rotor current rating shall be equal to the numerical sum of the locked-rotor current of the two largest motors plus 100 percent of the sum of the motor nameplate full-load current ratings of all the remaining motors on the circuit. 675-8. Disconnecting Means.

(a) Main Controller. A controller which is used to start and stop the complete machine shall meet all of the following requirements:

(1) An equivalent continuous current rating not less than specified in Section 675-7(a) or 675-22(a).

(2) A horsepower rating not less than the value from Table 430-151 based on the equivalent locked-rotor current specified in Section 675-7(b) or 675-22(b).

(b) Main Disconnecting Means. The main disconnecting means for the machine shall be at the point of connection of electrical power to the machine or shall be visible and not more than 50 feet (15.2 m) from the machine and shall be readily accessible and capable of being locked in the open position. This disconnecting means shall have the same horsepower and current rating as required for the main controller.

(c) Disconnecting Means for Individual Motors and Controllers. A disconnecting means shall be provided for each motor and controller and shall be located as required by Article 430 Part H. The disconnecting means shall not be required to be readily accessible. 675-9. Branch-Circuit Conductors. The branch-circuit conductors shall have an ampacity not less than specified in Section 675-7(a) or 675-22(a). 675-10. Several Motors on One Branch Circuit.

(a) Protection Required. Several motors, each not exceeding 2-horsepower rating, shall be permitted to be used on an irrigation machine circuit protected at not more than 30 amperes at 600 volts, nominal, or less, provided all of the following conditions are met:

( i ) The full-load rating of any motor in the circuit shall not exceed 6 amperes.

(2) Each motor in the circuit shall have individual running overcurrent protection in accordance with Section 430-32.

(3) Taps to individual motors shall not be smaller than No. 18 copper and not more than 25 feet (7.62 m) in length.

(b) Individual Protection Not Required. Individual branch-circuit short-circuit protection for motors and motor controllers shall not be required where the requirements of Section 675-10(a) are met. 675-11. Collector Rings.

(a) Transmitting Current for Power Purposes. Collector rings shall have an ampacity not less than 125 percent of the full-load current of the largest device served plus the full-load current of all other devices served, or as determined from Section 675-7(a) or 675-22(a).

(b) Control and Signal Purposes. Co]lector rings for control and signal purposes shall have an ampacity not less than 125 percent of the full-load current of the largest device served plus the full-load current of all other devices served.

(c) Grounding. The collector ring used for grounding shall be of the same ampacity as the largest collector ring in the assembly.

(d) Protection. Collector rings shall be protected from the ,expected environment and from accidental contact by means of a suitable enclosure. 675-12 Grounding. The following equipment shall be grounded: (1) all electrical equipment on the irrigation machine; (2) all electrical equipment associated with the irrigation machine; (3) metallic junction boxes and enclosures; and (4) control panels or control equipment that supply or control electrical equipment to the irrigation machine.

Exception: Grounding shall not be required on machines where all of the following provisions are met:

a. The machine is electrically controlled but not electrically driven.

b. The control voltage is 30 volts or less. c. The control or signal circuits are current-limited as

specified in Section 725-31. 675-13. Methods of Grounding. Machines which require grounding shall have a noncurrent-carrying equipment grounding conductor provided as an integral part of each cord, cable, or raceway. This grounding conductor shall be equal in size to the supply conductors in each cord cable or raceway, but not smaller than No. 18 copper. Feeder circuits supplying power to irrigation machines shall have an equipment grounding conductor sized according to Table 250-95. 674-14. Bonding. Where electrical grounding is required on an irrigation machine, the metallic structure of the machine, metallic conduit, or metallic sheath of cable shall be bonded to the grounding conductor. Metal-to-metal contact with a part which is bonded to the grounding conductor and the noncurrent-carrying parts of the machine shall be considered as an acceptable bonding path. 675-15. Lightning Protection. I f an irrigation machine has a stationary point, a driven ground rod shall be connected to the machine at the stationary point for lightning protection. 675-16. Energy from More than One Source. Equipment within an enclosure receiving electrical energy from more than one source shall not be required to have a disconnecting means for the additional source, provided that its voltage is 30 volts or less and meets the requirements of Section 725-31. 675-17. Connectors. External plugs and connectors on the equipment shall be of the weatherproof type.

Unless provided solely for the connection of circuits meeting the requirements of Section 725-31, external plugs and connectors shall be constructed as specified in Section 250-99(a).

B. CENTER PIVOT IRRIGATION MACHINES

675-21. General. The provisions of Part B are intended to cover additional special requirements which are peculiar to center pivot irrigation machines. See Section 675-2 for definition of Center Pivot Irrigation Machines. 675-22. Equivalent Current Ratings. In order to establish ratings of controllers, disconnecting means, conductors, and the llke, for the inherent intermittent duty of center pivot irrigation machines, the following determination shall be used:

(a) Continuous-Current Rating. The equivalent continuous-current rating for the selection of branch-circuit conductors and branch-clrcuit devices shall be equal to 125 percent of the motor nameplate full-load current rating of the largest motor plus 60 percent of the sum of the motor nameplate ful1-1oad current ratings of all remaining motors on the circuit .

(b) Locked-Rotor Current. The equivalent locked-rotor current rating shall be equal to the numerical sum of two times the locked-rotor current of the largest motor plus 80 percent of the sum of the motor nameplate full-load current ratings of all the remaining motors on the circuit. SUBSTANTIATION: The pr6posed revision is to encompass the linear or lateral move irrigation machines now being marketed. Several sections previously in Part B~ Center Pivot Irrigation Machines were moved to Part A, General, as they apply to all machines. I have conducted electrical tests on lateral machines which show on intermittent duty different from center-pivot machines, but not continuous duty of all motors. Sections 675-7(a) and (b) provide for this intermittent duty, where required, while the calculations for center-pivot machines remain the same (Section 675-22).

Other proposed revisions are to allow conductors smaller than 14 gage copper where the loads are small. Motor drops are 25 feet or less and the three-phase current requirements are often 1.5 to 2.5 amperes. Conductors of 16 or 18 gage could supply the load as is now permitted in Article 430. The cable construction requirements of Section 675-4 provide enough mechanical support for the conductors. Some control loads, such as solenoids are such that 18 gage copper conductors could supply the load; however, the present wording of Section 675-9 requires a 14 gage grounding conductor in that cable.

A marked copy of the present article was used so Panel members could identify changes.

338

PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Change "No. 18" to "No. 14" in Section 675-i0(a)(3) and in

Section 675-13. PANEL COMMENT: Number 14 AWG copper conductors are necesssary both for strength and faul t current-carrying capacity. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 680 -- SWIMMING POOLS, FOUNTAINS, AND SIMILAR INSTALLATIONS

20- i0 - (680-4): Accept SUBMITTER: C~ 20 RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new definition to Section 680-z~ after the t i t l e :

Combination Bathtub-Spa. A hydromassage pool designed for immersion of users and usually having a heater and motor-driven blower. SUBSTANTIATION: An exception has been included in Section 680-41 to cover installations of this type, therefore a definition is needed. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NEGATIVE: Bockmi er.

EXPLANATI~ OF VOTE: BOCKMIER: The proposed definition of a "Combination

Bathtub-Spa" does not appear to differentiate in any significant respect from the existing definition of a "Spa or Hot Tub." I f there is a need for another defintion, i t should include an important distinguishing feature that would jus t i f y a new separate definition.

20- 11 - (680-4): Accept SUSMII-FER: ~ 20 RECOMMENDATION: Before "spa or hot tub" add a new definition to Section 680-4 as follows:

Pool Cover - Electrically Operated. A motor-driven device to extend and withdraw a f lexible sheet or r igid frame to cover the water surface of a pool. SUBSTANTIATION: Electric pool covers are becoming a common piece of equipment and need recognition by means of a definit ion. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 8 N~DATIVE: Bockmier.

E~LANATION OF VOTE: ~UCKMIER: A product with a motor would not conform to the

definition of a "device," a device being "A unit of an electrical systom which is intended to carry but not ut i l ize electric energy." The word "device" should be replaced with either "appliance" or wi th "equipment ."

Log # 1744 20- 12 - (680-4): Reject SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electr ici ty Inc. ~:-~i)]~U~=-N--DATION: Move definitions for Dry-Niche Lighting Fixture, Forming Shell, Permanently Installed Swimming, Wading, and Therapeutic Pools, Spa or Hot Tub, Storable Swimming or Wading Pool, Wet Niche Lighting Fixture. SUBSTANTIATION: Some definitions are located in.the middle of sections, in the front of sections as in this case, as FPN, as articles, as statements. There is no consistency in handling definitions. All definitions should be located in Article 100 unless they would cause conflict with other sections. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The definitions listed in the proposal only apply to Article 680. The rule for the NEC definitions is that i f a term appears in two or more articles of the Code, the definition is included in Art icle 100; otherwise the definition will appear in the art icle to which i t refers. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

20- 13 - (680-6(a)(i), Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: CIvP 20 RECOMMENDATION: Delete period at end of the f i r s t sentence and add the words "and all receptacles shall be protected by a

~ round-fault circuit- interrupter." and delete the last sentence. UBSTANTIATION: See Panel Action on Proposal 20-18.

PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE C~ PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Aff imat ive.

Log # 457 20- 14 - (680-6(a)(2)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Southwestern Section IAEI RECOMMENDATION: Change paragraph (2) to read:

"(2) Where a permanently installed pool is installed at a dwelling unit(s), at least one 120-volt convenience receptacle shall be installed a minim~ of 10 feet (3.05 m) from and not more than 20 feet (6.08 m) from the inside wall of the pool." SUBSTANTIATION: The present maximum of 15 feet from the inside wall of pool creates other than an electrical hazard. In most cases this 15 feet maximum will locate the receptacle within an open deck area around pool. Standard installations consist of a raised weatherproof outlet box. This is an obstruction to persons using pool, causing a t r ip hazard (not electrical) to these persons. Cases have been reported of persons fa l l ing and breaking arm or leg or hitt ing head on concrete with a concussion occurring. Field experience has shown that in many cases after final inspection this receptacle is rBTw)ved by owner or contractor. By extending the maximum distance to 20 feet, i t w i l l , in most installations, locate this receptacle outside or on edge of deck area around the pool. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Replace the word "installed" after "shall be" with the word "located ." PANEL COMNENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 20-16. The Panel feels that using the word " located" in place of " i ns ta l l ed " would c l a r i f y the in ten t . VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i rmat i ve .

Log # 1373 20- 15 - (680-6(a)(2)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: M. H. Lounsbury, Eastern Section IAEI RECOMMENDATION: Where a permanently installed pool is installed at a dwelling unit(s), at least one 120-volt convenience receptacle shall be located a minimum of 10 feet (3.05 m) from and not more than 15 feet (4.57 m) from the inside wall of pool. SUBSTANTIATION: Where there is an existing outlet already installed there is no reason to install another, as now required. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Replace "15 feet (4.57 m)" with "20 feet (6.08 m)." PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 20-17. The Panel feels that the 15-foot ]imitation should be extended to 20 feet. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1292 20- 16 - (680-6(a)(2)) : Accept SUBMITTE R : IAEI ~ T I O N : Revise Section 680-6(a)(2) to read:

(2) Where a permanently ins ta l led pool is ins ta l led at a dwell ing un i t ( s ) , at ]east one 120-vol t convenience receptacle shall be located a minimum of i0 feet (3,05 m) from and not more than 20 feet (6.08 m) from the inside wall of pool. SUBSTANTIATION: Whore there is an ex is t ing ou t le t already i ns ta l l ed , there is no reason to i ns ta l l another, as now required.

The present maximum of 15 feet from the inside wall of pool creates other than an e lec t r i ca l hazard. In most cases th is 15 feet maximum wi l l locate the receptacle wi th in an open deck area around pool. Standard ins ta l la t ions consist of a raised weatherproof ou t le t box. This is an obstruct ion to persons using pool , causing a t r i p hazard (not e lec t r i ca l ) to these persons. Cases have been reported of persons f a l l i n g and breaking arm or leg or h i t t i n g head.on concrete wi th a concussion occurr ing. Fie ld experience has shown tha t in many cases a f te r f ina l inspection th is receptacle is removed by owner or contractor . By extending the maximum distance to 20 f ee t , i t w i l l , in most i ns ta l l a t i ons , locate th is receptacle outside or on edge of deck area around the pool. PANEL ACTION : Accept. ~ L ACTION: Unanimously A f f i rmat i ve .

20- 17 - (680-6(a)(3)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 20 I~"~}-t~QL~N'-DATION : Replace "15 feet (4.57 m)" with "20 feet (6.08 m)." SUBSTANTIATION: To corre late wi th the action taken on Section 680-6(a)(2) and Proposal 20-16. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i rmat i ve .

339

Log # 1293, 1374 20- 18 - (680-6(a)(3)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERS: M. H. Lounsbury, Eastern Section IAEI (1374)

IAEI ~93) RECOF~ENDATION: Section 680-6(a)(3) would read:

All receptacles located within 15 feet (4.57 m) of the inside walls of a pool shall be protected by a ground-fault ci rcui t- interrupter. SUBSTANTIATION: We respectfully submit that all receptacles within the 15-foot area of a permanently installed swimming pool be required to be protected by a ground-fault circuit-interrupter regardless of voltage and delete reference to Section 210-8(a)(3) as i t won't be necessary. We are concerned that failure to mention the 220-volt receptacle installed for the purpose of energizing a f i l t e r pump motor requiring 220 volts does rot receive the same attention as a 120-volt receptacle but could be just as much of a problem. Persons could come in direct contact with this equipment just as easily regardless of the characteristics of the voltage present. The deletion of the reference to Section 210-8(a)(3) we feel would correct the inconsistency in the voltages referred to. In Section 680-6(a)(3) 120 volts is mentioned and in Section 210-8(a)(3), 125 volts is indicated. Further, i f this proposal is accepted, the reference would be redundant. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Replace "15 feet (4.57 m)" with "20 feet (6.08 m)." PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 20-16. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 456, 1253 20- 19 - (680-6(b)(1), Exception No. 2-(New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERS: Southwestern Section IAEI (456)

IAE I -(-I-~53) RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No. 2 in Section 680-6(b)(i) Lighting Fixtures and Lighting Outlets.

( I) Lighting fixtures and lightin.g outlets shall not be installed over the pool or over the area extending 5-feet (1.52 m) horizontally from the inside walls of a pool unless 12-feet (3.66 m) above the maximum water level.

Exception No. 1: Existing lighting fixtures and lighting outlets located less than 5 feet (1.52 m) measured horizontally from the inside walls of a pool shall be at least 5-feet (1.52~m) above the surface of the maximum water level and shall be r ig idly attached to the existing structure.

Exception No. 2: In indoor pool areas, where ceiling heights and/or room size do not permit required clearances, the limitations of Section 680-6(b)(1) shall not apply i f all of the following conditions are complied with: (1) fixtures are of total ly enclosed type; and (2) a ground-fault circuit-interrupter is installed in the branch circuit supplying the f ixture(s). SUBSTANTIATION: Code appears more restrictive for now work than for remodel of existing buildings. Servicing f ixture at 12 feet (3.66 m) above the maximum water level appears more dangerous than the above Exception No. 2. Building could be constructed with fixtures on the wall and at a later date install the pool. Architects have been requested to remodel a building and ceiling heights are limited to a value less than 12 feet (3.66 m). PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Delete from the proposed Exception No. 2 the following:

", where ceiling heights and/or room size do not permit required clearances,". Also delete the word "and" from subparagraph (1). Replace the period at the end of the sentence with a semicolon and add the following:

"and (3) the distance from the bottom of the f ixture to the maximum water level is rot less than 7.5 feet (2.29 m)." PANEL COMFENT: The deletion was made so that the exception will apply to both existing and new areas. The Panel feels the words are redundant and that new subparagraph (3) would make i t explanatory. The addition of subparagraph (3) prohibits a pendant type f ixture hanging above the water which could be a hazard. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 248 20- 20 - (680-6(c)-(New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Hal Knight, San Jose, CA RECOMMENDATION: 680-6 Receptacles, Lighting Fixtures, Lighting Outlets "and Switching Devices."

(c) Switching devices. (I) There shall be no power or lighting electrical switching

devices ( i .e. , toggle switches, circui t breakers, time clocks, fused or nonfused disconnect switches) within f ive feet from the edge of a pool. SUBSTANTIATION: I have seen a number of pools where the equipment pad was within three feet from the edge of the pool water and consequently a subpanel, time clocks and pool l ight switch could be reached by someone standing in the pool. The NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE is very specific about location of receptacles and lighting f ixtures, however, in my opinion, i t does not deal adequately with this particular unsafe condition in regards to electrical switching devices.

PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Reword (1) of the proposal to read as follows:

"(1) switching devices on the property shall be located at least f ive feet (1.52 m) from the inside walls of a pool unless separated from the pool by a solid fence, wall, or other permanent barri er ." PANEL COMMENT: The definition of "switching devices" is included under Article 100 and therefore the examples would be redundant. The addition is for consistency with other sections in Article 680. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

PIERCE: An affirmative vote was cast on this proposal due to actions taken by Code-Making Panel 20 inSection 680-25. Actions taken in this article took pool f i l t e r equipment out of the equipment associated with the swimming pool. By this action, i t would now require that the pool f i l t e r system circuits be enclosed in a metallic raceway system.

I f Panel Action. is not affirmative on this ballot for the changes in Section 680-25, then my vote would be negative on the next consideration of this proposal.

Log # 268 20- 21 - (680-7): Reject SUBMII-FER: James Piraino, Oak Creek, WI RECOM~NDATION: Fixed or stationary equipment and cord- and plug-connected f i l t e r pumps with storable pools, shall have a readily accessible watertight junction box on the unit.

The junction box may be constructed of plast ic (3/32 inch minimum thickness), and shall be 14 cubic inch'es minimum with 1/2 inch openings minimum and a No. 12 grounding conductor.

Exception: Underwater lighting fixtures for permanently insta l led pools shall be excluded. SUBSTANTIATION: I am submitting th is Code addit ion due to the fact that as an e lectr ican in the f i e l d , I have run across this s i tua t ion many times. Manufacturers of pool equipment construct equipment without to ta l regard to access ib i l i t y of wir ing an'd correct s iz ing of cord-connected equipment fo r permanently insta l led pools (in excess of 18 f ee t ) . I have been called by local inspectors to change cords (from 16-2 with ground to 12-2 with ground) f o r f i l t e r pumps (supposedly used only on pools 18 feet or less in length) on permanently ins ta l led pools only to f ind them completely sealed or unaccessible. Pumps and f i l t e r s that have had accessible boxes, I have found only to have a 3/8 inch connection hole of very thin p las t ic . This type of construction makes i t very d i f f i cu l t to enlarge the hole without damaging the connection box or surrounding plastic.

I strongly feel an urgent need for this change, because of the lack of knowledge of the Code on the manufacturers' part, and the dealers who sell the equipment. Many times the dealer informs the customer that the equipment is approved because of the UL label only to the customer's dismay to have the local inspector reject their pool installation which many times is financially disastrous. There has been many times in which the electrical contractor is caught in the middle between the inspector, owner and dealer (with his reluctance to comply with the ordinances). With this change, i t will make equipment supposedly used for portable pools, be used in permanently pool installations without much trouble or aggravation. I hope you strongly consider this addition, for i t has been long overdue. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COFI~ENT: The Code is not an equipment construction standard and t--B--er-e~-or'e this is a standards problem for the l ist ing agencies and not a Code problen. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1294, 1375 20- 22 - (680-10, Exception Nos. 1 and 2): Reject SUBMITTERS: IAEI (1294)

M. ~ Lounsbury, Eastern Section IAEI (1375) RECOMt~NDATION: Combine Exception No. 1 and 2 to read as follows:

Wiring necessary to supply pool equipment permitted by this article or when space limltatlons prevent wiring from being routed 5 feet (1.52 m) or more from the pool, such wiring shall be permitted when installed in r igid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, or a nonmetallic raceway system. All metallic conduit shall be corrosion-resistant and suitable for the location. The Exceptions to Section 300-5(a) shall not apply. SUBSTANTIATION: We fa i l to see the difference between disallowing a U.F. cable feeding lights around a pool (usually G.F.C.I. protected) and allowing a U.F. cable feeding a f i l t e r pump (usually 220 volts) this close to the wall of the swimming pool. Our intent is to make the pool wirer using U.F. cable instead of conduit, to have to dig his own trench rather than using the existing overdig specially on a vinyl pool.

The substantiation in the Preprint was; the present Code covers overhead wiring near pools but makes no provisions for underground conduits or cables. Faults in underground cables could set up high electric fields in the ground and deck adjacent to the pool and create a hazard to persons in this wet environment.

340

PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COM~NT: The proposal as submitted for combining Exception Nos. 1 and 2 would not accomplish anything not already written in the Code. As now written in the Code, Exception No. 1 does not permit UF cable to a f i l t e r system within f ive feet of a pool. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

PIERCE: See comment on Proposal 20-20.

Log # 1114 20- 23 - (680-10, Exception Nos. 1 and 2): Reject SUBMII-FER: J. H. (Jim) Richards, Maryland Electrical Inspectors Association RECO~NDATION: Consolidate the two exceptions into one to read

• as follows: Exception: Wiring necessary to supply pool equipment permitted

by this article and where space limitations other wiring shall be permitted when installed in r igid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, or a nonmetallic raceway system. All metallic conduit shall be corrosion-resistant and suitable for the location. Exceptions to Section 300-5(a) shall not apply. SUBSTANTIATION: When underground wiring is located closer than f ive feet to the walls of a swimming pool due to space limitations adequate protection and proper grounding is essential to l i f e s af ety. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 20-22.


VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: /~J- h I Hr.io~ l IV h. : U

NEGATIVE: Bockmier. EXPLANATION OF VOTE:

BOCKMIER: Suggest that the last sentence be deleted and the following added to the f i r s t sentence: "...and connected to the electric supply by means of wiring methods of Chapter 3." The second sentence of the proposal is objectionable beqause:

1. More than a motor may be involved. 2. Supply conductors are not necessarily "cord." 3. Prescription of a weatherproof box and strain rel ief are

design features that may not be appropriate for all designs.

Log # 342 20- 27 - (680-20(b)(1)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Joseph C. Roohan, Whi t t ie r , CA RECOMIVENDATION: In the t h i r d sentence perta in ing to nonmetallic conduit and No. 8 conductor delete the word " so l i d . " SUBSTANTIATION: The requi r ing of a sol id conductor for use in a raceway is inconsistent with the general provisions requir ing the use of stranded conductors f o r sizes No. 8 and larger found in Section 310-3. The s t i f fness of sol id No. 8 makes i n s t a l l a t i o n especia l ly d i f f i c u l t where bends are encountered. The corros ion-res is tant propert ies of sol id No. 8 may provide a theoret ica l improvement over stranded No. 8 because of the smaller exposed area, yet experience indicates that the pract ical d i f ference is i ns ign i f i can t . PANEL ACTION: Accept. ~ / I~ 'E ' - I~- I~L ACTION: Unanimously A f f i rmat i ve .

Log # 1795 20- 24 - (680-10, Exception No. 2): Reject SUBMI1-TER: Leo F. Martin, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI ~ D A T I O N : Revise Exception No. 2 as follows:

Exception No. 2: When space limitations prevent wiring 600 volts or less, from being routed 5 feet (1.52 m) or more from the pool, such wiring shall be permitted when sleeved or installed in r igid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, or noF~etallic conduit. All metallic conduit shall be corrosion-resistant, suitable for the location, and bonded according to Section 680-22(a)(5). The Exception to Section 300-5(a) shall not apply. SUBSTANTIATION: This revision clarif ies that a bonded protective sleeve is permitted, as i t would be highly impractical to require a complete raceway system where the run may be several hundred feet in length. Also, the reference to "600 volts or less" prohibits wiring rated over 600 volts within 5 feet of a pool. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT:. Sleeving on a cable assembly is impracticable without digging up the entire length of the cable. Other methods such as cutting the cable and install ing junction boxes could introduce more electrical hazards adjacent to the swimming pool. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1274 20- 28 - (680-20(b)(1)): Accept SUBMITTER: IAEI I~'I'.~)I;~L~I~I~ATION: Change - Suitable to Listed;

Next to last line of paragraph wil l then read "The termination of the No. 8 conductor in the forming shell shall be covered with, or encapsulated in, a (listed) potting compound to protect such connection from the possible deteriorating effect of pool water." SUBSTANTIATION: No known approved potting compound available. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NEGATIVE: Bockmier.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: BOCKMIER: Placing "( l isted)" in parentheses is unclear and

inconsistent with the substantiation. There may or may not be a "l isted" potting compound available. "Approved" is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and there is no indication that authorities have not found potting compounds that are acceptable to them. Suggest that "( l isted)" be deleted.

20- 25 - (680-11): Accept SL~MII-TER: CMP 20 RECOMMENDATION: Change t i t l e to read: ""Equipment Rooms and Pits." and in the text insert: "or pits" after the word "rooms." SU.BSTANTIATION: With the recognition of electrically-operated pool covers which will normally be installed in pits, drainage wil l be provided. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 467 20- 26 - (Article 680, Part B): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Darrell Hazelwood, J. M. Perry Insti tute I~"CITR~L~lql)ATION: Add the following new paragraph to Part B of Article 680:

Electric-operated pool covers installed at permanently-installed pools shall be supplied by branch circuits with ground-fault circuit- interrupter protection. The pool cover motor shall have its cord conductors spliced to the branch circuit in a weatherproof box by means of a weatherproof s t ra in r e l i e f connection. SUBSTANTIATION: E lec t r i c pool covers are becoming a common piece of equipment now at newly ins ta l led pools. There are no NEC regulations covering the connection of these pool cover motors. These motors that come with the pool covers come with a 15-ampere, 125-vo l t , l-phase cord cap. To supply th is motor we have to i ns ta l l a recept ic le about 2 1/2 to 3 fee t from the inside wall of the pool. This is not allowed by the NEC. The above paragraph wi l l hopeful ly provide proper regulat ions covering the motor's branch c i r c u i t and connection to the branch c i r c u i t . PANEL ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le . PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Proposals 20-11, 20-25, 20-30, and 20-48 to Sections 680-4, 680-11, 680-22(a)(5)-(New), and 680-26-(New).

Log # 1191 20- 29 - (680-22(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: Olaf G. Ferm, Ferm's Fast Finder Index RECOMMENDATION: Change the wording to read:

The following parts shall be bonded together and effectively grounded to the grounding bar of the pool subpanel or the neutral bar of the pool service equipment or the grounding electrode of the pool service equipment with a solid copper conductor, insulated, covered, or bare, not smaller than No. 8. Then l is t

I i ) , (2), (3) , (4) , (5) as i s . UBSTANTIATION: Bonding of the required swimming pool parts

together, and not requir ing these bonded parts to be grounded, with a conductor, leaves th is one section of the Code out of step with A r t i c l e 250.

(See) Sections 250-51, 250-57, 250-70, 250-80, and 250-91{c) to name a few.

(See) Enclosed material from the United States Department of Agr icu l ture. Even though th is material deals with i r r i ga t i on systems, the bonding and grounding requirements would be no d i f fe ren t at a swimmin 9 pool.

I have heard statements in the past from people who believe the bonding wire to the c i rcu la t ing pomp motor, and the ground wire to th is motor w i l l i nd i rec t l y ground the bonded parts. This is not so in the case of a cord-connected motor l e f t unplugged fo r some reason.

(Note: Copy of enclosed material avai lable from NFPA on request.) PANEL ACTION : Reject. PANEL COMMENT: In the in teres t of safety CMP 20 does not believe that a swimming pool should or could become the grounding electrode fo r the bui ld ing service. Although the bonding gr id and the e lec t r i ca l c i r cu i t s are interconnected by means of a No, 12 equipment grounding conductor, th is conductor by i t s size acts as a fus ib le l ink to disconnect the pool in overvoltage condit ions. Referred to CMP 5 and the NEC Correlat ing Conz~ittee.

341

VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE : 8 NEGATIVE: Kessl er.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: KESSLER: 1. I believe i t is in the best interest of safety to

be certain that the pool grid, and the building grounding electrode are always at the same potential and this proposal accempl ishes that.

2. The No. 12 grounding conductor from the panelhoard to the associated pool equipment may become inadequate for equalizing potential because: a) i t may be disconnected in the case of a circulator, b) this small size conductor is fragile and may break when subjected to bending or vibration, or burn-off due to faul t or lightning, c) corrosion may cause poor electrical connection at pool equipment.

3. This conductor should be given the same consideration in ab i l i t y to withstand deterioration as the bonding conductor which is specified as No. 8 copper.

20-30 - (680-22(a)(5) and (a)(6)-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: C~ 20 RECOMI~ZNDATION: Change existing Section 680-22(a)(5) to 6BO-22(a)(6) and add a new Section 680-22(a)(5) to read as follows:

(5) Metal parts of equipment associated with pool covers including electric motors. SUBSTANTIATION: Having recognized electrically-operated pool covers, Code installation methods are required. PANEL ACTION : Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1725 20- 31 - (680-22(b), FPN-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electr ici ty Inc. ~ T I O N : Add fine print note - "The insulated bonding jumper when used shall not be required to be color coded." SUBSTANTIATION: Some inspectors are interpreting that Section 250-57(b) would require this conductor to be green-tagged. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMNENT: Section 680-22 refers to a common bonding grid conductor while Section 250-57 deals with an equipment grounding conductor for an electrical c ircui t . VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1932 20- 32 - (680-22, FPN-(New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Paul Maziarz, Certified Electric Company ~MMENDATION: Add new fine print note as follows:

FPN: I t is not the intent of this article to require or suggest that the No. 8 or larger solid copper equipment BONDING conductor be extended or attached to any remote panelpoard, service equipment or any electrode, but only that i t be employed to eliminate voltage gradients in the pool area as prescribed. SUBSTANTIATION: The practice of requiring the equipment BONDING conductor to be run back to the water main or remote panelboard, or terminated on driven ground rods in the pool location is both unnecessary and undesirable. This clarif ication is needed because wiring inspectors insist that this superstitious method be used.

Their requirements are clearly not in keeping with the intent of Section 680-22 and are due to a misunderstanding of what bonding and grounding are all about. Furthermore, they add no measure of additional safety.

I feel that this fine print note wil l insure that the intent of bonding is understood so that swimming pool installations wil l conform with the intent of the Code as well as the let ter. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. In the proposal replace "art icle" with "subsection." Delete the words "or suggest" and "equipment" after the word "copper." PANEL COF~MENT: For editorial and clarif ication purposes. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 8 NEGATIVE: Kessler.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: KESSLER: Same reasons recorded in my negative vote on Proposal

20-29.

Log # 1295, 1376 20- 33 - (680-25(a)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: IAEI (1295) ~ o u n s b u r y , Eastern Section IAEI (1376) RECOMMENDATION: Change to read:

(a) The following provisions shall apply to the grounding of underwater lighting f ixtures, junction boxes, metal transformer enclosures, panelboards, " f i l t e r pomp motors" and other electrical enclosures and equipment. SUBSTANTIATION: I t appears that most installers do not include the f i l t e r pump motor as being part of the "equipment" in the general statement and consequently ignore i t under Section 680-25(d). This results in a very general wiring approach to a very essential piece of swimming pool equipment. The addition of f i l t e r pump motor in the general statement will be tied to a proposal for a change to Section 680-25(d) regarding some limitations to the wiring method servicing the equipment. Further consideration should be given to a standardization of the reference to cord- and plug-connected equipment covered in Section 680-7 when a f i l t e r pump motor is in fact the equipment. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Delete from the proposal " f i l t e r pump." PANEL COMMENT: To make the term more inclusive. See Panel Proposal 20-37 for new Section 680-25(c). VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1678 20~ 34 - (680-25(b)(I)): Reject SUBMITTER:" Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electr ici ty Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change to read as follows:

. . . I t shall be an insulated copper conductor and shall be installed with the circuit conductors in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, or rigid nonmetallic conduit. "This conductor shall not be used as a grounding conductor to any other equipment." SUBSTANTIATION: Where rigid nonmetallic conduit carries two or more circuits, Section 250-95 permits one equipment grounding conductor of sufficient size. However, in my discussion with some of the committee members I understand that they would prefer that the grounding of the l ight f ixture be separate from the ground of other equipment. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The substantiation gives no reason why a separate grounding conductor is necessary for a wet-niche lighting f ixture and CMP 20 sees no reason for this requirement without proper just i f icat ion. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 92 20- 35 - (680-25(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Joseph F. Pinachio, Revere, MA R-R-E-C~-M-~N--DATION: In the t i t l e , delete the words "and other equipment ." SUBSTANTIATION: Other "equipment" should be covered under the provisions of Section 680-25(d). PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. In the t i t l e replace "Other" with "Related." PANEL COMFENT: To avoid confusion with subsection (d) of Section 680-25. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

20- 36 - (680-25(c) and (d)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 20 RECOFI~ENDATION: Renumber the following subsections of Section 680-25 as follows:

Existing (c)becomes l~I Existing (d) becomes

SUBSTANTIATION: A ~ew paragraph (c) is necessary to address motors. PANEL ACTION : Accept. I/~TE'--(~q--F~EL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

20- 37 - (680-25(c)-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 20 I~'-~-I~'-N-13ATION: Add new Section 680-25(c) as fo l lows:

" (c) Motors. Pool-associated motors shall be connected to an equipment grounding conductor sized in accordance with Table 250-95 but not smaller than No. 12. I t shall be an insulated copper conductor and shall be installed with the circuit conductors in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit or r igid nonmetallic conduit." SUBSTANTIATION: Because the integrity of the equipment grounding conductor for motors should be equal to that as required for underwater lighting f ixtures. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

342

Log # 343 20- 38 - (680-25(c)) : Reject SUBMITTER: Joseph C. Roohan, Whi t t ie r , CA I~E'-CI~I~TE=-N-DATION: In the t h i r d sentence add " f l e x i b l e metal conduit ." SUBSTANTIATION: F lex ib le metal conduit with a su i tab le grounding conductor i ns ta l l ed with the c i r cu i t conductors is general ly considered as an acceptable means f o r grounding equipment.

The use of f l e x i b l e metal conduit is often required where f l e x i b i l i t y is needed f o r i n s ta l l a t i on wi th in wal ls , a t t i cs and crawl spaces fo r ease of i n s t a l l a t i o n . The use of grounding conductors in these ins ta l l a t i ons wi l l provide the same level of safety that r i g i d systems af ford where the addit ional grounding conductor provides the grounding path, and would be more consistent with the general provisions of A r t i c l e 250, - Grounding. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMPENT: The proposal does not af ford the safety of the equipment grounding conductor that is required fo r the branch c i r cu i t and i t s equipment grounding conductor supplying an underwater l i gh t i ng f i x t u r e . VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Af f inmat ive.

20- 39 - (680-25(c), Exception No. 1): Accept SL:3MII'TER: CNP 20 RECOM~NDATION: Replace the word "conduit" with the following:

"one of the conduits listed in paragraph (c)." After "means of" add the following words:

"a f lexible metal conduit or." SUBSTANTIATION: CMP 20 feels that this type of wiring offers protection equal to that now acceptable. PANEL ACTION: Accept, ~DTE--O~-P-AI~L ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1116 20- 40 - (680-25(c)): Reject SUBMITTER: J. H. (Jim) Richards, Maryland Electrical Inspectors ~ o n RECOt~MENDATION: In second line of paragraph (c) change (an equipment grounding conductor) to: "A copper equipment grounding conductor." SUBSTANTIATION: Only copper conductors should be used on swimming pool installations due to the corrosive conditions normally present. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COM~NT: The substantiation does not just i fy a Code change. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Aff imative.

Log # 1683 20- 41 - (680-25(c)): Reject SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc. -RE'~i~J~L~F~I~ATION: Change as follows:

A panelboard, not part of the service equipment shall have a "copper or aluminum" equipment grounding conductor installed between its grounding terminal and the grounding terminal of the service equipment... SUBSTANTIATION: Section 110-5 states that "Conductors normally used to carry current shall be of copper unless otherwise provided in this Code,.." The 1981 NEC removed the requirement that equipment grounding conductors be copper. However, some s t i l l maintain that since no reference of type is mentioned, copper is requ i red. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The Code as written does allow aluminum for an equipment grounding conductor between the service equipment and a remote panel board. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 167 20- 42 - (680-25(c), Exception No. i ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA RECO~IENDATION: Revise as follows:

The equipment grounding conductor between an existing remote panelboard and the service equipment shall not be required to be installed in one of the above types of conduit i f the interconnection is by means of an approved nonmetallic cable assembly with an insulated or covered grounding conductor, Type MI cable where effectively bonded at terminations, or other approved raceways.

SUBSTANTIATION: The 1978 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE permission to instal! the grounding conductor in an approved racewaywas not incorporated in the 1981 revisions of this section. As now vmrded, a properly installed grounding conductor cannot be installed in an existing flexible metallic conduit interconnection. This imposes an unwarranted hardship and expense where this type conduit has been installed. Direct buried cable (UF) supplying an existing panel board in a detached structure is a suitable interconnection, but MI cable is not, as this exception is worded, Since MI cable is permitted for services, in classified (hazardous) areas, etc., i t appears this wiring method is equally suitable where bonding is assured. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COI~MENT: See Panel Proposal 20-39 which wil l recognize flexible metal conduit. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1748 20-43 - (680-25(c), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new Exception No. 3 as follows:

Exception No. 3. Panelboard Not Part of Service Equipment Located in Building Separate from the Service. Where separate building are grounded according to Section 250-24(a), the equipment grounding conductor for separate building shall be permitted to terminate at the building disconnect means that is required at the remote building according to Section 230-84(a). SUBSTANTIATION: A separate pool building from another building requires a disconnect Section 230-84(a), and that i t shall be permitted to ground the disconnect to a grounding electrode at that separate building Section 250-24(a). Adding this exception

~ rovides the grounding conductor can be omitted in this sole case. ANEL ACTION: Reject.

PANEL COMMENT: The proposal is already adequately covered in the Code which defines that when you have a separate building the conductors supplying that building are considered as subservice and would require the grounded conductor to be connected to a grounding electrode at the separate building. See Section 250-24. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1378 20- 44 - (680-25(d)): Reject SUBMITTER: M. H. Lounsbury, Eastern Section IAEI RECOM~NDATION: Other equipment. Electrical equipment other than the underwater lighting f ixture shall be grounded in accordance with Article 250 and connected with the circuit conductors in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, or rigid nonmetallic conduit. SUBSTANTIATION: I fai l to see why the phrase and connected by wiring methods of Chapter 3 should allow the O.K. of nonmetallic cable with a bare equipment grounding conductor to be installed either exposed or concealed within a building terminate in a junction box, splice to type U.F. cable and be buried a minimum of 12 inches in the ground as permitted under Section 300-5 (Exception No. 4).

The bonding of the pool grid, all metal parts within 5 feet of the pool, f i l t e r equipment would then have to rely upon the equipment grounding conductor of these cables.

I have seen on many occasions where the homeowner had tapped into nonmetallic cables for additional outlets without regard to proper joining of conductors. Many underground branch circuits buried without conduit protection are dug into while planting shrubs, installing a screw-type dog anchor in the ground, concrete or railroad t ie retaining walls, or perhaps roto-t i l l ing the lawn or garden. The area around a swimming pool is a hazardous area. Where the replacement of conductors should be made readily available. I 've seen yards with pools entirely concreted.

I feel strongly that an insulated, green equipment grounding conductor should be installed in conduit with the branch circuit conductors for the entire complete branch circuit as was required by the 1978 NEC. PANEL ACTION : Reject. PANEL COMFENT: See Proposals 20-33, 20-37 and 20-47 to Sections 680-25(a), 680-25(c) and 680-25(f). VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 2064, 2061 20- 45 - (680-25(d), Exception No. 2-(New)): Reject SUBMITTERS: M. H. Lounsbury, Eastern Section IAEI (2064) ~ 6 1 ) RECOt~ENDATION: Exception No. 2: Section 300-5(a), Exception No. 4 does not apply. SUBSTANTIATION: Many installations are being introduced in swimming pool applications that are inconsistent with the grounding requirement throughout Article C>BO, i .e., the repeated reference to No. 12 copper insulated conductor. Section 680-25(d) gives carte blanche to the installers in choosing any wiring method in Chapter 3, neglecting to mention the size of said conductor. I t also permits the borial depth of cables to be grounded by Section 300-5 including all applicable exceptions.

343

This introduces the hazard of a cable assembly buried at 12 inch depth being damaged through normal planting or garden maintenance. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The problem has been corrected by now requiring all pool-associated motors to be connected by means of one of the rigid conduit methods. See Panel Proposal 20-37 to Section 680-25(c). VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Reword the text of Section 680-27(c) to read as follows:

"Radiant heating cables embedded in or below the deck shall not be permitted." PANEL COF~MENT: I t was not the intent of this requirement to allow such cables to be buried below the deck, regardless of the type of material. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1296, 1377 20- 46 - (680-25(d), Exception No. 1-(New)): Reject SUBMITFERS: IAEI (1296)

M. • Lounsbury, Eastern Section IAEI (1377) RECOMMENDATION: Electrical equipment other than the underwater lighting f ixture shall be grounded in accordance with Article 250 and connected by wiring methods of Chapter 3.

Exception No. 1: The grounding conductor shall be insulated and not smaller than No. 12 copper. SUBSTANTIATION: Many installations are being introduced in swimming pool applications that are inconsistent with the grounding requirement throughout Article 680, i .e . , the repeated reference to No. 12 copper insulated conductor. Section 680-25(d) gives carte blanche to the installers in choosing any wiring method in Chapter 3, neglecting to mention the size of said conductor. I t also permits the burial depth of cables to be grounded by Section 300-5 including all applicable exceptions. This introduces the hazard of a cable assembly buried at 12 inch depth being damaged through normal planting or garden maintenance. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Panel Action to require copper equipment grounding conductor has bee~ covered in Panel Proposal 20-37 to Section F~0-25(c). VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

20- 47 - (680-25(f)-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 20 RECOFtMENDATION: Reword new Section 680-25(f) as follows:

"( f) Other Equipment. Other electrical equipment shall be grounded in accordance with Article 250 and connected by wiring methods of Chapter 3." SUBSTANTIATION: See Panel Proposal 20-37 for new Section 680-25(c) which removes motors associated with pool equipment from other equipment. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

20- 50 - (680-41(a)(I)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 20 RECO~MENDATION: Add Exception:

"Exception: In an existing bathroom where a combination bathtub-spa is installed, an existing receptacle shall be permitted to be less than 5 feet (1.52 m) and shall be protected by a ground-fault circuit- interrupter." SUBSTANTIATION: These ret rof i t combination bathtub-spas are replacing a standard 5-foot tub. With the size of many of these bathrooms, i t is impossible for an existing receptacle to be located more than 5 feet from tub. As Section 210-52(c) requires a receptacle adjacent to basin location, this exception will allow these retrof i ts to comply with this requiroment and safety for users through the (3~CI. PANEL ACT ION : Accept. VOTI~--IJ~-FAIqI~L ACTION: Unanimously Affirmat@ve.

Log # 1232, 1297, 1379 20- 51 - (680-41(b)(i)): Reject SUBMITTERS: Tom Morosco, Independent Electrical Inspection Agency, Inc. (1232)

IAEI (1297) M. H. Lounsb~ry, Eastern Section IAEI (1379)

RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 680-41(b)(1) to read: ( i ) Lighting fixtures and lighting outlets located over the spa

or hot tub "up to and including a height of 12 feet" or within 5 feet (1.52 m), measured horizontally, from the inside walls shall be ground-fault circuit-interrupter protected. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no experience or reason to assume that occupants of a hot tub would come in contact with lighting fixtures above 12 feet. Specific design of some structures incorporate cathedral-type ceilings in these areas. No height restriction would assume that fixtures installed at a height of 20 feet require (~:CI protection. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 20-52. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

20- 48 - (680-26-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 20 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Section 680-26 as follows:

"680-26. Electrically-Operated Pool Covers. (a) Motors. The electric motors operating pool covers shall be

located at least f ive feet from the inside wall of the pool unless separated from the pool by a wall, cover or other permanent barrier. Electric motors installed below the deck shall be of the total ly enclosed type.

(b) Wiring Methods. The electric motor shall be connected to a circuit protected by a ground-fault circuit-interrupter." SUBSTANTIATION: Having recognized electrically-operated pool covers, Code installation methods are required. PANEL ACTION : Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 8 NEGATIVE: Bockmi er.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: BOCKMIER: Electrical equipment in addition to a motor, such as

a reversing motor controller, wiring, etc. may be incorporated in a pool cover and should be equally addressed in the proposal. A motor might be installed below the deck of an aboveground pool and 1 adequately protected without being of the totally-enclosed type. Further, i t should be recognized that a totally-enclosed motor is, not watertight.

Log # 1966 20- 49 - (680-27(c)): Accept in Principle SUBMITllZR: Leo Nagel, North Dakota State Electrical Board ~-----C~MIVENDATION: Amend Section 680-27(c) to read as follows:

"(c) Radiant Heat Cables Not Permitted. Radiant heating cables embedded in the concrete deck, including heating cable buried in sand below the deck, shall not be permitted." SUBSTANTIATION: We have had a numbe6 of cases where the electrical contractor was of the opinion that deep heat (term used for beating cable) was permitted to be installed in sand below the swimming pool deck.

The present Code is not clear whether i t is permissible to install heating cables buried in sand below the deck.

Log # 1682 20- 52 - (680-41(b)(i)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc. ~ D A T I O N : Change as follows:

Lighting fixtures and lighting outlets located over the spa or hot tub or within 5 feet (1.52 m) from the inside walls of a pool "unless 12 feet (3.66 m) above the maximum water level," shall be ground-fault circuit-interrupter protected. SUBSTANTIATION: In order to correspond with Section 680-6(b), the 17~81 NEC which added this section gave no height whereafter GFI protection would not be required. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Reword the proposal after the word "walls" as follows:

"of the spa or hot tub shall be a minimum of 7 feet 6 inches above the maximum water level and shall be protected by a ground-faul t ci r.cui t- interrupter.

Exception: Lighting fixtures and lighting outlets located 12 feet or more above the maximum water level shall not require protection by a ground-fault circuit-interrupter."

-PANEL COM~MENT: A minimum height has been inserted for safety and rewording was for c lar i ty. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

20- 53 - (680-41(b) and (c)) : Accept Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating

Committee to direct the Panel to c l a r i f y the Panel Action on th is proposal as to the location of the exception. SUBMITTER: CMP 20 RECOMMENDATION : Add:

"Exception: In an exist ing bathroom where a combination bathtub-spa is ins ta l led , an exist ing wall switch shall be permitted to be less than 5 feet (1.52 m) and shall be protected by a ground-faul t c i r cu i t - i n t e r rup te r . " SUBSTANTIATION: These r e t r o f i t combination bathtub-spas are replacing a standard 5-foot tub. With the size of many of these bathrooms, i t is impossible fo r an ex is t ing wall switch to be located more than 5 feet from tub. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Af f i rmat ive.

344

Log # 281 20- 54 - (680-50 General): Accept SUBMITTER: W. Creighton Schwan, Hayward, CA RECOMNENDATION: Revise the f i r s t sentence to read as follows, deleting material in brackets, and adding material in quotations:

The provisions of Part E shall apply to all fountains as defined in Section (680-1) "680-4." SUBSTANTIATION: Fountains are not defined in Section 680-1, but are defined in Section 680-4. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

12- 50 - (685-2): Accept Log # 412 SUBMITTER: Donald H. Mclntosh, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to the "laundry l i s t " ---:

Ground-Fault Protection of Equipment 230-95(a), Exception No. i . SUBSTANTIATION: This addition to Section 685-2, as an orderly shutdown requirement, wil l recognize for the purposes of Art icle 685--I ntegrated El ectri cal Systems, a practice already permitted by Section 230-95(a), Exception No. 1. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 94 20- 55 - (680-55(a)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA RECOMMENDATION: Revise section as follows:

(a) The following provisions of Section 680-25 shall apply: Paragraphs (a), (b); Paragraph (c) shall apply to panelboards supplying wet-ni che f ixtures. SUBSTANTIATION: Specifies more stringent requirements for fountains than swimming pools. A specific referral to paragraph lal and (c) infers that (b)(d) and (e) do not apply; yet paragraph

states that "the following provisions shall apply" (which includes (b)(c)(d)(e)). I f wet-niche fixtures installed in a fountain warrant a separate feeder equipment grounding conductor (wire), adherence to paragraph (b) should be clearly st, ated. The present wording which excludes the exceptions imposes more stringent requirements than are required for swimming pools. For example, Section 680-25(c) Exception No. 2 permits E.M.T. for the feeder raceway to a remote (from service) panelboard which supplies wet-niche swimming pool fixtures. This section apparently does not permit this for the same panelboard i f supplying fountain f ixtures, where the hazard to persons could be reasonably assumed to be less. Though not indicated as a change, this section is worded dif ferently than the 1978 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE which appeared to exclude the requirement for a separate equipment grounding conductor (wire). The successive increase in feeder sizes and ratings in a system which may supply a panelbeard in large industrial or commercial complexes and the related large size and number of equipment grounding conductors required raises the question: Has the hazard from GFCI protected fountain lighting been substantiated as great enough to warrant the expense and need to install large (and many times paralleled)

~ rounding conductors in such install ations? ANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Reword the text of Section 680-55(a) as follows: "the provisions of Section 680-25 shall apply excluding

paragraph (e)." PANEL COMMENT: Necessary revisions were made to correlate with Panel Action on Section 680-25. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 91 20- 56 - (680, Part F): Reject SUBMITTER: Joseph F. Pinachio, Revere, MA RECOMMENDATION: In the t i t l e , delete the words "in Health Care Faci l i t ies." SUBSTANTIATION: The inclusion of Health Care Facil i t ies is covered in Section 680-60 and to include the same in Part F's t i t l e tends to l imit Part F to Health Care Facil it ies only. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: This section was written to address health care faci l i t ies only as defined in Section 517-2. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 685 -- INTEGPJ~TED ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

Log # 2009 12- 49 - (685-1): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 12 that i t has exceeded its authority in changing the scope of Art icle 685. I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be reported as "Reject." SUBMI1-FER: G. V. Cox, Chemical Manufacturers Association 3E-I][II~-~'RI~ATION: In the second sentence, delete the words, "a unitized segment of." SUBSTANTIATION: The second sentence is d i f f i cu l t to interpret as written. The proposed change eliminates words that only confuse the reader. The three conditions in the balance of the sentence contain the required conditions. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMMENT: We agree with the submitter that "unitized" is

to define and the Panel f e l t the need to retain the remai nder. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

12- 51 - (685-2): Reject Log # 414 SUBMITTER: Donald H. Mclntosh, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to the "laundry l i s t " - - :

Separately--~erived Systems 250-5(b), Exception No. 2. SUBSTANTIATION: This addition to Section 685-2, as an orderly s~lutdown req-u~'rement, will recognize for the purposes of Article 685--Integrated Electrical Systems, a practice already permitted by Section 250-5(b), Exception No. 2. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The use of the function is already available to an industrial complex and the exception is not unique to the requirements of orderly shutdown. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

12- 52 - (685-2): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 12 ~ D A T I O N : Revise the reference to Section 430-113, Exception to read as follows:

"430-113, Exception Nos. I and 2." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial change to be consistent with addition of Section 430-113, Exception Nos. 1 and 2. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANE-L ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1763 12- 53 - (685-2): Accept SUBMITTER: Tom Tombarello, Paul Revere Chapter IAEI RECOMMENDATION: Add the reference:

Ground-Fault Protection of Equipment. 230-95(a), Exception No. 1. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial reference. PANEL ACTION- Accept. VOTE ON PANE-L ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE :

ERICKSON: This proposal should be "Accept in Principle" with reference to Proposal 12-50, since i t is not the intention of CMP 12 to have both proposals appear in the Code.

Log # 1087 12- 54 - (685-15-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this proposal be referred to CMP 5 for comment. SUBMII-[ER: J. W. Frasure, Houston, TX RECOMMENDATION: 685-15. Electrical Systems 500 Volts and Under With Ground-Fault Currents Limited to 5 Amperes or Less by Neutral Resistance. Where such systems have equipment housings and noncurrent-carrying metal parts directly bonded to a grounding

~ rid whose tested resistance is 5 ohms or less per IEEE Standard o. 81, Section 9.04, no equipment grounding conductor shall be

requi red. SUBSTANTIATION: Attached calculations show no danger to personnel touching equipment enclosure at the time of a phase-to-equipment-enclosure fault . In one company alone, safe operation of over 300 such systems has been recorded over a 10 year period.

Such systems are designed to alarm rather than t r ip a circuit on which a ground-fault occurs. Operators then determine the location of the faul t with the assistance of a pulsing circui t . The circuit is then de-energized and the fault cleared as soon as process conditions safely permit.

345

1X 480V ~ P ~ FEEDER (TYP)

5~L

EQUIPMENT I F - . ENCLOSURE L ~

BO~I500~

V L -N = 2"/?v

VBOOY = VOLTAGE ACROSS BONDINg CONDUCTOR = 1 / 6 2 X 2"/'/ = 4 . 4 7 v

ICKT = 2T'/V = 4 .4TR 6~.X

IBOOY = ~ X 4 , 4 " / = . 0 0 2 S 8 A , OR 2 , 9 8 HA

STUDIES INDICATE THAT SOMA IS THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD OF VENTRICULAR F I B R I L L A T I O N OF THE HEART, SO PERSON TOUCHING EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE AT TIME OF FRULT IS VERY SAFE.

TABLE I.

HIJ~IAN RESISTANCE F(]R VARIOUS SKIN - CONTACT CONDITIONS 3

Condition Resistance, ohms (Area to Suit) Dry Wet

Finger touch 40 k-lM 4-15 k Hand holding wire 15-50 k 3-6 k Finger-thumb grasp 10-30 k 2-5 k Hand holding pliers 5-10 k I-3 k Palm touch 3-8 k 1-2 k Hand around 1 1/2 inch p4pe

(or d r i l l handle) 1-3 k 0.5-1.5 k Two hands around I 1/2 inch pipe 0.5-1.5 k 250-750 Hand immersed - 200-500 Foot immersed - 100-300 Human body, internal, including skin = 200-1000 ohms

3 R. H. Lee "Electrical Safety in Industrial Plants" IEEE Spectrum, June, 1971.

PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that elimination of the equipment grounding conductor could reduce the safety level. There is inadequate substantiation that the proposal would provide an equivalent level of safety. Does not appear to be uniquely applicable to orderly shutdown. Panel 12 requests that this be revi~ed by Panel 5. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 9 NEGATIVIZ: Pittman.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: : roposa has merit, but has inadequate

substantiation. The system described can provide increased safety over conventional grounding methods.

ARTICLE 690 - SOLAR PHOT0VOLTAIC SYSTEMS Log # 910

3- 78 - (Article 690-(New)): Accept in Principle Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 3 that

article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Comittee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action on the scope. The Correlating Committee directs CMP's 3 and 15 to correlate the interconnect requirements of Articles 690 and 705. SUBMII-FER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Solar Photovoltaics

RECOMMENDATION: Add new Article 690 as follows:

Article 690 - Solar Photovoltaic Systems

A. General

690-I. Scope: The provisions of this Article apply to solar photovoltaic electrical energy systems including the array circuit(s), power conditioning unit(s) and controller(s) for such systems. Solar photovoltaic systems covered by this Article may be interactive with other electric power production sources or stand-alone, with or without electrical energy storage such as batteries. These systems may have alternating- or direct-current output for ut i l izat ion. 690-2 Definitions.

Array: A mechanically integrated assembly of modules or panels with a support structure and foundation, tracking, thermal control, and other components, as required, to form a direct-current power producing unit.

Blocking Diode: A diode used to block reverse flow of current into a photovoltaic source circuit .

Interactive System: A solar photovoltaic system that operates in parallel wlth and may be designed to deliver power to another electric power production source connected to the same load. For the purpose of this definition, an energy storage subsystem of a solar photovoltaic system, such as a battery, is not another electric power production source.

Module: The smallest complete, environmentally protected assembly of solar cells, opticsand other components, exclusive of tracking, designed to generate direct-current power under sunlight.

Panel: A collection of modules mechanically fastened together, wired, and designed to provide a f ield-instal lable unit.

Photovoltaic Output Circuit: Circuit conductors between the photovoltaic source circuit(s) and the power conditioning unit or direct-current ut i l izat ion equipment. See Diagram 690-1.

Photovoltaic Power Source: An array or aggregate of arrays which generate direct-current power at system voltage and current.

Photovoltaic Source Circuit: Conductors between modules and from modules to the co~nmon connection point(s) of the direct-current system. See Diagram 690-1.

Power Conditioning Unit: Equipment which is used to change voltage level or waveform or both of electrical energy. Co~nonly a power conditioning unit is an inverter which changes a direct-current input to an alternating-current output.

Power Conditioning Unit Output Circuit: Conductors between the power conditioning unit and the connection to the service equipment or another electric power production source such as a u t i l i t y . See Diagram 690-1.

Solar Cell: The basic photovoltaic device which generates electr ic i ty when exposed to l ight.

Solar Photovoltaic System: The total components and subsystems which in combination convert solar energy into electrical energy suitable for connection to a ut i l izat ion load.

Stand-Alone System: A solar photovoltaic system that supplies power independently but which may receive control power from another electric power production source.

I

ONNO ~DULE\

Solar Photovoltaic Circuits-Diagram 690-1

690-3. Other Articles. Wherever the requirements of other ArtiCles of this Code and Article 690 di f fer, the requirements of Article 690 shall apply. 690-4. Installation.

(a) Photovoltaic System. A solar photovoltaic system shall be permitted to supply a building or other structure in addition to any service(s) of another electr ic i ty supply system(s).

(b) Conductors of Different Systems. Photovoltaic source circuits and photovoltaic output circuits shall not be contained in the same raceway, cable tray, cable, outlet box, Junction box or similar f i t t i ng as feeders or branch circuits of other systems.

346

Exception: Where the conductors of the different systems are separated by a partition or are connected together.

(c) Module Connection Arrangement: The connections to a module or panel shall be so arranged that removal of a module or panel from a photovoltaic source circuit does not interrupt a grounded conductor to another photovoltaic source circuit .

B. Circuit Requirements

690-7. Maximum Voltage. (a) Voltage Rating. In a photovoltaic power source and its

direct-current circuits, the voltage considered shall be the rated open-circuit voltage.

(b) Direct-Current Uti l ization Circuits. The voltage of direct-current ut i l izat ion circuits shall conform with Section 210-6.

(c) Photovoltaic Source and Output Circuits. Photovoltaic source circuits and photovoltaic output circuits which do not include lampholders, fixtures or standard receptacles shall be permitted up to 600 volts. (d) Circuits Over 150 Volts to Ground. In one- and two-family

dwellings, live parts in photovoltaic source circuits and photovoltaic output circuits over 150 volts to ground shall not be accessible while energized, to other than qualified persons. 690-8. Circuit Sizing and Current.

(a) Ampacity and Overcurrent Devices. The ampacity of the conductors and the rating or setting of overcurrent devices in a circuit of a solar photovoltaic system shall not be less than 125 percent of the current computed in accordance with (b) below. The rating or setting of overcurrent devices shall be permitted in accordance with Section 240-3, Exception No. 1.

Exception: Circuits containing an assembly together with its overcurrent device(s) that is listed for continuous operation at 100 percent of its rating.

(b) Computation of Circuit Current. The current for the individual type of circuit shall be computed as follows:

(1) Photovoltaic Source Circuits. The sum of parrallel module current ratings.

(2) Photovoltaic Output Circuit. The photovoltaic power source current rating.

(3) Power Conditioning Unit Output Circuit. The power conditioning unit output current rating.

Exception: The current rating of a circuit without an overcurrent device, as permitted by the Exception to Section 690-9(a), shall be the short-circuit current, and i t shall not exceed the ampacity of the circuit conductors. 690-9. Overcurrent Protection:

(a) Circuits and Equipment. Photovoltaic source circuit, photovoltaic output circuit , power conditioning unit output circuit , and storage battery circuit conductors and equipment " shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of Article 240. Circuits connected to more than one electrical source shall have a sufficient number of overcurrent devices so located as to provide overcurrent protection from all sources.

Exception: A conductor in a photovoltaic source circuit , photovoltaic output circuit, or power conditioning unit output circuit having an ampacity not less than the maximum available current under short-circuit or ground-fault conditions with the condition of a shorted blocking diode shall be permitted without an overcurrent device.

FPN: Possible backfeed of current from any source of supply, including a supply through a power conditioning unit into the photovoltaic output circuit and photovoltaic source circuits, must be considered in determining whether adequate overcurrent protection from all sources is provided for conductors and modules.

(b) Power Transformers. Overcurrent protection for a transformer with a source(s) on each side shall be provided in accordance with Section 450-3 by considering f i r s t one side of the transformer, then the other side of the transformer as the primary.

(c) Photovoltaic Source Circuits. Branch-circuit or supplementary type overcurrent ~evices shall be permitted to provide overcurrent protection in photovoltaic source circuits. The overcurrent devices shall be accessible, but shall not be required to be readily accessible.

C. Disconnecting Means

690-13. All Conductors. Means shall be provided to disconnect all current-carrying conductors of a photovoltaic power source from all other conductors in a building or other structure. 690-14. Additional Provisions. The provisions of Article 230, Part H shall apply to the photovoltaic power source disconnecting means.

Exception No. 1: The disconnecting means shall not be required to be suitable as service equipment and shall be rated in accordance with Section 690-17.

Exception No. 2: Equipment such as photovoltaic source circuit isolating switches, overcurrent devices, and blocking diodes shall be permitted ahead of the photovoltaic power source disconnecting means. 690-15. Disconnection of Photovoltaic Equipment. A means shall be provided to disconnect equipment, such as a power conditioning unit, f i l t e r assembly and the like from all ungrounded conductors of all sources. I f the equipment is energized (l ive) from more than one source, the disconnecting means shall be grouped and identified.

690-16. Fuses. A disconnecting means shall be provided to disconnect a fuse from all sources of supply i f the fuse is energized from both directions and is accessible to other than qualified persons. Such a fuse in a photovoltaic source circuit shall be capable of being disconnected independently of fuses in other photovoltaic source circuits. 690-17. Switch or Circuit Breaker. The disconnecting means for ungrounded conductors shall consist of a manually operable switch(s) or circuit breaker (1) located where readily accessible, (2) externally operable without exposing the operator to contact with live parts, (3) plainly indicating whether in the open or closed position, and (4) having ratings not less than the load to be carried. Where disconnect equipment may be energized from both sides, the disconnect equipment shall be provided with a marking to indicate that all contacts of the disconnect equipment may be live. 690-18. Disablement of An Array. Means shall be provided to disable an array or portions of an array.

FPN: Photovoltaic modules are energized while exposed to l ight. Installation, replacement, or servicing of array components while a module(s) is irradiated may expose persons to electric shock.

D. Wiring Methods

690-31. Methods Permitted. (a) Wiring Systems. All raceway and cable wiring methods

included in this Code and such other wiring systems specifically intended and approved for use on photovoltaic arrays shall be permitted with approved f i t t ings and with f i t t ings approved specifically for photovoltaic arrays. Where wiring devices with integral enclosures are used, sufficient length of cable shall be provided to fac i l i ta te replacement.

(b) Single Conductor Cable. Type UF single conductor cable shall be permitted in photovoltaic source circuits where installed in the same manner as a Type UF multiconductor cable in accordance with Article 339. Where exposed to direct rays of the sun, cable identified as sunlight resistant shall be used. 690-32. Component Interconnections. Fittings and connectors which are intended to be concealed at the time of on-site assembly, when listed for such use, shall be permitted for on-site interconnection of modules or other array components. Such f i t t ings and connectors shall be equal to the wiring method employed in insulation, temperature rise and fault-current withstand, and shall be capable of resisting the effects of the environment in which they are used. 690-33. Connectors. The connectors permitted by Section 690-32 shall comply with (a) through (e) below. • (a) The connectors shall be polarized and shall have a configuration that is noninterchangeable with receptacles in other electr ic i ty systems on the premises.

(b) The connectors shall be constructed and installed so as to guard against inadvertent contact with live parts by persons.

(c) The connectors shall be of the latching or locking type. (d) The grounding member shall be the f i r s t to make and the

last to break contact with the mating connector. (e) The connectors shall be capable of interrupting the circui t

current without hazard to the operator. 690-34. Access To Boxes. Junction, pull and outlet boxes located behind modules or panels shall be installed so that the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible directly or by displacement of a module(s) or panel(s) secured by removable fasteners and connected by a f lexible wiring system.

E. Grounding

690-41. System Grounding. For a photovoltaic power source, one conductor of a two-wire system and a neutral conductor of a three-wiresystem shall be solidly grounded.

Exception: Other methods which accomplish equivalent system protection and which ut i l ize equipment listed and identified for the use shall be permitted.

FPN: See fine print note under Section 250-i. 690-42. Point of System Grounding Connection. The direct-current circuit grounding connection shall be made at any single point on the photovoltaic output c ircui t .

FPN: Locating the grounding connection point as close as practicable to the photovoltaic source wi l l better protect the system from voltage surges due to lightning. 690-43. Size of Equipment Grounding Conductor. The equipment grounding conductor shall be no smaller than the required size of the circuit conductors in systems'(1) where the available photovoltaic power source short-circuit current is less than twice the current rating of the overcurrent device, or (2) where overcurrent devices are not employed as permitted in the Exception to Section 690-9(a). In other systems, the equipment grounding conductor shall be sized in accordance with Section 250-95. 690-44. Common Grounding Electrode. Exposed noncurrent-carrying metal parts of equipment and conductor enclosures of a photovoltaic system shall be grounded to the grounding electrode that is used to ground the direct-current system. Two or more electrodes that are effectively bonded together shall be considered as a single electrode in this sense.

F. Marking

347

690-51. Modules. Modules shall be marked with identification of terminals or leads as to polarity, maximum overcurrent device rating for module protection and with rated (I) open-circuit voltage, (2) operating voltage, (3) maximum permissible system voltage, (4) operating current, (5) short-circuit current and (6) maximum power. 690-52. Photovoltaic Power Source. A marking, specifying the photovoltaic power source rated (1) operating current, (2) operating voltage, (3) open-circuit voltage and (4) short-circuit current, shall be provided at an accessible location at the disconnecting means for the photovoltaic power source.

FPN: Reflecting systems used for irradiance enhancement may result in increased levels of output current and power.

G. Connection to Other Sources

690-61. Loss of U t i l i t y Voltage. The power output from a u t i l i t y interactive power conditioning unit shall be automatically disconnected from all ungrounded conductors of the u t i l i t y system upon loss of voltage in the u t i l i t y system and shall not reconnect until the u t i l i t y voltage is restored. 690-62. /~pacity of Neutral Conductor. I f a single-phase, 2-wire power conditioning unit output is connected to the neutral and one ungrounded conductor (only) of a 3-wire system or of a 3-phase, 4-wire wye-connected system, the maximum load connected between the neutral and any one ungrounded conductor plus the power conditioning unit output rating shall not exceed the ampacity of the neutral conductor. 690-63. Unbalanced Interconnections.

(a) Single-Phase. The output of a single-phase power conditioning unit shall not be connected to a 3-phase, 3- or 4-wire delta-connected system.

(b) Three-Phase. A 3-phase power conditioning unit shall be automatically disconnected from all ungrounded conductors of the interconnected system when one of the phases opens in either source.

Exception for (a) and (b): Where the interconnected system is designed so that significant unbalanced voltages will not result. 690-64. Point of Connection. The output of the power conditioning unit shall be connected to the supply side of the service disconnect as permitted in Section 230-82, Exception No. 6. SUBSTANTIATION:

A. General

690-4. Installation. (a) Photovoltaic System. This statement was considered

necessary in view of the general requirement in Section 230-2 which permits a building or other structure to be served by only one service. As a correlating revision, an additional Exception is being proposed for Section 230-2.

(b) Conductors of Different Systems. This requirement is based on a concern that a fault between the two circuits may impress, for example, direct-current on alternate-current appliances with an associated risk of f i re or shock. The alternating-current branch-circuit overcurrent device would not interrupt the direct-current, and the direct-current photovoltaic circuit may not have an overcurrent device. I t is recognized that Section 300-3(a) permits conductors in the same raceway without regard to whether the individual circuits are alternating-current or direct-current. In view of the special condition where photovoltaic source circuits are considered protected without an overcurrent device (under certain circumstances), the principle of separation between circuits with and without overcurrent devices (as for exanlole in Section 230-47) was considered valid.

(c) Module Connection Arrangement. In a grounded direct-current system, i t is possible to have module connections so arranged that removal of a module from a photovoltaic source circuit would interrupt the grounded circuit conductor of other photovoltaic source circuits. Such conductors, although identified as grounded conductors, would be at the system potential with respect to ground and a risk of shock could result.

B. Circuit Requirements

690-7. Maximum Voltage. (a) Voltage Rating. A photovoltaic source is not a constant

voltage source, and the difference between the rated open-circuit voltage and operating voltage is significant. Consequently, there is a need to use the rated open-circuit voltage to select circuit components with proper voltage ratings.

(b) Direct-Current Util ization Circuits. This is to cover installations where the photovoltaic output is connected to direct-current ut i l izat ion circuits.

(c) Photovoltaic Source and Output Circuits. Photovoltaic direct-current circuits in buildings are permanently connected using Code recognized wiring systems, and requirements for protecting unqualified persons from contact with these circuits are included in (b) and (d) of this Section. Unqualified persons are not l ikely to service equipment in these circuits due to their con~)lexity. As noted in the substantiation for Ca) of this section, there is a significant difference between the rated open-circuit voltage and the operating voltage in photovoltaic direct-current circuits. In order for the photovoltaic system to perform its intended function, rated direct-current open-circuit voltages of up to 600 volts may be necessary.

(d) Circuits Over 150 Volts to Ground. Where direct-current circuitry over 150 volts to ground is present in one- and two-family dwellings, additional protection for unqualified persons is needed. 690-8. Circuit Sizing and Current.

Ca) AnTpacity and Overcurrent Devices. Sizing of the circuits for 125 percent of the rating is considered necessary because of continuous (3-hour or more) loads.

Exception: This Exception permits use at the fu l l rating of assemblies incorporating over-current devices which are listed for continuous operation at 100 percent of the rating.

(b) Computatlon of Clrcult Current. Because photovoltaic arrays have a limited capacity, the power conditioning unit supplies to the load (or the u t i l i t y system) whatever power is available from the arrays. Due to this characteristic, the sizing of photovoltaic circuits has to be based on the source rather than the load.

Exception: In circuits where overcurrent devices and their assemblies are not uti l ized, as permitted by the Exception to Section 690-9(a), the circuit conductors need not be sized for 125 percent of the rated value. Consequently, an Exception is necessary to coyer situations where overcurrent devices are not uti l ized. 690-9. Overcurrent Protection. (a) Circuits and Equipment. This requirement makes a general reference to Article 240 for overcurrent protection of circuits and equipment. Additionally, there is a need to specify that overcurrent protection is to be located so that the necessary protection be provided from all sources.

Exception: Because of limited fault current capability, use of overcurrent devices would be ineffectual in some photovoltaic system circuits. The ratio of array short-circuit to normal current is approximately 110 percent. The Exception permits omitting an overcurrent device in circuits where the ampacity of the conductors is not less than the maximum available current under short-circuit or ground-fault conditions.

(b) Power Transformers. This requirement is necessary to ensure that proper overcurrent protection is provided for power transformers where sources of supply are connected to both sides.

(c) Photovoltaic Source Circuits. By considering the overcurrent protection of photovoltaic source circuits as supplementary overcurrent protection, use of overcurrent device types and ratings, other than those suitable for branch-circult protection, wil l be permitted. Use of such devices wil l permit module protection closer to the specified ratings. I t is anticipated that replacement or resetting of overcurrent devices in photovoltaic source circuits wil l be acco~lished by qualified service personnel, consequently, ready access (such as by the user), is not necessary.

C. Disconnecting Means

690-13. General. The requirements in this section have been derived from Sections 230-70 and 230-71(a), which are deemed appropriate for photovoltaic systems. The photovoltaic power source circuit may include an equipment grounding conductor, which should not be required to have a means for disconnect; therefore, the phrase "all current-carrying conductors" is included. 690-14. Additional Provisions. The reference to Article 230, Part H, is considered necessary for the applicable requirements for disconnecting means.

Exception No. 1: Because of the limited nature of the photovoltaic power source and special grounding considerations, a minimum rating and certain service equipment features for disconnecting means are not needed.

Exception No. 2: Because the photovoltaic power source is a distributed source commonly containing a number of source circuits, and because certain protective devices are required to be located in the individual source circuits, an Exception is necessary to permit such devices ahead of the photovoltaic power source disconnecting means. 690-15. Disconnection of Photovoltaic Equipment. Because more than one source may be present in a system, requirements are necessary to disconnect equipment from all sources. 690-16. Fuses. The special requirements for disconnection of fuses are necessary because the presence of a source on each side of a fuse is possible.

The requirement whereby fuses in individual photovoltaic source circuits are to be independently disconnectable, is necessary because a person may be reluctant to disconnect the photovoltaic power source to change a fuse in an individual source circuit , and may do so while the fuse is live. Disconnecting means in each source circuit faci l i tates individual circuit disconnection for servicing purposes. 690-17. Switch or Circuit Breaker - These requirements summarize the applicable requirements for such devices as contained in Articles 230 and 422. 690-18. Disablement For Servicing - See the Fine Print Note for substantiation.

D. Wiring Methods

690-31. Methods Permitted. (a) Wiring Systems. I t is anticipated that proprietary wiring

systems may be developed specifically for use on photovoltaic arrays. This requirement indicates the general wiring methods and permits installation of other wiring systems approved for use on the array only.

348

(b) Single Conductor Cable. Some photovoltaic modules are designed for a direct series connection by having termination at both ends. To accomodate such a direct series connection without the waste of one or more conductors in a multiconductor cable, use of a single-conductor, Type UF cable, is proposed in photovoltaic source circuits. The reference to installation as a multiconductor cable is intended to permit the single-conductor cable to be routed separately, not necessarily with the other conductors of a c i rcui t . Since photovoltaic source circuits are direct-current circuits, increased impedance due to separated circuit conductors is not a problem~ 690-32. Component Interconnections and 690-33 Connectors. These requirements anticipate special f i t t ings and connectors which may be concealed behind the modules during installation. The basis for these requirements is Art icle 545 on Manufactured Buildings, Section 545-13. 690-34. Access to Boxes. Clarifies requirements for accessibility to connections, etc., where such are located behind a module.

E. Grounding

690-41. System Grounding. This requirement specifies system grounding as in Section 250-3.

In accordance with Exception No. 3 to Section 250-3, direct-current systems operating at over 300 volts between conductors are exempted from the system grounding requirement. Validity for this exception can be construed from a generalization that the over 300-volt systems are l ikely to be found only in industrial applications where other safeguards can be taken to achieve the intent of solidly grounding a circuit conductor. Also, from a performance standpoint and due to the type of equipment employed, there may be a necessity for not grounding a direct-current industrial type circuit .

In general, the same cannot be said for photovoltaic systems. The same overall type of equipment, photovoltaic modules or panels, f i l t e r assemblies and power conditioning units are used in the 300 volt, or below systems, and in the above 300-volt systems.

Based on the foregoing, i t is proposed that the systemgrounding requirement be applicable to all photovoltaic systems, as stated in Section 690-41 (and the applicable Exception).

Exception: Other principles, using available equipment, may be used to achieve objectives contained in the Fine Print Note to Section 250-1, thereby providing protection equivalent to solid grounding for the photovoltaic power source circuits. A technical discussion of the principles involved is contained in a technical paper prepared by MIT Lincoln Laboratories. 690-42. Point of System Grounding Connection. Because the direct-current system may be rather complex, the point of the direct-current system grounding connection has to be indicated. Generally, a grounding connection is made as close to the source as possible, However, to permit installation of various protection systems, i t is necessary that the grounding connection be permitted to be made anywhere on the photovoltaic output circuit . 690-43. Size of Equipment Grounding Conductor. Section 250-95 permits equipment grounding conductors to be smaller than the circuit conductors. Unless the relationship between the available faul t current and overcurrent device ratings is such that the devices operate to open the circuit in a reasonable amount of time, overheating of an undersized grounding conductor could result. A current of twice the overcurrent device rating is intended to permit operation of the overcurrent device in time to prevent overheating. 690-44. Common Grounding Electrode. This requirement insures that direct-current circuits from the photovoltaic system do not enter enclosures that are grounded only by a grounding electrode of an alternating-current system without the grounding electrodes of both systems being effectively bonded together. For example, i f the electrodes are not bonded together, i t is possible that a small current flow through the alternating-current electrode, through the earth and back through the direct-current electrode, could result in raising the voltage on the array frame to close to line voltage.

F. Marking

690-51. Modules. The information required to be marked'on modules is necessary for proper selection of circuit components and installation of the system as specified elsewhere in Article 690. 690-52, Photovoltaic Power Source. After installation of photovoltaic arrays, i t may be d i f f i cu l t to determine the system rated voltage and current. These ratings along with the open-clrcuit voltage and short-circuit current, are necessary to size the remainder of the system components as specified elsewhere in Article 690.

G. Connection to Other Sources

690-61. Loss of U t i l i t y Voltage. This requirement prevents energizing of otherwise deenergized u t i l i t y conductors and is intended to prevent risk of shock to persons. 690-62. #J~pacity of Neutral Conductor. Overloading of a neutral conductor can occur for the connections indicated. This requirement is intended to prevent such an occurance.

690-63. Unbalanced Interconnections. For the conditions indicated, the system voltages can be significantly unbalanced. This requirement is intended to prevent such an occurance. 690-64. Point of Connection. To prevent overloading of panelboard busses by possible backfeeding and to ensure that all ut i l izat ion circuits would be deenergized when the main u t i l i t y disconnect is opened, the additional source of electr ic i ty should be connected to the system ahead of the service disconnect. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Insert the word "operating" after "module" and before "current" in Section 690-8(b)(1).

Delete "a sufficient number of" in the second sentence of Section 690-9(a).

Insert the following as an Exception to Section 690-9(b): "Exception: A power transformer with a current rating on the

side connected toward the photovoltaic power source not less than the short-circuit output current rating of the power conditioning unit shall be permitted without overcurrent protection from that source."

Delete the word "A" from the f i r s t sentence of Sections 690-15 and 690-16.

Add "(s)" in the f i r s t sentence of Section 690-17 after "breaker."

Insert the following as an Exception to Section 690-17: "Exception: A disconnecting means located on the direct-current

side shall be permitted to have an interrupting rating less than the current-carrying rating when the system is designed so that the direct-current switch cannot be opened under load."

Revise Section 690-31 to read as follows: "690-31. Methods Permitted. (a) Wiring Systems. All raceway and cable wiring methods

included in this Code and other wiring systems and f i t t ings specifically intended and identified for use on photovoltaic arrays shall be permitted. Where wiring devices with integral enclosures are used, sufficient length of cable shall be provided to faci l i ta te replacement."

Revise Section 690-33(a) to change "electr ic i ty" to "electr ical." Revise Section 690-62, f i r s t line to add ", 2-wire" between

"phase" and "power." Revise Section 690-63 to read as follows: "690-63. Unbalanced Interconnections. (a) Single-Phase. The output of a single-phase power

conditioning unit shall not be connected to a 3-phase, 3- or 4-wire electrical service derived directly from a delta-connected transformer." PANEL COMMENT: The changes are intended to accomodate the negative votes on the technical subcommittee ballot and for editorial clari f ication. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

349

ARTICLE 700 -- E~ER6£NCY SYSTEMS

Log # 1582 15-'41 - (Articles 700, 701, 702): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 15 that article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action on the basis that article t i t les are related to the scope. SUBMITTER: Georg Stromme, ONAN ][r~.~IT~E'-~-DATION: Relabel Articles 700, 701, and 702 to:

700 Power Systems - Level i, Emergency 701 Power Systems Level 2, Legally Required Standby 702 Power Systems Level 3, Opt'ional Standby

SUBSTANTIATION: A. The concepts of levels are more convenient for communications and specifying purposes.

B. I t corresponds to the definition in the new proposed NFPA 110. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Acceptance of this proposal at this time is premature pending Association action on proposed NFPA 110. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 12 NEGATIVE : STROMME.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: STROMME: Suggest review at next meeting when NFPA is acted on.

Log # 481 15- 43 - (Article 700): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: George W. Flach, New Orleans, LA ~ D A T I O N : Remove all references to design, installation and maintenance that do not affect the safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electr ic i ty. SUBSTANTIATION: The Standards Council of NFPA has ruled that design, installation, and maintenance of emergency systems up to and including the load terminals of the transfer switch is within the Scope of NFPA 110. And Article 700 should be revised to include only those requirements related to f i re and shock hazards arising from the use of emergency systems. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMIIZNT: The Panel has reviewed all sections in Article 700 and taken appropriate actions. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 12 NEGATIVE: Petersen.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE : PETERSEN: The following were rejected because they make

reference to NFPA 110 which has not been finalized and I do not believe we should be expected to vote to include something in that section until we have had an opportunity to review i t . I t would be better to leave things as they are rather than to accept something about which there appears to be no finalization. Proposal s 15-42, -43, -45,

-67, -68, -69.

15- 42 - (700-1): Acceht Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 15 that

article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMITTER: ~ 15 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Scope of Article 700-1 to read:

"The provlslons of this article apply to the electrical safety of the design, instal lat ion.. . " (Remainder of present scope wording unchanged). SUBSTANTIATION: The Standards Council of NFPA has ruled that design, installation, and maintenance of emergency systems up to and including the load terminals of the transfer switch is within the Scope of NFPA 110. And Article 700 should be revised to include only those requirements related to f i re and shock hazards arising from the use of emergency systems. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: VblbR.bLN: [he following were%rejected because they make

reference to NFPA 110 which has not been finalized and I do not believe we should be expected to vote to include something in that section until we have had an opportunity to review i t . I t would be better to leave things as they are rather than to accept something about which there appears to be no finalization. Proposals 15-42, -43, -45,

-67, -68, -69.

Log ~ 1493 15- 44 - (700-1): Accept

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Co~ittee'advises C~ 15 that art icle scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMITTER: William P. Hogan; Chicago, IL RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 700-1 by deleting therefrom the word, "cr i t ica l" in the second sentence of the second paragraph and by inserting in lieu thereof the word, "designated". SUBSTANTIATION: Some areas of buildings that require emergency lighting would not be classified as cri t ical but could be designated as requiring such lighting. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 482 15- 45 - (700-1, FPN-(New)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 15 that article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMITTER: George W. F lach, New Orleans, LA ~ D A T I O N : Add a Fine Print Note:

(FPN) For further information regarding installation, performance, operation and maintenance of emergency power supplies see NFPA 110-1982. SUBSTANTIATION: The Standards Council of NFPA has ruled that these subjects are within the Scope of NFPA 110. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMMENT: Due to the Standards Council directive, this proposal is being accepted pending final action on proposed NFPA 110. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRF~RTIVE : 12 NEGATIVE: Petersen.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: PETERSFN: The following were rejected because they make

reference to NFPA 110 which has not been finalized and I do not believe we should be expected to vote to include something in that section until we have had an opportunity to review i t . I t would be better to leave things as they are rather than to accept something about which there appears to be no f inalization. Proposals 15-42, -43, -45,

-67, -68, -69.

Log # 2071 15- 46 - (700-3): Reject SUBMITTER: William P. Hogan, Chicago, IL RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 700-3 by changing, "approved" to "I isted". SUBSTANTIATION: There is hardly an inspector nor an inspection bureau in the country that is equipped or capable of testing all equipment used on emergency systems. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: This is too restrict ive. Al] electrical equipment

a-{'~--ergency distribution panels, conduit, wire, etc., would require an additional l ist ing to indicate sui tabi l i ty for installation on emergency systems. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 2073 15- 47 - (700-4(c)): Reject SUBMITTER: William P. Hogan, Chicago, IL RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 700-4(c) by adding, "and/or re pl acemen t . " SUBSTANTIATION: The authority to order replacement should be written into the Code as a recognized remedy for any faulty battery. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: I t should not be the inspector's responsibility to determine at what period in time batteries must be replaced. The authority to require replacement is covered by Section 700-4(b). VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 2072 15- 48 - (700-4(e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William P. Hogan, Chicago, IL RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 700-4(e) to read as follows:

"(e) Testing Under Load. Means for testing all energency lightin~ and power systems under anticipated load conditions shall be provl ded." SUBSTANTIATION: I t is my opinion that this ~ording makes the requirement more specific and therefore easier to enforce. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise the word "under" in the second line of the proposed Sectio~ 700-4(e) to read "during maximum." PANEL COMMENT: Editorial clari f ication. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

350

Log # 1062 15- 49 - (700-4(f)-(New)): Reject SUBMII-FER: Heydon Z. Lewis, Then~o-Scan Engineering, Inc. I~:-Ci~'~|TE--N-15ATION: Add paragraph (f) as follows:

(f) Inspection Under Load. The c r i t i ca l i t y of the systems supplied by the Emergency Service deems regular inspection of all potential fai lure points, e.g., terminations, splices, switch contacts, etc., under loaded operating conditions to be desirable. SUBSTANTIATION: Loss of commercial power source is not the only failure mode for electrical systems. The importance of emergency lighting, f i re pumps, etc., suggests a higher standard for maintenance and inspection. Thermal imaging is a very useful inspection tool. No implication of requiring such inspection is requested; only emphasis of importance and provision of access for proper inspection. PANEL ACTION : Reject. PANEL COM~I:NT: Insufficient data submitted to support the need i~'or this type of testing. VOIE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 483 15- 50 - (700~4): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs CMP 15 to achieve correlation with NFPA 110 when adopted. SUBMI1-FER: George W. F1ach, New Orleans, LA I~'~,*~)IQg~E'-NTb~TION: Delete this section and substitute the following:

"For tests and maintenance see NFPA-110." SUBSTANTIATION: The Standards Council of NFPA has ruled that these subjects are within the Scope of NFPA 110. PANEL ACTION: Reject. P..ANEL COM~NT: Renx)val of this section at this time is premature pending Association action on proposed NFPA 110. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 148 15- 51 - (700-5(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Howard C. Stauffer, Hospital Corporation of America I~:-CiT#~E'-IWI~ATION: Revise to read: An emergency system shall have adequate capacity and rating for the emergency operation of all equipment expected to be connected to the system "at one time." SUBSTANTIATION: A hospital in order to meet l i f e saving needs must have standby and redundant equipment in case of fai lure of any one piece of equipment. Normally this represents 30 percent to 50 percent of the load. Therefore required sizing of the generator under some interpretations of e'xisting wording, could be inordinately large, resulting in over sizing and ineff icient use of the generator. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 12 NEGATIVE : Holl oway.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HOLLOWAY: I do not agree with the use of the word "expected" as

related to the connected load.

Log # 1838 15-52 - (700-5(a) and 700-5(a), Exception-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be reported as "Reject" because less than two-thirds of the members eligible to vote have voted in the affirmative. SUBMITTER: Georg Stromme, EGS~ ~ T I O N : Add to the end of Section 700-5(a):

Emergency systems shall have the capacity to power all required exit signs and exi t l ights, and to provide for a required safe shelter for a minimum time of 12 hours, without imposing unreasonable risk or hardship on the occupants.

FPN - In determining the requirements for a required safe shelter the following factors should be considered: evacuation readiness, panic prevention, f i ref ight ing capabilities, ventilation, communications, security, accidents, and c iv i l unrest.

Exception: When i t is mandatory by a plan acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction that a supervised evacuation is ini t iated within 15 minutes of loss of the primary power source, the time limits given in Section 700-12 shall apply.

FPN ~ This plan typical ly will be included in the electrical section of the application for building permit and posted in a place, or places, such that i t is readily visible to the appropri ate operating personnel. SUBSTANTIATION: The present requirements are inadequate in situations where people are confined in building overnight during power outages. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 4 ~C4~TIVE: Flach, Hensel, Holloway, Jensen, Kitzantides, Kubisz,

Moxey, Petersen, Stewart.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: FLACH: My notes indicate that the words "or hardship" were

removed from the proposal. I would have voted affirmative i f these words were not included.

HENSEL: The proponents and submitters of this proposal offer that this proposal is "to ensure that exit lights and exi t signs in occupied jqigh-rise buildings are illuminated from "dusk-to-dawn" for evacuation should a f i re start ." Further, they argue that " i f people stay in dark high-rise buildings, the risk of f i re increases, the risk of crime increases and the risk of accidental injury increases." (Note: Nowhere in the proposal is there mention of limiting its ef fect iv i ty to "high-rise" buildings. )

There are strong arguments for having some provisions in high-rise buildings to house people from dusk-to-dawn under circumstances suc.h as the New York power blackout. The need may well exist.

In the present codes (NATIONAL ELECTRIC and LIFE SAFETY) i t is clearly the intent to provide for the safe evacuation of a building i f i t has lost i ts normal electrical power source. I t is possible that in some buildings such as hospitals, nursing homes and high-rise buildings i t might take more than 1 i/2 hours and, i f so a dusk-to-dawn, (or at least more than 1 1/2 hours) may be required. However, i t is my judgement that 1 I/2 hours for evacuation is as far as the NEC should extend. I f an occupancy, such as a high-rise, has needs such as this which are peculiar to that occupancy, the problem would be much more effectively treated within the LIFE SAFETY CODE or the Uniform Building Code, or whatever standard might apply for that occupancy. I do not consider this problem too unlike the need for having special high-rise f i re codes which are surfacing in most large cities as a result of recent f i res.

I am sympathetic with the need and the problem but do not consider the NEC as the vehicle to solve i t .

HOLLOWAY: I do not agree with the term "unreasonable risk or hardship on the occupants."

JENSEN: Although I am in harmony of the humane intent of this proposal, I must in all good conscience vote against the Panel Action since the stipulation of specific operating times is beyond the scope of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE and would conflict with the time requirements specified in other codes for emergency lighting systems.

Operating time considerations of Lhis magnitude become restrictive as to the type of equipment permissible and goes beyond the safe wiring and installation requirements intended in this section of the Code.

KITZANTI~S: The proposal is not relevant to Art icle 700. Art icle 700 is to deal with "emergeEcy systems essential for safety to human l i f e , " not standby or optional systems and NOT "Safe shelter." Acceptance of this proposal may be detrimental to the development and use of emergency evacuation plans. In addition, there is no evidence of statistics to warrant the change from 1 i /2 hours to 12 hours as a benefit.

This change wil l create an unwarranted burden on building owners to implant a larger system without empirical substantiation. Also, because the benefit may not be commensurate with the change, the adoption of the NEC Code in those areas where the NEC Code does not exist could be effected. This would have a negative impact to the health and safety of the population at large.

KUBISZ: Although I am sympathetic to the intent of this proposal I feel this proposal goes beyond the purpose of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.

The 1~erminology "...provide for a required safe shelter. . ." is too subjective and introduces concepts that are not related to the "practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of e lect r ic i ty . " This appears to be placing an unnecessary burden on the electrical inspection community to determine a "safe shelter."

A proposal of this nature might be better addressed in the LIFE SAFETY CODE, NFPA 101.

MOXEY: 1. The proposals contain (in my opinion) design cri teria. As I understand things, the NEC is not a design manual. We are concerned about the "safety" of the design and this proposal does not fa l l within that framework.

2. Acceptance of this would v i r tual ly eliminate battery emergency lighting systems. This could be pol i t ica l ly damaging. I have always been of the opinion that a 1/2 dead battery provides some emergency lighting, but will hardly start an engine.

3. The real definiton of what is proposed appears to be Standby power, not emergency power, or l ighting. When a situation lasts longer than 15 minutes, i t is a "condition" not an "emergency."

4. This would put the NEC in direct confl ict with almost all state codes with which I am familiar. I f l i f e safety is to be considered, the governing body should define the occupancy in such a manner that i t will conform to NFPA 101. The submitter should make a submission to that Code Panel.

5. I have spoken to several peogle in the design profession and they are, to a man, against such a proposal in the NEC.

6. I am appalled that a NEC Code Panel would lower the f ine acceptance that the NEC commands in the industry by considering something so controversial, unnecessary, potentially expensive, d i f f i cu l t to control, impossible to inspect and limiting.

351

7. I f I were an owner, about to build, and was advised of this, I would either get my lawyers busy or get out of the business. As a citizen, I doubt that I would want to pay the premium for "shelter"' etc.

8. The proposal has overtones of "Big Daddy." The states have this jurisdiction and they have their problems. Don't we have enough problems as i t is?

PETERSEN: I believe that this recommendation, as written, is confusing standby pewer with emergency power.

By general definition, emergency power is intended only for the safety of the occupants of a particular building in the event of power fai lure, being sufficient only to give all occupants a reasonable time to leave the premises.

Standby power, which I believe this proposal as now written really refers to, should specify fac i l i t ies that will permit the continuation of seminormal activit ies until such time as power is restored.

To provide emergency power for safe exit only should not require more than the presently prescribed 1 1/2 hours which, in the opinion of a great many people, is much too long. I do not believe there is any test data to jus t i f y even that length of time.

Certainly, twelve hours is unreasonable because i f a building cannot be emptied in 1 1/2 hours, there is something wrong with the architecture of the building that should be corrected.

I would suggest that Section 700-5 be le f t unchanged until such time as further data can he gathered to substantiate the need for a longer period than an 1 1/2, as presently called out in Section 700-12(A).

I believe that a reference to any longer period of time under the heading of emergency power, not standby power, would not be in the best interest of the general public.

There is even a possibil ity that adoption of this standard would eliminate the practicabil i ty of battery operated Emergency Lighting systems and this would be to the detriment of the general public because any other means of accomplishing Emergency Lighting is cost prohibitive.

STEWART: We are voting negative on this proposed change because: i . We question whether i t is within the scope of Articles 700

and 701 to establish a requirement of "safe shelter." This appears to be the responsibility of municipal, state, federal, other codes, etc., and the LIFE SAFETY CODE, NFPA 101 for specification of locations.

2. This proposed change would have substantial impact on any fac i l i t y intended to house people. The extent of regulatory involvement, experience of present system and the actual need, as well as cost to the country, should be determined.

3. The present wording of the proposal is such that there could be a tremendous burden on the authority having jurisdiction and the owners to determine which fac i l i t ies must provide safe shelter; further, to establish mandatory evacuation in 15 minutes for all other fac i l i t ies for which emergency systems are required.

4. An editorial comment: Our notes of the C~P meeting indicate that all references to "hardship" were to have been removed from the proposal.

Log # 140 15- 53 - (700-5): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: This C~ement (No. 70-13, CWP-22) was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See NEC-TCD-1980 Annual Meet i ng. SUBMITTER: Hugh O. Nash, Jr., Smith Seckman Reid, Inc. ~ D A T I O N : Delete existing paragraph and add new paragraph as follows: 700-5 The emergency system shall have adequate capacity and rating for the operation of all equipment to be supplied at one time. SUBSTANTIATION: This change will make 700-5 consistent with 700-6. The present wording in 700-5 opens the door for AHJ's to insist on emergency systems and stand-by power plants feeding emergency systems to be sized for connected load. The application at conservative demand factors for hospital emergency systems results in considerable money savings. I t also prevents grossly underloaded diesel engines which can cause engine problems.

The attached hospital test data is offered to substantiate that emergency system maximum demands (including crit ical branch) are considerably less than connected load. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 15-51. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: PETERSEN: Proposal 15-53 appears to be redundant to Proposal

15-51 which I would consider superior.


Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CFI ) 15 that a fine print note shall contain only explanatory language. SUBMITTER: Victor S. Whitcomb, Brooks, ME RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph as follows:

Means shall be provided to completely isolate the transfer switch equipment. The use of isolating switches shall not be required where there are other ways of deenergizing the equipment for maintenance or replacement without loss of power to the building or structure. SUBSTANTIATION: Many times, specifically inhealth care fac i l i t ies , total shutdown is impossible and bypass conductors are installed on live equipment during the removal and replacement of transfer equipment. A means must be provided to prevent this dangerous practice. See companion proposal for Section 230-83.

Similar provisions should he applied to Section 701-7 and 702-6. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept proposal as submitted as a FPN with the following revisions:

In the f i r s t l ine, change "sha11" to "should." In the f i r s t l ine, change "provided" to "considered." In the second line, change "shall" to "may." At the end of the FPN, add an additional sentence to read: "Where isolation switches are used, inadvertent parallel

operation must be avoided." PANEL COFtMENT: Mandatory isolation of transfer switches is not necessary for all applications. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: Kitzantides.

E~LANATION OF VOTE: KITZANTIDES: Oppose the fine print note because the subject of

maintenance and repair should have a mandatory requirement.

Log # 1497 15- 55 - (700-6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Clyde H. Craig, NECA RECOMMENDATION: Add the following sentence:

"Transfer equipment shall be so designed as to a11ow repairs to be made without shutting down the system." SUBSTANTIATION: There are real problems involved when trying to replace contacts on transfer switches without shutting down the entire system. A hospital would be a good case in point. Recently a couple of manufacturers have developed transfer switches that can be serviced without danger to the electrician o r equipment. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 15-54. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: Petersen.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE : PETERSEN: Proposal 15-55 is redundant to Proposal 15-54 and

again suggest that Proposal 15-54 is the superior amendment.

Log # 484 15- 56 - (700-7): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs CMP 15 to achieve correlation with NFPA 110 when adopted. SUBMITTER: George W. Flach, New Orleans, LA ~ T I O N : Delete Section 700-7. SUBSTANTIATION: The Standards Council of NFPA has ruled that these items are within the Scope of NFPA 110. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL CO~MENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 15-50. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 776 15- 57 - (700-7): Reject SUBMII'TER: Chester F1anagan, San Diego, CA RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 700-7 to read: Audible and visual signal devices "and appropriate labels" shall be provided "in the v ic in i ty of the main service disconnect(s)" where practicable, for the fol 1 owi ngpurposes: SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is intended to enhance the safety of l i f e and property in cases where firemen/other persons are required to turn off all power expeditiously in order to carry out f ire fighting/other emergency operations.

Also, in an emergency, those involved in hazardous operatiom need to know, for safety reasons, i f the emergency source is carryingl oad. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Too restrictive in location. Lack of evidence to support the need for location of signal devices in the vic in i ty of the main service disconnects. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

352

Log # 947 15- 58 - (700-7(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Chester Flanagan, San Diego, CA I~'-~J]-R~Z'-N-I;#~TION: (b) Carrying Load. To indicate that the battery or generator is carrying load "and to indicate the type and location of the emergency source." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is intended to enhance the safety of l i f e and property in cases where firemen/other persons are required to turn off all power expeditiously in order to carry out f i re f ight i ng/other emergency operations.

Also, in an emergency, those involved in hazardous operations need to know, for safety reasons, i f the emergency source is carrying load. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add a new Section 700-8, Signs to read as follows:

"A sign shall be placed at the service entrance equipment indicating type and location of on-site emergency power sources." PANEL COMMENT: Panel agrees with the concept of the proposal and introduces new Section 700-8 to require placement of a sign at the service disconnect to indicate emergency sources on the promises. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 11 NEDATIVE: Hensel, Petersen.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HENSEL: I agree with the decision to accept this proposal in

principle but disagree with the Panel's method of accomplishing i t . Section 230-2 for "Services" requires for a building or

structure served by more than one service (when permitted) that a permanent plaque or directory shall be installed at each service drop or lateral at each service-equipment location to denote other services in that building or structure and the area served by each.

I t seems that the intent of this proposal is the same as intended for the plaque or directory required under Section 230-2 and that is, to warn firemen, operating personnel, or whoever, i~hat there is another "source of supply" in the building whether i t be an alternate source Csuch as an on-site generating unit) or a separate service.

To put a sign at the service disconnect, as this proposal would do, which in real i ty accomplishes the similar function of the plaque or directory required by Section 230-2, is redundant.

In my judgement, this "infomati~)n" that there is an on-site emergency (or alternate) power source on the premises should logically be amalgamated with requirements for the plaque or directory "information" of Section 230-2. (To wit: I t logically belongs in Section 230-2.)

Accordingly, I have the following alternate recommendations: i . The information that there is an "alternate source" be

referred to CMP 5 for consideration of embodiment in Section 230-2. 2. A reference to Section 230-2 be added within Art icle 700

which directs attention to the requirement of Section 230-2. 3. That similar references as that of 2 above be incorporated

into Articles 701 and 702, for "alternate" on the premises sources such as "legally required" and "optional ."

PETERSEN: Proposal 15-58 was rejected because I do not feel that this type of marking would serve any useful purpose, particularly in the case of an emergency.

Log # 684 15- 59 - (700-7(e)-(New)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs CMP 15 to achieve correlation with NFPA 110 when adopted. SUBMITTER: Warren H. Cook, IEEE ~ D A T I O N : Recommend a new paragraph be added to Section 700-7 Signals as follows:

(e) Ground-Fault. To indicate a ground-fault in solidly grounded wye emergency systems of more than 150 volts to ground and circuit protective devices rated 100 amperes or more. The sensor for the ground-fault signal devices shall be located at, or ahead of, the main system disconnecting means for the emergency source, and the maximum setting of the signal devices shall be for a ground-fault current of 1200 amperes. Instructions shall be provided on course of action to be taken in the event of a ground-faul t condition. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 700-26 states that emergency systems do not require ground-fault protection of equipment. Yet, when the load is served by the emergency source, the possibil i ty of a ground-fault is no less than when the load is served by the u t i l i t y source. Should a ground-fault occur within the emergency system during a power fai lure, i t is debatable whether essential loads should be immediately disconnected from the emergency power supply. However, for reasons of safety and to minimize the possibil i ty of f i re and equipment damage, at least an alarm should indicate i f a hazardous ground-fault condition exists so appropriate corrective steps will be ini t iated. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add a new subsection (e).to Section 700-7 to read:

Ce) Ground-Fault. To indicate a ground-fault on the system. PANEL COMMENT: Proposed wording too restr ict ive. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 10 NEGATIVE: Hensel, Stewart, Stromme.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HENSEL: I would point out that the proposal as submitted was

intended for emergency systems and circuit protective devices RATED 1000 AWERES OR MORE. The typographical error in l is t ing the rating of the systems and devices as 100 A~PERES or more was exposed and discussed during the Panel meeting.

I am voting negatively on the proposal since I favor making the requirement, as originally proposed by Mr. Cook, for indication on systems of 1000 AMPERES OR MORE as a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT (and not where practicable as the Code in preceding words states).

Further, I favor providing such a signal WHERE PRACTICABLE for all systems and protective devices rated LESS THAN 1000 AMPERES.

STEWART: The C~ "Accept in Principal" is much broader than was original ly intended. Further, we question the effectiveness of a ground-fault alarm, particularly on the smaller systems.

STROMME: The new wording does not reflect the intent of the proposal as stated in the last sentence of the proposal.

Log # 485 15- 60 - (700-12): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs CMP 15 to achieve correlation with NFPA 110 when adopted. SUBMITTER: George W. Flach, New Orleans, LA RECOMMENDATION: Remove all references to performance, operation and maintenance. SUBSTANTIATION: The Standards Council of NFpA has ruled that these subjects are within the Scope of NFPA 110. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Removal of references at this time is premature pending Association action on proposed NFPA 110. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1841 15- 61 - (700-12): Accept SUBMII-[ER: Georg Stromme, EGSMA I~:'I]D'R~-~'I~q;IATION: 1. Delete existing t i t l e of Section 700-12 and repl ace with "General Requirements ."

2. Relocate the last two sentences of the f i r s t paragraph of Section 700-12 to after the FPN and above subsection (a) Storage Battery as a separate paragraph revised to read as follows:

"The supply system for emergency purposes, in addition to the normal services to the building and meeting the general requirements of this section, shall be permitted to comprise one or more of the types of systems described in Ca) through (e) below. Unit equipments in accordance with Section 700-12(f) shall satisfy the applicable requirements of this art icle. See Section 700 -5 ( a ) ." SUBSTANTIATION: I t is not clear from the present wording that the sources listed in Section 700-12 are potential sources only, and that the determination of which one of the sources is acceptable in a given situation must be' based on the considerations given in the beginning of the section. This proposal clarif ies the intent of the present Code. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NECV~TIVE : Petersen.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: PETERSEN: Proposals 15-61 and 15-62 refer to Section 700-5(a)

and until the amended form of that particular section is approved, these two have no meaning. I would suggest that they be rejected at this time and considered later when and i f the amendment to Section 700-5(a) is accepted.

Log # 1839 15- 62 - (700-12): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Georg Stromme, EGSMA RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to the third paragraph after "to floods, f i res, icing, and vandalism." The requirements in Ca) through (f) below are minimum requirements for emergency evacuation of occupants. Requirements for both occupancy and evacuation are given in Section 700-5(a)." SUBSTANTIATION: To clar i fy the intent of existing code as well as to coordinate with the intent of EGSMA proposal Log #1838 (Section 700-5(a)). PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I

PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 15-61. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 10 NEGATIVE: Holloway, Petersen, Stromme.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HOLLONAY: I will agree to Accept in Part, but I do not agree

with the sentence: "Requirements for both occupancy and evacuation as given in Section 700-5(a)."

PETERSEN: Proposal 15-61 and 15-62 refer to Section 700-5(a) and until the amended form of that particular section is approved, these two have no meaning. I v~uld suggest that they be rejected at this time and considered later when and i f the amendment to Section 700-5(a) is accepted.

STROFIVE: Proposal 15-61 does not address concern of this pro pos al.

353

Log # 878 15- 63 - (700-12(f)): Reject SUBMI1-FER: Fred P1onsky, Electro Powerpacs Corp. ~ T I O N : Proposal for an additional paragraph stating the fol I owin g:

The entire lamp housing assembly and electronics cabinet shall be constructed of not less than 18 gage sheet metal. SUBSTANTIATION: The problem is that manufacturers of emergency lighting equipment are endangering the l i f e safety of the public by using combustible, dangerous toxic-emitting plastics in construction of their equipment. (See Attachments A and B.) The plastic equipment also presents another problem with the distortion of the plastic in heat that makes the equipment inoperative as well as changing the light direction even i f i t worked. (See Attachments C and D.)

This serious problem has been noted by Pennsylvania, Chicago and the state of Rhode Island. (See Attachments E, F, and G.) These states have prohibited the use of plastic materials.

We believe that safety-related equipment should be the f i r s t industry to prohibit toxic plastics. Metal construction for such equipment is not subject to the mentioned detrimental conditions of plastics and should be used when providing l ight for safe evacuation in emergency situations.

(Note: A copy of the attachments is available from NFPA on request.) PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Proposal contains design requirements that are beyond the Scope of Article 700. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1897 15- 64 - (700-12(f)): Reject SUBMITTER: B. Auger/H. B. Love, Michigan Chapter IAEI !~"(~O~U;LE'II~T'DATION: In the second paragraph after the third sentence (=The branch circuit feeding . . . any local switches.") Add - When the normal l ight is switched by the branch circuit overcurrent devices, without local switches, the unit equipment shall be wired to a separate branch circuit with no other outlets. Where circuit breakers are used, a breaker lock shall be pro vi ded. SUBSTANTIATION: This amendment services a double purpose. First, i t provides a guide for how to deal with a frequent problem; how to wire emergency lights in a shop where there is no local switching because the lighting panel is used to switch all the lights. Second, emergency lights are frequently (mistakenly) wired off of the emergency service. This wi l l , in effect, define a circuit breaker or other overcurrent device which is used for switching duty as the local switch. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: This is a f ie ld problem that can be corrected by proper design and is mandated by Section 700-17. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 12 NEGATIVE: Hensel.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HENSEL: I agree that this is mandated by Section 700-17. I t is

also true that i t is a field problem which can be corrected by proper design. Putting i t another way, based on my experience, i t is very often a f ie ld problem which resulted from "improper design" and at that point in. time can result in expensive and even compromi si ng sol uti ons.

The problem exists any time that a normal lighting circui t serving an area requiring emergency lighting is turned off at the branch panel whether or not there is local switching in the circuit. I t is a very common design error and the proposed change would be a good mandatory requirement to avert the associated "f ield problems" which surface during the installation of the system, or during its operation after acceptance of the system by the user.

I t is a " f ie ld problem" which i f i t were to go undetected by an enforcing authority, could put the safety of occupants in jeopardy.

Log # 568 15- 65 - (700-16): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J.K. Daugherty, Fl int , MI I~:"(~OI~;E'-~II.~IATION: Revise "exi t lights" to "exit signs" in the 2nd line. SUBSTANTIATION: The Life Safety Code, NEPA 101-1981 in Section 5-10 requires exit signs not exi t lights for emergency i l l umination.

Section 700-16 should be revised so that the term will be in concert with the Life Safety Code. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add =, illuminated exit signs" between the words "l ights" and =and" in the second sentence of Section 700-16. PANEL COMFENT: The NEC addresses the l ight source that is used to illuminate a sign whether internally or externally illuminated.

VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE : 12 NEGATIVE: Holloway.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HOLLOWAY: Section 700-16 addresses "Emergency Illumination"

therefore to change exi t lights to exit signs would not he consistent with the intent of Section 700-16.

Log # 344 15- 66 - (700-21, Exception-(New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Joseph C. Roohan, Whittier, CA RECOM~NGATION: Add the following paragraph and exception to Section 700-21 :

"In no case shall a control switch for emergency lighting in a theater, or motion-picture theater or place of assembly be placed in a motion-picture projection booth or on stage.

Exception: Where multiple switches are provided, one such switch shall be permitted in such locations where so arranged that i t can energize the circuit only, but i t cannot disconnect the c i rcui t . " SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed amendment to Section 700-21 substantially restores an important safety concept that was inadvertently dropped for the 1981 edition. The primary control of the l i f e safety emergency system must be restored to those responsible for the management of the building andnot rest with those primarily concerned with the performance. These systems are the exit l ighting, aisle lighting and alarm systems that are " f i r s t on-last off" during the operation of these occupancies.

Overzealous and unfamilar production staff persons have been known to disconnect the l l f e safety systems when given the cue to darken the audit6riem. Many traveling companies bring their own equipment and do not bother to familiarize themselves with fixed controls nor do they wish to assume responsibility. Motion picture projectionists in booths are concerned with their equipment, f i lm, and presenting the show. Their function is further compounded by the multi-auditorium theaters of today and the hazards of dealing with Xenoh lamps in modern projection equipment leaving l i t t l e time to monitor the auditorium and render decision regarding the emergency system. I t is important and proper that this old safety concept of separating production from management not be lost. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. In the last line of the proposed paragraph insert the word "a/' between the words "on" and "stage." After the word "stage," add the words "or platform."

In the proposed exception, change the word "disconnect" to "deenergize." PANEL CO~ENT: Editorial clari f ication. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: PETERSEN: Proposal 15-66 was rejected because I do not agree

with the "exception." I f that were dropped, I would find the change acceptable.

ARTICLE 701 -- LEGALLY REQUIRED STAN~ Y SYSTEMS

Log # 486 15- 68 - (Article 701): Accept in Principle SLBMITTER: George W. Flach, New Orleans, LA RECOMFENDATION: Remove all reference to installation, operation, and maintenance. SUBSTANTIATION: The Standards Council of NFPA has ruled that these subjects are within the Scope of NFPA 110. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. FANEL COMMENT: See Panel Actions and Comments Proposals 15-42 and 15-43. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 12 ~GATIVE: Petersen.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: PETERSEN: The following were rejected because they make

reference to NFPA 110 which has not been finalized and I do not believe we should be expected to wte to include something in that section until we have had an opportunity to review i t . I t would be better to leave things as they are rather than to accept something about which there appears to be no finalization. Proposal s 15-42, -43, -45,

-67, -68, -69.

354

15- 67 - (701-1): Accept Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 15 that

article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Acti on. SUBMITTER: CMP 15 ~ D A T I O N : Revise scope of Art icle 701-1 to read:

"The provisions of thls article apply to the electrical safety of the design, insta l la t ion. . . " (Remainder of present Scope to remain unchanged). SUBSTANTIATION: The Standards Council of NFPA has ruled that design, installation,.and maintenance of emergency systems up to and including the load terminals of the transfer switch is within the Scope of NFPA 110. And Article 700 should be revised to include only those requirements related to f i re and shock hazards arising from the use of emergency systems. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 11 NEGATIVE: Holl oway.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HOLLO~@~Y: I do not agree with the reference to design, Please

refer to Section 90-i(a) & (c). PETERSEN: The following were rejected because they make

reference to NFPA 110 which has not been finalized and I do not believe we should be expected to vote to include something in that section until we have had an opportunity to review i t . I t would be better to leave things as they are rather than to accept something about which there appears to be no f inal izat ion. Proposals 15-42, -43, -45,

-67, -68, -69.

Log # 487 15- 69 - (701-1, FPN-(New)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 15 that article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action and directs correlation with NFPA 110 when adopted. SUBMITTER: George W. Flach, New Orleans, LA ]~'-C~O'-#~QL:-N-DATION: Add the following fine print note:

(FPN) For further information regarding instal lat ion, performance, operation and maintenance of legally required power supplies see NFPA 110. SUBSTANTIATION: The Standards council of NFPA has ruled that these subjects are within the Scope of NFPA 110. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMMENT: Due to the Standards Council directive, this proposal is being accepted pending final action on proposed NFPA 110. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE : PETER_SEN: The following were rejected because they make

reference to NFPA 110 which has not been finalized and I do not believe we should be expected to vote to include something in that section until we have had an opportunity to review i t . I t would be better to leave things as they are rather than to accept something about which there appears to be no f inal izat ion. Proposals 15-42, -43, -45,

-67, -68, -69.

Log # 1525 15- 70 - (701-1, FPN; 701-1, Exception-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 15 that article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Acti on. SUBMITTER: George N. Webb, John Hopkins Hospital I~'-~i)-#~QL~-R[]ATION: Delete the note and add the following:

Exception: Where any authority having jurisdiction requires compliance with NFPA 76A for a health care fac i l i t y , this article shall notapply, SUBSTANTIATION: There are a nember of requirements in Art icle 701 which are in confl ict with those contained in NFPA 76A with which health care fac i l i t ies are required to comply. NFPA should not have more than one document for a given circumstance. Some examples of conflict are found in: Section 701-9 permits wiring for the emergency service to occupy the same raceway as other wiring; Section 701-10 permits connection of the emergency power in up to 60 seconds. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The wiring mentioned in Section 701-9 is not part of the emergency system. A legally required standby system should not be confused with an emergency system. See Section 701-2. Section 701-9 prohibits emergency wiring to occupy the same raceway. Article 701 is intended to cover such loads as equipment systems loads covered in NFPA 76A which permits wiring to occupy the same raceway and also does not confl ict with the 60 second requ i rement. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

15- 71 - (701-5): Reject Log #488 Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs CMP 15 to

achieve correlation with NFPA 110 when adopted. SUBMITTER: George W. Flach, New Orleans, LA RECOMMENDATION: Delete: (a) through (c) and substitute the following fine print note.

(FPN) "For periodic tests and maintenance see NFPA 110." SUBSTANTIATION: The Standards Council of NFPA has ruled that these subjects are within the Scope of NFPA 110. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Acceptance of this proposal at this time is premature pending Association action on proposed NFPA 110. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1843 15- 72 - (701-6): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be reported as "Reject" because less than two-thirds of the members eligible to vote have voted in the affi nnati ve. SUBMITTER: Georg Stromme, EGSMA .-~---C~--~:I~-DAT I ON : Add:

Legally required standby systems shall have the capacity to power all equipment needed to provide for a required safe shelter for a minimum time of 12 hours, without imposing unreasonable risk or hardship on the occupants.

FPN - In determining the requirements for a required safe shelter, the following factors should be considered: evacuation readiness, panic prevention, f i ref ight ing capabilities, ventilation, cemmunications, security, accidents, and civ i l unrest.

Exception: When i t is mandatory by a plan acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction that a supervised evacuation is init iated within 15 minutes of loss of the primary power source, the time limits given in Section 701-10 shall apply.

FPN: This plan typical ly will be included in the electrical section of the application for building permit and posted in a place, or places, such that i t is readily visible to the appropri ate operating personnel. SUBSTANTIATION: The present requirements are inadequate in situations where people are confined in building overnight during power outages. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 4 NEGATIVE: Flach, Hensel, Holloway, Jensen, Kitzantides, Kubisz,

Moxey, Petersen, Stewart. EXPLANATION OF VOTE:

FLACH: See comments on Proposal 15-52. ~NSEL: Is the same as the comment on Proposal 15-52. HOLLONAY: "Without imposing unreasonable risk or hardship on

the occupants h is ambiguous and should not be a part of thisCode. JENSEN: I must vote against the Panel Action for this proposal

since the requirement of 12 hours operating time for legally required standby systems because i t fa l ls into two areas not intended for the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE:

i . Design cr i ter ia 2. Time considerations which may be imposed by that entity

which requires the legally required standby systems. In addition, legally required standby systems are intended for

the autematic pickup of selected loads other than that required for safe shelter or comfort of occupants of a premise. Such other loads may or may not require long term generating capacity.

KITZANTI~S: "Safe Shelter" requirements are not specific and performance requirements are already covered in Section 701-10. Also, see comment on Proposal 15-52.

KUBISZ: See Proposal 15-52. MOXEY: i . The proposals contain (in my opinion) design

cr i ter ia. As I understand things, the NEC is not a design manual. We are concerned about the "safety" of the design and this proposal does not fa l l within that fremework,

2. Acceptance of this would v i r tua l ly eliminate battery emergency lighting systems. This could be pol i t ica l ly damaging. I have always been of the opinion that a 1/2 dead battery provides some emergency lighting, but will hardly start an engine.

3. The real definiton of what is proposed appears to be Standby power, not emergency power, or l ighting. When a situation lasts longer than 15 minutes, i t is a "condition" not an "emergency."

4. This would put the NEC in direct conflict with almost all state codes with which I am familiar. I f l i f e safety is to be considered, the governing body should define the occupancy in such a manner that i t will conform to NFPA 101. The submitter should make a submission to that Code Panel.

5. I have spoken to several people in the design profession and they are, to a man, against such a proposal in the NEC.

6. I am appalled that a NEC Code Panel would lower the fine acceptance that the NEC commands in the industry by considering something so controversial, unnecessary, potentially expensive, d i f f i cu l t to control, impossible to inspect and limiting.

7. I f I were an owner, about to build, and was advised of this, I would either get my lawyers busy or get out of the business. As a citizen, I doubt that I would want to pay the premium for "shelter" etc.

355

8. The proposal has overtones of UBig Daddy." The states have this jurisdiction and they have their problems. Don't we have enough problems as i t is?

PETERSEN: See co~ents on Proposal 15-52. 'STEWART: We are voting negative on this proposed change because: 1. We question whether i t is within the scope of Articles 700

and 701 to establish a requirement of "safe shelter." This appears to be the responsibility of municipal, state, federal, other codes, etc., and the LIFE SAFETY CODE, NEPA 101 for specification of locations.

2. This proposed change would have substantial impact on any fac i l i t y intended to house people. The extent of regulatory involvement, experience of present system and the actual need, as well as cost to the country, should be determined.

3. The present wording of the proposal is such that there could be a tremendous burden on the authority having jurisdiction and the owners to determine which fac i l i t ies must provide safe shelter; further, to establish mandatory evacuation in 15 minutes for all other fac i l i t ies for which emergency systems are required.

4. An editorial comment: Our notes of the C~ meeting indicate that all references to "hardship" were to have been removed from the proposal.


Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 15 that a fine print note shall contain only explanatory language. SUBMITTER: Clyde H. Craig, Toledo, OH ~ T I O N : Add additional sentence:

Transfer equipment shall be so designed as to allow repairs to be made without shutting down the system. SUBSTANTIATION: There are real probl~s involved when trying to replace contacts on transfer switches without shutting down the entire system. A hospital would be a good case in point. Recently a couple of manufacturers have developed transfer switches that can be serviced without danger to the electrician or equ i pment. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add an FPN to read:

"Means should be considered to completely isolate the transfer switch equipment. The use of isolating switches should not be required where there are other ways of deenergizing the equipment for maintenance or replacement without loss of power to the building or structure. Where isolation switches are used inadvertent paral I el oberation must be avoided ." PANEL COM~NT: Panel action should satisfy the submitter's intent. V~TE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 12 NEGATIVE: Kitzantides.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: KIIZANIIDLS: See comment on Proposal 15-54. Also, the language

in the FPN does not address the submitter's request.

Log # 777 15- 76 - (701-8): Reject SUBMI~ER: Chester Flanagan, San Diego, CA RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 701-8 Signals to read: Audible and visual signal devices "and appropriate" labels shall be provided "in the v ic in i ty of the main service disconnect(s)" where practicable, for the following purposes: SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is intended to enhance the safety of l i f e and property in cases where firemen/other persons may be required to turn off all power expeditiously in order to carry out f i re fighting/other emergency operations.

Also, in an emergency, those involved in hazardous operations need to know, for safety reasons, i f the standby source is carrying load. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COUNT: Too restrictive in location. Lack of evidence to support the need for location of signal devices in the vic in i ty of the main service disconnects. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 948 15- 77 - (701-8(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Chester Flanagan, San DiegO, CA REOOMMENDATION: (b) Carrying Load. To indicate that the stand~ source is carrying load "and to indicate the type and location of the standby source." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is intended to enhance the safety of l i fe and property in cases where firemen/other persons may be required to turn off all power expeditiously in order to carry out f i re fighting/other emergency operations.

Also, in an emergency, those involved in hazardous operations need to know, for safety reasons, i f the standby source is carrying load. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add a new Section 701-9 above "B. Circuit Wiring" to read:

"701-9. Signs. A sign shall be placed at the service entrance indicating type and location of on-site legally required standby power sources."

Change present numbering of Section 701-9 to 701-10, 701-10 to 701-11, and so on throughout the remainder of the article. , PANEL COW~MENT: Panel agrees with the concept of the proposal and introduces new Section 701-9 to require placement of a sign at the service disconnect to indicate legally required standby sources on the premises. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : I i NEGATIVE: Hensel, NOT VOTING: Petersen.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HENSEL: Is the same as the comment on Proposal 15-58.

EXPLANATION OF NOT VOTING: PETERSEN: See comment on Proposal 15-1.

Log # 1551 15- 74 - (701-7(a)-(New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William Dayton, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital RECOMMENDATION: Add subparagraph: , a ) Emergency Bypass Provisions for Hospitals. Source and load connections at transfer equipment, including

bypass switches, shall be made through isolated terminal blocks arranged to fac i l i ta te connection of the load to either source. Means shall be provided for complete disconnection of the transfer equipment and/or switch. SUBSTANTIATION: Transfer equipment, including bypass switches, can fa l l and could cause a lengthy outage unless some provision has been made in advance. Hospitals have an obligation under accreditation standards to make such provision. This arrangement could also be used for safe routine servicing where bypass switches are not provided. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal 15-73. The Fine Print Note allows bypassing the transfer switch in any approved manner. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 489 15- 75 - (701-8): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Co~ittee directs CMP 15 to achieve correlation with NFPA 110 when adopted. SUBMITTER: George W. Flach, New Orleans, LA ~ A T I O N : Delete Section 701-8. SUBSTANTIATION: The Standards Council of NFPA has ruled that these items are within the Scope of NFPA 110. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COM~NT: See Panel Comment to Proposal 15-71. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 114 15- 78 - (701-10, Third Paragraph): Reject SUBMITTER: Fred L. Mays, Albuquerque, NM RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

Consideration shall be given to the location and/or design of all equipment to minimize the hazards that might cause complete failure due to floods, WATER SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, f i res, icing, and vandal i sm. SUBSTANTIATION: Sprinkler systems that discharge water on emergency apparatus are dangerous to people, particularly firemen and emergency personnel. PANEL ACTION: Reject. I~#~_L CLJ~_NI : Avoiding the spread of f i re has a higher pr ior i ty than inadvertent wetting of an engine generator set from a water sprinkler system. The proper design of a water sprinkler system will minimize the probability of wetting energized electrical parts. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

#J-F INJV~T IVE : 11 NEGATIVE: Stromme. NOT VOTING: Petersen.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: : e proposal has merit. Substantiation is not

supportive of proposal. EXPLANATION OF NOT VOTING:

PETERSEN: See comment on Proposal 15-i.

Log # 775 15- 79 - (701-10(b)(4)): Reject SUBMITTER: Chester Flanagan, San Diego, CA RECOM~NDATION: Revise Section 701-10(b)(4) to read: Where the m~ans of starting the prime mover is a storage battery, i t shall be suitable for the purpose and shall be equipped with an automatic charging means. " I f the battery is of the lead-acid or alkali type, i t shall be located or shielded to prevent the introduction of explosive/corrosive mixtures into the generator."

356

SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of this proposal is to ensure that: (1) explosive gases are not allowed to accumulate in the generator where a spark could cause an explosion and the loss of l i fe and property, (2) corrosive mixtures are not allowed to enter the generator and erode the winding insulation and cause the generator to malfunction.

One emergency generator system has been observed in the f ield where the lead-acid batteries (24 vol t system) are located in close proximity to the generator vent opening. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Insufficient substantiation to jus t i f y a Code change. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 12 NOT VOTING: Petersen.


ARTICLE 702 -- OPTIONAL STANDBY SYSTEMS

Log # 1842 15- 80 - (702-5, Exception-(New)'): Reject S~MITTER: Georg Stromme, EGSMA ~ T I O N : Amend Section 702-5 to add Exception:

In a single-family residence the rating of the standby system shall be selected by the owner and need not be capable of carrying the intended non~al load. SUBSTANTIATION: Some inspectors have interpreted this section to require that a residential installation must carry normally connected loads including kitchen range. Since separation of circuits is often impractical in an existing residence, this dictates a generator too large and too expensive to be practical. The resident should have the option of selecting loads to be appl i ed.

I t is desirable that the standby system be large enough to supply all automatic loads such as heating and refrigeration equipment. However, since most residential installations are manually operated, even that should not be a Code requirement. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMNENT: The Panel is in agreement with the submitter's substantiation. I t is not the intent to require the generator to pick up the total load. Section 702-2 as vrritten allows the user to designate the loads to be supplied. V.OTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 11 NEGATIVE: Stromme. NOT VOTING: Petersen.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: STROMNE: The proposed wording wDuld help c lar i fy intent.

EXPLANATION OF NOT VOTING: PETERSEN: See comment on Proposal 15-I.

15- 81 - (702-7): Reject Log # 778 SUBMITTER: Chester Flanagan, San Diego, CA RECOFI~ENGATION: Revise Section 702-7 Signals to read: Audible and visual signal devices "and appropriate labels" shall be provided "in the v ic in i ty of the main service" disconnect(s), where practicable, for the following purposes: SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is intended to enhance the safety of l i fe and property in cases where firemen/other persons may be required to turn off all power expeditiously in order to carry out f i re fighting/other emergency operations.

Also, in an emergency, those involved in hazardous operations need to know, for safety reasons, i f the optional standby source is carrying load. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMI~ZNT: Too restrictive in location. Lack of evidence to support the need for location of signal devices in the v ic in i ty of the main service disconnects. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 12 NOT VOTING: Petersen.


Log # 949 15- 82 - (702-7(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Chester FIanagan, San Diego, CA ~ T I O N : (b) Carrying Load. To indicate that the optional standby source is carrying load "and to indicate the type and location of the optional standby source." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is intended to enhance the safety of l i f e and property in cases where firemen/other persons may be required to turn off all power expeditiously in order to carry out f i re f ight i ng/other emergency operations.

Also, in an emergency, those involved in hazardous operations need to know, for safety reasons, i f the optional standby source is carrying load.

PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add a new Section 702-8 above "B. Circuit Wiring" to read as follows:

"702-8. Signs. A sign shall be placed at the service-entrance equipment indicating type and location of on-site optional standby power sources."

Renumber existing Section 702-8 as 702-9. PANEL COMIVENT: Panel agrees with the concept of the proposal and introduces new Section 702-8 to require placement of a sign at the service disconnect to indicate optional standy sources on the premises. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 11 NEGATIVE: Hensel. NOT VOTING: Petersen.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HENSEL: Is the same as the comment on Proposal 15-58.


ARTICLE 705 -- INTERCONNECTED ELECTRIC PO~ER PRODUCTION SOURCES

Log # 1612 15- 83 - (705-XX): Reject SUBMITTER: G. P. Minges, Rockwell International Wind Systems Test T f ~ RECOMMENDATION: I t is proposed that the point of connection of a non-stand-alone cogeneratin 9 system be allowed (at least as an alternative) on a subcircuit of a service-entrance equipment, provided that ( i ) the main service-entrance protection device rating be reduced by an amount equal to or greater than the cogeneration. (2) The subcircuit be a dedicated circuit and properly labeled. (3) The subcircuit be protected for forward current at the service entrance side as well as for reverse current at the cogeneration side or t ie point. (4) The cogeneration system has protection and rating of less than that of the service entrance equipment. SUBSTANTIATION: The problem is understood to be one of properly dealing with interconnection of relat ively small non-stand-alone cogenerating systems in a safe and nonstifling manner. The concerns of ( I )serv ice entrance bus overloads, (2) branch circuit overloads, (3) protective device reverse current, (4) ground-fault protection can all be adequately covered by the above proposed alternative or exception.

I t is realized that cogeneration plants range from small alternate and renewable energy sources through large industrial units capable of standing alone. I t is f e l t that the growing number of small consemer-owned non-stand-alone systems should have an exception or category whereby they would not be needlessly burdened with the equipment or installation costs of the older and more conventional large co-generating systems. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL CO~vrNT: There is not enough experience with this type of connection to warrant acceptance at this time. There is more of a hazard to the individual owner. Testing laboratories do not test all devices for reverse current. Where connected ahead of the main, all power is removed from the owner's wiring system when the disconnect is placed in the off position. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 905 15- 84 - (Article 705-(New)): Accept SUBMII-FER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ~ C A T I O N : Add the following:

ARTICLE - 705 INTERCONNECTED ELECTRIC POWER

PRODUCTION SOUR~S

SUBSTANTIATION: All of Art icle 705 as proposed should be considered as a unit. The interconnection of electric power production sources with an existing electric service system creates problems not addressed in other portions of the NEC. Since by definit ion this new source is neither for "emergency use only" nor "for standby occasions," no present material is contained in the Code to accommodate continuous interconnected operation. The proposed new Article 705 will acco~date this emerging technology. As to location for this article with the NEC, the Subcommittee feels that this proposal can be designated Article 445-8, 446, or 703; however, most Committee discussions were inclined to a 44X location. SPECIFIC EXPLANATIONS :

(*a) The term "interconnected electric power production sources" is used throughout; to differentiate this concept from occasionally used standby systems; to c lar i fy that we are referring to "electric" power production devices and not shaft horsepower; to include the idea of devices such as P.V. or batte~ banks other than rotating shaft generators; and to focus attention on the safety aspects (not contract-negotiated aspects) of t ~ or more electric sources operating in parallel.

357

(*b) Cogeneration is the production of electr ic i ty and a second form of energy which is uti l ized, by definition. An isolated plant doing that is serving as its own u t i l i t y , and ample coverage for such devices are already contained in the NEC.

(*c) Further clarif ies for the possibil i ty of a device f i r s t operating in parallel with an isolated total energy system or industrial generation and distribution system, not just a device being interconnected to an electric u t i l i t y ' s system.

(*d) Wording in Section 705-3 presupposes that a separate article wil l be granted for photovoltaic arrays; however, P.V. cells could be considered as being yet another electric power production source and be incorporated with Article 705.

(*e) Although many public u t i l i t y commissions already require the interconnected devices to be compatible, and most u t i l i t i es wil l stipulate within the contracts relating to interconnection that adverse conditions are not to be tolerated, placing that concept also with the NEC is appropriate since i t relates to the protection of equipment (see Section 90-1(a) NEC), and the possibil i ty exists for such devices to be interconnected to electric distribution systems not subject to a u t i l i t y ' s contractual agreement overseeing ( i .e . , nonuti l i ty interactive systems).

( * f ) The "point of connection" discussions consumed most of the Subcommittee's time. Since the test ing labs do not test fo r reverse current ( i . e . , every protect ive device is considered as having a l ine side and a load side) and conductors are subject t o severe overloading i f an e lec t r i ca l source is backfeeding, and since ground-faul t protect ion may be impaired i f reverse feeding is imposed, the inescapable conclusion remains that the point of intereonnection must be made somewhere on the supply side of the service-entrance equipment. Economic consideration of the u t i l i t y ' s buy-back contract w i l l determine on which side of the meter the interconnection occurs. A change in Section 230-82 must also be made to permit th is , and a proposal to that a f fec t has been submitted as Section 230-82, Exception No. 6. The proposed Exception No. 6 is consistent with the present wording in Exception No. 5 which allows the supply side connection of standby power systems.

(*g) One Subcommittee member suggested Section 705-9 be worded as follows:

"Means shall be provided to disconnect all CURRENT-CARRYING conductors of all electric power production sources from all other conductors in a building or other structure IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 230, PART H."

His reasoning is that " . . . the change from 'ungrounded' to 'current-carrying' removes the conflict with Section 230-70 which requires means for disconnection from (al l) the service-entrance conductors (grounded and ungrounded). With respect to the revision in the last part, i t is believed that the Subcommittee intended that the disconnect means for all electric power production sources be in accordance with Article 230, Part H."

(*h) The Subcommittee asks the Committee i f Section 705-10 should also include "...and fuses..." since they were invisioned as being part of the target of this section. Alternate wording could also be "...equipment, including fuses , . . . . "

(* i) The Subcommittee strongly encourages that the FPN be included to remind NEC users of a hazard which can exist with protective devices for parallel generation systems.

(* j) An owner of an interconnected electrical power production source may want to be able to supply his own electrical power requirements during periods of u t i l i t y service outage. When his device is capable of doing so, he wil l not want i t to be burdened with the unsatisfied system load - therefore an isolating or interrupting switch is necessary. I t wil l also be needed for periodic maintenance and for emergency conditions. This concept is consistent with the American Wind Energy Association's Electrical Power Subsystems Standards Subcommittee, whose working document on this topic contains the following excerpts:

Valid reasons for the electric u t i l i t y or authority having jurisdiction to lock this switch in the open position are:

A. Isolation of "power source" because "power source" is suspecte~ of operating in an unsafe manner or in a manner which is disruptive to other customer's service.

B. Positive disconnection of the "power source" from the electric u t i l i t y during routing maintenance of u t i l i t y distribution equipment.

C. Positive disconnection of the "power source" from the electric u t i l i t y during electric u t i l i t y emergencies.

D. Isolation of "power source" from the installation site electrical service during emergencies such as f i re . CO~ENTARY: The installation of a lockable manual disconnect switch allows installation, maintenance, police, f i re , or u t i l i t y personnel and owners to positively disconnect the "power source" from the electric u t i l i t y service drop or lateral and the site ac buss.

The primary purposes for a manual disconnect switch are: A. To provide a positive disconnect of the "power source" from

the electric u t i l i t y in order that electric u t i l i t y line crews can insure themselves that the lines are not being energized. This switch is a backup to the automatic disconnect discussed in Guideline 2.1.

B. To provide a positive disconnect of the "power source" service entrance to a building in order that f i re and emergency crews can disconnect all sources of power to a building before proceeding with their work.

Since each "power source" installation is different and each state or locality may have electrical codes which are different, some hard and fast examples of where a disconnect switch should be located is not possible; however, the following suggestions are provided as some guidance in this matter:

A. The lockable manual disconnect switch should generally be located at or near the electric u t i l i t y service entrance/metering equipment.

B. The "power source" service entrance to a building should be next to the electric u t i l i t y service entrance and the lockable manual disconnect switch.

C. Each interconnected "power source" should be connected into the main building electrical distribution panel via a dedicated circuit breaker or fused disconnect switch. These breakers or disconnect switches should be clearly labelled as auxiliary mains such that f i re fighters, etc. know to open them along with the electric u t i l i t y main disconnect.

D. I f an interconnected "power source" incorporates battery storage, additional lockable disconnect switches may be needed to satisfy electrical safety requirements and electric u t i l i t y requirements.

E. The power distribution conductors from the "power source" generator to a building must not pass through the interior of that building or another building or structure. (End of excerpt)

The Ad Hoc Subcommittee also suggests adding to Section 705-11 "a switch for which the operation of contacts can be verified after opening an enclosure door shall be permitted."

(*k) Power transformer protection needs consideration in several circumstances. Some interconnected electrical power production sources were located quite remotely, and their output needed to be routed to the point of interconnection by stepping up and stepping down the voltage. Present NEC language calls for both transformer and conductor protection. When current flow is reversed, the need. for protection remains. Proposed Section 705-14 clarif ies the application of Section 450-3. Table 450-3(a)(2) and acconloanying commentary did not consider the multiple combinations of protection that could result when transformers can be energized from both sides due to parallel generation.

('1) In considering whether self-excitation can occur, please remember that technology exists which can allow many sources to continue to operate without u t i l i t y supplied support. Aside from the l i fe safety considerations, protection to equipment must also be considered as in the case where an oi l circuit breaker at a substation trips due to a temporary fault, yet the interconnected electric power source remains on but dri f ts to the condition of being noncon~atible at the instant the O.C.B. automatically recloses.

(*m) Alternate va)rding offered by one member of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee states:

"705-17 Interconnected electric power production sources shall be grounded in accordance with Article 250. The system ground at the service OF ~HE PRIMARY SOURCE shall serve as the ground for the paralleled electric power production system. The grounded circuit conductor shallbe sized IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 230-41(a), BUT IT SHALL NOT BE SMALLER THAN THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIRED BY SECTION 250-23(b) FOR THE SOURCE INVOLVED."

His reason for suggesting the modification to the primary proposal is for clarif ication. Because of the presence of more than one source and service, the addition "of the primary source" clarif ies at which service the circuit is to be grounded. The revision of the second sentence incorporates the principles in Section 230-41(a) and Section 230-41(c) which are considered valid For this article.

A similar alternative, with a significant exception, was submitted by the American Wind Energy Association, and is included here as the proposal portion was reworded by the'Ad Hoc Subcommittee: PROPOSAL (INCLUDE PROPOSED WORDING, OR IDENTIFICATION OF WORDING TO BE DELETED):

The system grounding connection at the service shall serve as the ground for the paralleled power production system and the grounded conductor shall be sized according to Section 250-23(a).

Exception: I f the paralleled power production source is remote from the service, an isolation transformer may be used and the system treated as a separately derived system. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND SUBSTANTIATION FOR PROPOSAL:

Grounding at the source implies the use of an isolation transformer. Such a transformer increases the system cost and reduces the system efficiency by approximately 5 percent at fu l l load and as much as 50 percent at l ight loads. Using the service ground presents no shock hazard. Paralleled power production systems are designed for very long l i fe (200,000 hours for wind systems) making insulation failures and resulting accidental grounds rare. In inverter systems, dc saturation of the transformer is prevented by a contactor which opens. I f the contactor should weld, the dc is shorted by the transformer and a circuit breaker opens. Only i f that fai ls does the bridge turn fu l l on.

358

(*n) The Subcommittee fe l t that only overcurrent protection should be addressed; however, the minutes reflect that one member wanted over- and undervoltage protection and over- and underfrequency protection included and that the section t i t l e be changed to "Protection." PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 5 NEGATIVE: Holloway.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HOLLOWAY: A11 proposals pertaining to new Article 705 should be

approved in principle only and further evaluated.

Log # 905 15- 85 - (705-1-(New)): Accept

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 15 that art icle scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. The Correlating Committee directs CMP's 3 and 15 to correlate the interconnect requirements of Articles 690 and 705. SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ~ A T I O N : Add the following:

705-i. Scope. This article covers installation of interconnected electric power production sources operating in parallel. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 4 NEGATIVE: Holloway, Kitzantides.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HOLLOWAY: See comment on Proposal 15-84. KITZANTIDES: Emergency lighting should be excluded from the

scope because of hazards associated with compliance with Section 705-18. A fine print note therefore, should be added: The provisions of this article do not apply to emergency lighting systems.

Log # 905 15- 86 - (705-2-(New}): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ~ A T I O N : Add the following:

705-2. Definitions. For purposes of this art icle, the following definitions apply:

Cogeneration: A process which provides electric energy and other forms of util ized energy. A cogneration unit may or may not function as a parallel generator.

Parallel Generation: The interconnection of two or more electric power production sources. When one of the sources is an electric u t i l i t y , the parallel generation is considered u t i l i t y interactive.

U t i l i t y Interactive System: An electric power production system which is operating in parallel with an capable of delivering energy to an electric u t i l i t y supply system. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HOLLOWAY: See comment on Proposal 15-84.

Log # 905 15- 87 - (705-3-(New)): Accept SUBMII-FER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ~ A T I O N : Add the following:

705-3. Other Articles. Generators and their associated wiring and equipment shall comply with the requirements in Article 445. Solar photovoltaic systems shall con~oly with the requirements in Article 690. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HULLUW~Y: ~ee comment on Proposal 15-84.

Log # 905 15- 88 - (705-4-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ITE'L'OI~EI~I~ATION: Add the following:

705-4. Output Characteristics. The output of a generator or other electric power production source operating in parallel with an electric system shall not adversely affect the voltage, wave shape or frequency of the system to which i t is connected. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept.

ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 5 NEGATIVE: Holloway.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HOLLOWAY: See con~nent on Proposal 15-84.

Log # 905 15- 89 - (705-5-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ITE'L'~OI~I~rEq~I~ATION: Add the following:

705-5. Directory. A permanent plaque or directory shall be installed at the service equipment and at all electric power production source locations denoting all electric power sources on or in the premises. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HOELOWAY: See comment on Proposal 15-84.

Log # 905 15- go - (705-6-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ~ A T I O N : Add the following:

705-6. Point of Connection. The outputs of electric power production sources shall be interconnected on the supply side of the premises service disconnect as permitted in Section 230-82, Exception No. 6. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HOLLOWAY: See comment on proposal 15-84.

Log # 905 15- 91 - (705-7-(New)): Accept SUBMII'TER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ~ A T I O N : Add the following:

705-7. Prohibited Connections. The output of a u t i l i t y interactive power source shall not be connected to the load side of ground-fault protection for equipment or personnel. (See Section 705-6.) SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOlIE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 905 15- 92 - (705-8-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ITE'IZOBI~'I~I~ATION: Add the following

705-8. Unbalanced Interconnections. (a) Single-Phase. The output of a single-phase electric power

production source shall not be connected to a 3-phase, 3- or 4-wire delta-connected system.

(b) Three-Phase. A 3-phase electric power production source shall be automatically disconnected from all ungrounded conductors of the interconnected system when one of the phases opens in either source. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 5 NEGu~TIVE: Holloway.


359

Log # 905 15- 93 - (705-9-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ITE'(~F~[E'N-~ATION: Add the following:

705-9. Disconnecting Means, General. Means shall be provided to disconnect all ungrounded conductors of an electric power production source(s) from all other conductors in a building or other structure. See Article 230. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 905 15- 94 - (705-10-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power RECOMMENDATION: Add the following:

705-10. Disconnecting Means, Equipment. Means shall be provided to disconnect equipment from all ungrounded conductors of all sources of supply.

FPN: In parallel generation systems, some equipment including fuses is energized from both directions. See Section 240-40. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 905 15- 95 - (705-11-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ~ A T I O N : Add the following:

705-11. Interruptor Switch. A service rated interruptor switch, capable of being locked in the open position, and readily accessible adjacent to the service entrance, whose contact operation is verifiable by direct visible means, shall be provided to disconnect each electric power production source from every other source of electric power. This switch shall simultaneously open all ungrounded conductors. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 905 15- 96 - (705-12-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ITE'L'-OI~II~'f~I~ATION: Add the followi ng:

705-12. Switch or Circuit Breaker. The disconnecting means for ungrounded conductors shall consist of a manually operable switch(s) or circuit breaker:

(1) Located where readily accessible. (2) Externally operable without exposing the operator to

contact with live parts, (3) Plainly indicating whether in the open or closed position,

and (4) Having ratings not less than the load to be carried. For

disconnect equipment energized from both sides, a marking shall be provided to indicate that all contacts of the disconnect equipment may be live. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 905 15- 97 - (705-13-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ]TE~C~IE~N-[TATION: Add the following:

705-13. Overcurrent Protection. Equipment and conductors shall be protected in' accordance with Article 240. Generators shall be protected in accordance with Section 445-4. Solar photovoltaic systems shall be protected in accordance with Article 690. Equipment and conductors connected to mere than one electrical source shall have a sufficient number of overcurrent devices so located as to provide protection from all sources.

SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 905 15- 98 - (705-14-(New)): Accept SUBMII-FER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneratlon of Power ~ A T I O N : Add the following:

705-14. Power Transformers. Overcurrent protection for a transformer in a system with more than one power source shall be provided in accordance with Section 450-3 by considering f i r s t one side of the transformer, then the other side of the transformer, as the primary. The most str ict level of protection for each side shall be selected. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 5 NEGATIVE: HoIloway.


Log # 905 15- 99 -'(705-15-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ~ A T I O N : Add the following:

705-15. Synchronous Generators. Synchoronous generators in a parallel system shall be provided with the necessary equipment to establish and maintain a synchronous condition without adverse effect to either system. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 905 15- 100 - (705-16-(New)): Accept SUBMII-FER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ~ A T I O N : Add the following:

705-16. Loss of U t i l i t y Voltage. Upon loss of voltage in the u t i l i t y system, an electric power production source shall be automatically disconnected from all ungroundedconductors of the u t i l i t y system, and shall not be reconnected until the u t i l i t y voltage is restored.

FPN: Induction generating equipment on systems with significant capacitive power factor compensation may become self-exited upon loss of u t i l i t y service and experience severe overvoltage as a result. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 905 15- 101 - (705-17-(New)): Accept SUBMI1-FER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ~ A T I O N : Add the following:

705-17. Grounding, General. Interconnected electric power production sources shall be grounded in accordance with Article 250. The system ground at the service shall serve as the ground for the paralleled electric power production system and the grounded conductor shall be sized according to Section 250-23(b). SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 905 15- 102 - (705-18-(New)): Accept SUBMII-rER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power ~ A T I O N : Add the following:

705-18. Direct-Current System Grounding. For a direct-current power production source, one conductor of a 2-wire system and the neutral conductor of a 3-wire system shall be solidly grounded.

360

Exception: For direct-current systems connected through an inverter directly to a grounded service, other methods which accomplish equivalent system protection and which ut i l ize equipment listed and identified for the use shall be permitted.

FPN: See fine print note under Section 250-i. SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


COMMENT ON VOTE: KITZANTIDES: There is concern that grounding a dc battery

system can present hazards, not only to the system, but to the people as well. However, i f emergency lighting systems are excluded from the scope of this art icle, this comment does not apply. See NEMA comment on Proposal 15-84. EXPLANATION OF VOTE:

HOLLOWAY: See comment on Proposal 15-84.

Log # 905 15- 103 - (705-19-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cogeneration of Power I~'-~i~TI~'I~II~TION: Add the following:

705-19. Common Grounding Electrode. Exposed noncurrent-carrying metal parts of equipment and conductor enclosures of an electric power producing syst'em shall be connected to the grounding electrode that is used to ground the system. Two or more electrodes that are effectively bonded together shall be considered as a single electrode in this sense. See Section 250-91(c) SUBSTANTIATION: See Proposal 15-84. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



-

ARTICLE 710 -- OVER 600 VOLTS, NOMINAL GENERAL

13- 31 - (710-2): Accept Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the C'orrelating

Committee that consideration be given to proposed new Articles 690 and 705. SUBMITTER: CMP 13 I~E'-CI~ITL~'-IW-DATION: Delete the text of Section 710-2 and add the following new text:

Provisions applicable to specific types of installations are included in Article 225, Outside Branch Circuits and Feeders; Art icle 230, Services; Art icle 240, Overcurrent Protection; Article 250, Grounding; Article 300, Wiring Methods; Article 318, Cable Trays; Art icle 326, Medium Voltage Cable; Art icle 345, Intermediate Metal Conduit; Article 346, Rigid Metal Conduit; Article 347, Rigid Nonmetallic Conduit; Art icle 364, Busways; Article 365, Cablebus; Article 370, Outlet, Switch and Junction Boxes, and Fittings; Art icle 410, Lighting Fixtures, Lam~olders, Lamps, Receptacles, and Rosettes; Article 427, Fixed Electric Heating Equipment for Pipelines and Vessels; Article 430, Motors, Motor Circuits, and Controllers; Article 450, Transformers and Transformer Vaults; Art icle 460, Capacitors; Art icle 600, Electric Signs and Outline Lighting; Article 660, X-ray Equipment; Article 665, Induction and Dielectric Heating Equipment; and for construction and ampacities of high-voltage conductors, see Article 310. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal was made to include references to other articles containing provisions applicable to specific types of installations over 600 volts. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 254 13- 33 - (710-6, Second paragraph): Reject SUBMI1-FER: C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN RECOMMENDATION: Metallic shielding components...(present text same) . . . . shall be "bonded to ground using 6 AWG or larger solid copper or equivalent." (New wording in quotations here.) SUBSTANTIATION: The bonding of the shield must be made as reliable as possible, because floating (ungrounded) shields may be hazardous to personnel, cause sparking, e t c .

While i t is true that many circuit designs sense shield fault currents at 5A or less, the mechanical strength of the bending lead must also be considered. Solid should be used to help prevent corrosion; and insulated bonds should be used for the same reason. An insulated bare copper bond will be much less l ikely to corrode than a coated (tinned) copper or an aluminum bond.

I have seen several medium voltage termination ponds which have been completely severed by corrosion, even in outdoor substations, let alone in duct bank wet manholes. I have also seen several bonds which have been severed by faul t currents. And I routinely use the solid 6 AWG as bonding leads to both drain wire shielded cables and 0.003 inch copper tape shielded cables, so no one can claim that the size is impracticable to actually make up. PANEL ACTION : Reject. PANEL CL)FIMENT: The proposal identifies an installation design problem but does not assure a solution. I t specifies one method to thereby preclude other methods that might be appropriate under certain install ation conditions. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

13- 34 - (710-9): Accept Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this

proposal be referred to C~ 4 for correlation, SUBMITTER: CMP 13 RECOI~MENDATION: Revise the t i t l e of Section 710-9 to read as fol l ows:

710-9. Protection of Service Equipment, Metal-Enclosed Power Switchgear, and Industrial Control Assemblies. SUBSTANTIATION: The change was made to be consistent with the definition in ANSI C37.20. This proposal has been referred to CMP 4 for correlation with Article 230 Part K. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 266 13- 35 - (710-9): Accept SUBMITTER: Russell E. Mattson, Factory Mutual Research Corporation RECOMNENDATION: Add the following as a continuing sentence to 710-9.

Piping or other fac i l i t ies provided for f i re protection shall not be considered foreign to the electrical installation. SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of Section 710-9 is not to eliminate i~ire protection piping but rather to provide and assure that all equipment is protected from f i re .

At present, i t reads and has been interpreted to mean that no sprinklers should be installed. A sentence will improve the clar i ty and wiIl be in conformance with Section 450-47. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 11' NE~TIVE : Trogl ia.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: TROGLIA: I am concerned that this proposal permits the

unrestricted use of sprinklers and associated water piping in the v ic in i ty of service high voltage metal enclosed power switchgear. Misoperation or breaks in such water systems can reduce the integrity of the switchgear's electrical insulation as well as that of any associated dry-type transformers, and result in equipment fai lure. I ~uld agree that protection systems specifically designed to protect l i f e and property from fires originating in electrical equipment without jeopardizing the equipment should be permitted.

Log # 1796 13- 32 - (710-3(a), FPN-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Leo F. Martin, Paul Revere Chapter, IAEI RECOMNENDATION: Add a new fine print note as follows:

See Section 230-202(b). SUBSTANTIATION: The FPN reference is necessary as the wiring methods of the two sections are not identical. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMNENT: Art icle 710-2 already includes a reference to Article 230. The proposed reference weuld direct attention to one part of Art icle 230 and may cause other pertinent requirements to be overlooked. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

361

Log # 1929 13- 36 - (710-21(e)): Accept SUBMITTER: E. E. Carlton, Menlo Park, CA RECOMMENDATION: Add the following wording to present wording of Section 710-21(e):

(1) Continuous Current Rating. The continuous current rating of interrupter switches shall equal or exceed the maximum continuous current at the point of installation.

(2) Voltage Rating. The maximum voltage rating of interrupter switches shall equal or exceed the maxim~ circuit voltage.

(3) "Identification. Interrupter switches shall have a permanent and legible nameplate including the following information: manufacturer's t~e or designation, continuous current rating, interrupting current rating, fault closing rating, maximum voltage rating.

(4) Switching of Conductors. The switching mechaniSm shall be arranged to be operated from a location where the operator is not exposed to energized parts and shall be arranged to open all uhgrounded conductors of the circuit simultaneously with one operation. Switches shall be arranged to be locked in the open position. Metal-enclosed switches shall be operable from outside the enclosure.

(5) Stored Energy for Opening. The stored energy operator shall be permitted to be le f t in the uncharged position after the switch has been closed i f a single movement of the operating handle charges the operator and opens the switch.

(6) Supply Terminals. Fused interrupter switches shall be so installed that all supply terminals shall be at the top of the switch enclosure.

Exception: Supply terminals are not required to be at the top of the switch enclosure i f barriers are installed to prevent persons from accidentally contacting energized parts or dropping tools or fuses into energized parts. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording will provide needed guidance to design engineers, manufacturers, electrical contractors and electrical inspectors for proper installation, operation and maintenance of high voltage interrupter switches.

Items (4), (5) and (6) in particular will provide reasonable safety to operators and maintenance personnel.

These proposed additions recognize present day practice and usage of interrupter switches. PANEL ACTION : Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 11 NEGATIVE: Troglia.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: TROGLIA: I agree with the proposal except for Paragraph (4),

"switching of conductors." This provision requires that all load break switches be group operated. Single-pole, stick-operated load-break switches have been used safely for many 2ears in industrial installations attended by qualified operating personnel. This provision unnecessarily restricts design f l e x i b i l i t y and resultant economics in such installations.

Log # 243 13- 37 - (710-21(b)(7)): Reject SUBMITTER: H.K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc. ~ I ~ A T I O N : 710-21(b)(7) Add the following text to the section:

Door and/or cover interlocks shall be provided to prevent access to fuses installed in metal enclosures until all sources of energy to the fuses are disconnected. SUBSTANTIATION: I t is a hazardous situation where a workman can have access to fuses in high-voltage metal:clad gear without disconnecting the source. There have been accidents in this area because of no interlocks. Warning signs don't work. The protection of the workman should come f i r s t . PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The problem addressed by this proposal is adequately covered by Sections 710-21(b)(6) and 710-24(c). VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

PANEL COF~ENT: The Panel does not agree that the provisions of "Distribution cutouts shall not be used indoors, underground or in metal enclosures unless identified for the use." should be deleted as i t is fe l t that the provisions are required for safety. No substantiation was given for the deletion.

The Panel agrees with the intent of the words to be added but feels that they don't belong in Section 710-21(c){1). See CMP 13' s Proposal 13-39. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

13- 39 - (710-21(b)(I)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 13 ~ T I O N : Add the following as a last sentence to Section 710-21(b)(1):

Power fuses of the vented type shall not be used indoors, underground or in metal enclosures unless identified for the use. SUBSTANTIATION: Vented power fuses not identified for use indoors are not safe for operation in confined spaces, such as vaults, metal enslosures, and equipment rooms. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1072, 1393 13-40 - (710-21(c)(2) and 710-21(c)(2), FPN-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be correlated with CMP I . SUBMI1-FER: Frank K. Kitzantides, NEMA (1072) W. N. Hale, ANSI Committee Z 535, Safety Signs, Colors, and Symbols (1393) RECO~I~ENDATION: Revise as follows:

Insert "precautionary" between "conspicuous" and "signs." Insert a period after "cutouts" in the next to the last line and

delete the remainder of the sentence. Add a fine print note: (FPN) See Section 110-23.

SUBSTANTIATION: See Section 110-23 (New). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COI~NENT: See Panel Co~raent to Proposal 13-13. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 11 NEGATIVE : Thomas.

EXPLANATION CF VOTE: THOMAS: The NEMA vote is contingent upon the avai labi l i ty of

the adopted ANSI Z535 standards in time for the next meeting of the CMP.

Log # 1073, 1394 13 -41 - (710-24(o)(2) and 710-24(o)(2), FPN-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be correlated with CMP 1. SUBMITTER: Frank K. Kitzantides, NEMA (1073) I~':-i~--FIaTe, ANSI Committee Z 535, Safety Signs, Colors, and Symbols (1394) RECOtS~MENDATION: Revise as follows:

"Where fuses can be energized by backfeed, a precautionary sign shall be placed on the enclosure door." • Add a fine print note:

(FPN): See Section 110-23. SUBSTANTIATION: See Section 110-23 (New). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PA~L COMMENT : See Panel Con~ent to Proposal 13-13. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 11 NEGATIVE: Thomas.

EXPLANATION OF VOIE: THOMAS: The NEMA vote is contingent upon the avai labi l i ty of


Log # 297 13- 38 - (710-21(c)(1)): Reject SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc. ~ D A T I O N : Delete the last sentence (c) I . "Distribution cutouts shall not be used indoor, underground or in metal enclosures unless identified for the use."

Replace with the following wording: Open expulsion-type fuses installed indoors, underground or in metal enclosures shall be the nonvented or the controlled vented type. SUBSTANTIATION: Noncontrolled expulsion fuses are not a safe operating piece of equipment in confined spaces such as vaults, metal enclosures and equipment rooms. The hot metal could start f ires in a room when a workman closes in on a high duty fault. He could suffer hearing damage from the blast. PANEL ACTION: Reject.

Log # 2031 13- 42 - (710-41(d)-(New)): Accept SUBMII-rER: Idaho Chapter IAEI ~ D A T I O N : Add a new section (d) to Section 710-41.

(d) Disconnecting Means. Disconnect means shall be installed on mobile and portable high-voltage equipment according to the requirements of Sections 230-205(a) and 230-206 and shall disconnect all ungrounded conductors. SUBSTANTIATION: Mobile and portable high-voltage equipment do not have disconnecting means readily available as the equipment is served by portable cable of unlimited length. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 11 NEGATIVE: Jefferson.

362

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: JEFFERSON: I feel this proposal is too restr ict ive. The

proposal does not represent proven current practices. The substantiation presented does not provide any information, data, or history of unsafe operations which would indicate the need for the addition of this requirement to the NEC. The substantiation improperly implies that all mobile equipment is remote from its service point.

Log # 1074, 1395 13- 43 - (710-43 and 710-43, FPN-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be correlated with CMP 1. SUBMITTER: Frank K. Kitzantides, NEMA (1074) W. N. Hale, ANSI Committee Z 535, Safety Signs, Colors, and Sympols (1395) RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

Delete "warning-high voltage" and substitute "with a precautionary sign."

Add a fine print note: (FPN): See Section 110-23.

SUBSTANTIATION: See Section 110-23 (New). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment to Proposal 13-13. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: THOMAS: The NEMA vote is contingent upon the avai labi l i ty of


Log # 1075, 1396 13- 44 - (710-43 and 710-43, FPN-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be correlated with CMP 1. SUBMITTER: Frank K. Kitzantides, NEMA (1075) W. N. Hale, ANSI Committee Z 535, Safety Signs, Colors, and Syn~ols (1396) RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

In the last line, delete "warning-high voltage" and substitute "with a precautionary sign."

Add a fine print note: (FPN): See Section 110-23.

SUBSTANTIATION: See Section 110-23 (New). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment to Proposal 13-13. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOIE: THOMAS: The NEMA vote is contingent upon the avai labi l i ty of


Log # 245 13- 45 - (710-90-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: H. K. Glenn, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: 710-90 Circuit Feedback Identif ication: Whenever a circuit may be energized from more than one switching point, a suitable warning sign shall be installed at each switching point stating the locations frem where electrical feedback may occur. SUBSTANTIATION: Feedback may occur but not limited to:

1. Circuits by manually- or automatically-operated equipment or 2. Circuits configurations and connections or 3. Circuits feeding a load which can be connected to auxiliary

generating equipment or 4. Circuits feeding synchronous motor-driven generator sets

which can be energized by reverse power flow from batteries or other sources.

This section is needed to protect both workman and equipment. Equipment that can be energized from more than one source is a real hazard. Accidents have occurred because of operators inadvertently closing a feedback circuit. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: As an all inclusive rule, the proposal is unworkable and could lead to a hazardous condition by giving workmen a false sense of security. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 725 -- CLASS I, CLASS I I , AND CLASS I l l REMOTE-CONTROL, SIGNALING, AND POWER-

LIMITED CIRCUITS

Log # 1139 16- 3 - (Article 725): Accept

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 16 that article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMII-TER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group RECOMMENDATION: Change the word " l ight" to "electric l ight" in the following sections:

725-1 FPN, 725-37, 725-38(a), 725-38(a)(1) Exception No. 1, 725-38(a)(2), 725-38(a)(3), 725-38(a)(3) Exception Nos. 1 and 2, and 725-41. SUBSTANTIATION: With the possible inclusion of optical f iber cable in the NEC, this change wi l l c lar i fy that "conductors of l ight" are not optical f iber conductors. Such confusion has already existed in some areas. The change is also consistent with other sections using the term "electric l ight and power" such as Section 800-21, Section 810-12, 13, and Section 820-11(b). PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 11 NEGATIVE: Meehan.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: 1. The purpose of the Code from Section 90-1 is the

practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electr ic i ty.

The Code is not intended as a design specification nor an instruction manual for untrained persons.

Therefore the term "electric" should not be placed before the word " l ight" because the subject matter of' the Code deals with the use of electr ic i ty.

2. I would rather see the term "l ight" changed to "l ighting" which would be in agreement with other sections of the Code. A partial l ist ing is: Sections 110-19, 210-1, -6, -19, -22, -23, -70; 220-2, Table 220-2(b), Sections 220-11, -12, -30, -31, -32, -34; 225-6, -7; 305-1, 334-3, 668-3, 551-18, 551-20, 550-11, 550-5, 547-6, 530-12, 520-4, 501-9, 430-25, etc. The above sections use the term "lighting" rather than the term "electric l ight . "

Log # 1184 16- 4 - (725-2(a), Tit le): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: M. F. Borleis, Electric Light & Power Group RECOMMENDATION: Delete: Products of ConW)ustion.

Change Title to read: Ca) Spread of Fire. SUBSTANTIATION: In the 1981-82 NFPA Yearbook and Committee l i s t (Page 101) the Scope of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE Committee states: SCOPE: This Committee shall consist of a Correlating Committee and Code-Making Panels. I t shall have primary responsibility for preparing documents on minimizing the risk of electr ic i ty as a source of electric shock and as a potential ignition source of f ires and explosions. I t shall also be responsible for text to minimize the propagation of f i re and explosions due to electrical installations.

On Page 59 of the same document, the Scope of the Air Conditioning Committee states:

SCOPE: The construction; installation, operation and maintenance of systems for air conditioning, warm air heating and ventilating including f i l te rs , ducts and related equipment to protect l i fe and property from f i re , smoke and gases resulting from f i re or from conditions having manifestations similar to f i re .

Section 300-21 is and should be primarily concerned with limiting the migration or movement of f i re through f i re barriers or in environmental air spaces due to the installation of electrical systems with improper materials or improper methods.

However, since the introduction of "products of combustion," the concern has been directed to those possible products of conWoustion generated by electrical systems subjected to fires "external" to the electrical system. The prime concern, i f we must be concerned about products of conWoustion, should be those generated by building components and contents subjected to f ires possibly caused by overcurrents or short-circuits "internal" to the electrical system.

Since we have l i t t l e or no control over the building components and contents, our prime concern is that the electrical system not be an ignition source or a means of migration.

Of the one million or so building f ires estimated to occur annually, approximately 15 percent are attributed to electrical causes. Of the f ires of electrical origin, approximately 10 percent are attributed to wires and cables.

The data submitted to the Technical Subcommittee on Wiring in Ducts and Plenums reflects an abi l i ty to control f i re spread in nonmetallic-sheathed cables.

All of the above indicates that wires and cables, that portion of the electrical system that is permitted to be installed in ducts or plenums, is seldom the ignition source for building f i res and less frequently are they the fuel for f i re migration.

363

As stated in the scopes of the technical committees responsible for the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NFPA 70) and Air Conditioning and Ventilating Systems (NFPA 90 A) and Residence Type Warm Air Heating and Air Conditioning Systems (NFPA 90 B), the responsibility to protect l i fe and property from smoke and gases resulting from f i re lies with the Air Conditioning Committee, not with the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Since the subject is under study by another NFPA ad hoc committee, and will be reviewed by the NFPA 9OA Committee, the Panel believes that i t is appropriate to leave this term in the section until further information is received. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1381 16- B - (725-2(a)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Richard B. Boyd, Jr., Raleigh, N.C. ~ A T I O N : Delete "or Products of Combustion" in heading. SUBSTANTIATION: To correlate with proposal for Section 300-21.

Spread of products of combustion is outside the Soope of the National Electrical Code Committee as established by the NFPA Standards Council. This Scope, approved after the 1981 Code was processed, is as follews:

This Committee shall consist of a Correlating Committee and Code-Making Panels. I t shall have primary responsibility for preparing documents on minimizing the risk of electr ic i ty as a source of electric shock and as a potential ignition source of f ires and explosions. I t shall also be responsible for text to minimize the propagation of f i re and explosions due to electrical installations.

Removal of this phrase from the NEC does not mean that NFPA is ignoring the very important subject of the spread of products of coni)ustion. The NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning has been assigned responsibility for the subject of combustibles in plenums and i t must seek the cooperatlon.of the Committees on Fire Tests, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, and Safety to Life. The subject of combustibles in concealed spaces has been assigned to the NFPA Building Construction Project. In addition, the NFPA Building Construction Project has been assigned the subject of mechanical smoke control systems. Further, the NFPA Standards Council has appointed a subcommittee to study the subject of the toxic i ty of the products of combustion from combustible materials. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 16-4. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 839 16- 6 - (725-2(a)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMII-FER: Robert E. Taylor, Smoke Control Association RECOMMENDATION: Change t i t l e : Revise Section 752-2(a) to read:

Prevention of the Spread of Fire and Smoke. Section 300-21. SUBSTANTIATION: To make Code interpretation more precise and • accurate an accepted "scientif ic" definition of smoke should be used in Sections 725-2(a), 800-3(c) and 760-4(a) in place of the nondefinable term "Products of Combustion." The accepted ASTM definition for smoke has been recommended to Panel I for inclusion in the definitions.

The ASTM definition for SMOKE (n) - the airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases evolved when a material undergoes pyrolosis or combustion.

A member of the Smoke Control Association wil l be pleased to appear before the Panel to discuss this proposed change in greater depth at the Panel's request. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Based upon present information available, there is no specific need to consider a change to the t i t l e until further information is received. See Panel Comment on Proposal 16-4. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1527 16- 7 - (725-2(b), Exception to (b)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Bernard E. Auerbach, Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Delete the exception to Section 725-2(b). SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the exception to Section 725-2 is to permit only single- and multiconductor cables in ducts or plenums "having adequate fire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics - - - . " Regardless of how "low-smoke producing" the cables may be, the exception permits unrestricted use of such cables. Cumulatively, such possible unlimited use represents a potential extremely hazardous condition.

The National Materials Advisory Board of the National Academy of Sciences published a compendium in 1978 consisting of reports by a task force of noted engineers, toxicologists, and academicians from government, industry, and academia. Thls report is t i t led, "Flammability, Smoke, Toxicity, and Corrosive Gases of Electric Cable Materials."

The report of Stanley Kaufman and N. F. Yocum of Bell Laboratories (Norcross, Georgia) and J. R. Beyreis and J. W. Skjordahl of Underwriters Laboratories (Northbrook, I l l inois) t i t led "Fire Testing of Communication Cables" are quoted as follows:

"The widespread use of plastic-insulated communications cable in plenums over the past 20 years has been recognized in the National Electrical Code. As of 1975, i t contained a provision that "conductors having inherent f ire-resistant and low smoke-producing characteristics approved for the purpose, shall be permitted for ducts, holl ow spaces used as ducts, and plenums..." The Code stops at that point and does not define either the procedure for measuring flame and smoke properties or the acceptance levels of performance. Some localities have attempted to use existing tests and have specified minimum flame spread and smoke ratings per ASTM E-84, "The Surface Flame Spread of Materials Test." E-84 is a building materials test that is not intended to apply to cable."

The 1981 NEC s t i l l uses the same language, and testing is s t i l l the same; note the last sentence, "E-84 IS A BUILDING MATERIALS TEST THAT IS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO CABLE."

Smoke in i tsel f poses a serious problem, but with smoke we get toxic gases. The combination is always present in thermal decomposition. In an NBS Technical Note (No. 861) t i t led, "A Survey For The Collection of Professional Opinion on Selected Fire Protection Engineering Topics" a part of the survey results indicated concern over SMOKE AND TOXIC GASES. On page 16, the report states that " . . . the ASTM E-84 test method was not being used properly with respect to the noncombustible definition and that i t should be replaced by ASTM E-136."

Until a meaningful, reliable test is devised, and intr insical ly safe cables are manufactured that produce no smoke and no toxic hazard, the NEC should not permit any exceptions to Section 725-2(b).

Attached are pertinent pages from the National Academy of Sciences Report and NBS Technical Note No. 861 cited in this documentation. In addition, copies or excerpts of the following documents are included for the information of and study by the Panel:

"Fire Safety of Polymeric Materials in Buildings, State-of-the-Art" Irwin A. Benjamin; Center for Fire Research, National Bureau of Standards.

"Hazard Characteristics of Combustion Products in Fires: The State of the Art Review" - Dr. Merritt M. Birky; Center For Fire Research; Institute for Applied Technology - National Bureau of Standards.

"Fourth Annual Conference on Fire Research" - lleana M. Martinez and Sonya M. Cherry, Editors; Center for Fire Research, National Engineering Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards.

"Toxicity of Smoke Should Be a Consideration in Selecting Building Materials" - Yves Alarie, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh.

"The Events of The Beverly Hills Fire and Its Long Term Health Effects" - Deborah Wallace, Ph.D., President, Public Interest Scientific Consulting Service.

"Fireman, Save Thyself" - Steven Cohn; American Lung Association Bulletin.

Editorial; Modern Plastics, August'1979. Newsletter; Arthur D. L i t t le , Inc. (Note: A copy of the attachments is available from NFPA on

request.) PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Presently accepted wiring systems have performed adequately in the past and the Panel expects this performance to continue.

Contrary to the submitter's claim, a meaningful reliable test has been developed by a national testing laboratory for determining the fire-resistant and low-smoke producing properties of single- and multiple-conductor cables. This test includes minimum performance cri ter ia which limits the smoke produced by wiring methods permitted by this exception to the same order of magnitude as the smoke produced by the other acceptable wiring methods permitted by Section 300-22(c).

The Panel feels that the use of this wiring method as opposed to using methods specified in Section 300-22(c) does not compromise accepted levels of protection. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

AFFIRI~L~TIVE: 11 NEGATIVE: Meehan.

COMMENT ON VOTE: MANDE: In casting this vote NEMA advises that i t has not

reached any conclusion as to potential toxic i ty from products in f i re situations. NEMA is encouraged by the NFPA ongoing act iv i ty on toxic i ty and awaits to review the report of the Ad Hoc Committee when available.

MCNEIL: In casting this vote, ICEA advises that i t has not reached any conclusions as to potential tox ic i ty from products in f i re situations. ICEA is encouraged by the NFPA ongoing act iv i ty on toxic i ty and awaits to review the report of the Ad Hoc Commlttee, when available.

364

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: I voted negatively on this proposal because I believe

that the Panel Action while correct, that the Panel Comment should be the same as that given for Proposals 16-4, 16-5, 16-6. Because there is another NFPA Ad Hoc Committee having the material of plenums under study and with review by the NFPA 90A Committee. Therefore to reject the proposal at this time is correct, mention should have been made of the study being conducted by NFPA.


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee to direct the Panel to c lar i fy the Panel Action on this proposal and that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~ A T I O N : Ducts or Plenums. Section 300-22 where installed in ducts or plenums or other space used for environmental air.

Exception to (b): Single and multiconductor cables of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits listed as having adequate f ire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics shall be permitted for ducts and plenums as described in Section 300-22(b) and other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal makes editorial changes to use the same wording as in Section 300-22 when referring to ducts, plenums and other space used for environmental air. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise proposed t i t l e of Section 725-2(b) to read: "Ducts, Plenums and Other Air-Handling Spaces."

PANEL COMI~ENT: To be consistant with the t i t l e of Section 300-22. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

HANSELL: Panel also accepted the proposer's text, IN ADDITION TO revising his t i t l e . Panel Action as stated is not clear on this.

SESSLER: My notes indicate the proposal was accepted and IN ADDITION the t i t l e was changed as indicated. Proposed text was accepted in Proposals 16-77 and 16-100.

Log # 2091 16- 9 - (725-2(b)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: William A. Schmidt, Veterans Administration ~ A T I O N : Cables shall be tested in accordance with UL 910 and shall have an optical density peak of .5 based on a 20-minute f i re test, and a flame-spread rating equivalent of 25 without continuing progressive con~bustion. SUBSTANTIATION: This is an attenl)t to c lar i fy requirements for wiring in ceiling and plenum areas. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL CO~MENT: The Panel does not feel that the NEC should establish test cr i ter ia for products. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

m _ _

Log # 1020 16- 10 - (725-2(b), Exception to (b)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Joseph C. Reed, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. RECOMMENDATION: Retain exception to (b) and add the following words:

Adequate fire-resistance and low-smoke producing characteristics shall be defined as having a peak optical density not greater than 0.35, an average optical density not greater than 0.10, and a flame spread not greater than 5.0 feet when tested in accordance with Underwriters Laboratories Standard for Safety UL 910. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal defines by test method and quantitative values the meaning of "adequate f ire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics" as used in the 1981 NATIONAL ELECTRIC#J- CODE Section 725-2(b) Exception to (b).

The 1975 and 1978 NEC recognized the economics and safety of installing certain low voltage and power-limited cables in plenums and other spaces handling environmental air without metallic covering. Thus, .the Code provided an incentive for industry to develop cables and a test method to meet this requirement. Since that time, material suppliers, cable manufacturers, communication equipment manufacturers and Underwriters Laboratories have spent large amounts of technical effort and time to meet Code requirements.

We have sponsored, or have data available on, 81 individual tests conducted by the UL 910 test method. These tests covered seven different insulating materials and eleven cable configurations. Cables as large as 100 pair telephone cables (1.0 inches in diameter) as small as four conductor (0.15 inches in diameter), and large and small coaxial cables were tested. Analysis of these data show that the UL 910 test method:

l~I Gives reproducible data, Can distinguish between materials as to their flame spread

and smoke-producing characteristics, {c) Gives specific values that can be used for judging

"adequate f lre-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics" as required by the 1981NEC.

Underwriters Laboratories Research Bulletin, Number 56 (April, 1965), studied the effect of smoke development from a material having a specific smoke rating on the v i s i b i l i t y in a room in which the smoke was collected. The UL test results indicated that materials with developed smoke exceeding a level of approximately 450 produced total obstruction of a lighted exit sign 12 feet away. As this amount of smoke would make human evacuation from a smoke-filled building very d i f f i cu l t , a smoke developed limit of 450 is recommended for use in establishing the definition of low-smoke cable construction as tested in the UL 910 test apparatus. Evaluation of the UL 910 test data referred to above shows that a peak optical density of 0.35 and an average optical density of 0.10 correlates with the 450 smoke developed number.

A flame spread of 5.0 feet in the UL gi0 test relates very closely to the flame spread rating of 25 judged adequate for building materials when tested by UL 723 (E-84, NFPA 255).

Action is underway to include the pertinent parts of UL 910 into NFPA 255 Appendix B. This should be completed in time to use a NFPA 255 reference in place of UL 910 in this proposal and maintain the NEC practice on referencing only NFPA documents. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COFI4ENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 16-9. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

16- 11 - (725-2(b), FPN-(New)): Accept Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating

Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMI1-FER: CMP 16 ~ A T I O N : Add a fine print note to follow Exception No. 1 to read:

"One method of defining low-smoke producing materials is by establishing an acceptable value of the smoke produced per the UL 910 test to a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 and a maximum average optical density of 0.15.

Similarily, f ire-resistant cables may be defined as having a maximum allowable flame travel distance of 5.0 feet in the UL 910 test." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated in response to the principles of Proposals 16-9 and 16-10 and to provide guidance as to the intent of the Panel in reference to f i re resistance and low-smoke without establishing test requirements within the NEC; a FPN was deemed advisable.

( I t is CMP 16's understanding that the submitter of Proposal 16~10 is now in agreement with the numbers cited in the FPN.) PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 10 NEGATIVE: Meehan, Ware.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: The FPN is not necessary to provide guidance because

the exception requires that cables be " l isted." Article lO0-Definitions gives guidance for "l isted" equipment or materials. The UL 910 could be changed in the future and then the FPN could lead to confusion.

WARE: This FPN is not necessary to provide guidance because the exception requires that cables be " l isted." Article lO0-Definitions provides guidance for "l isted" equipment or materials. I t is not good practice or policy for the NEC to reference a specific testing laboratory, as i t is not good practice or policy to l is t a specific manufacturer of a product. I f UL 910 test parameters are modified in the future, then this FPN could lead to confusion.

Log # 927 16- 12 - (725-2(b), Exception No. 2-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Wiring in Ducts and Plenums RECO~ENDATION: Add new Exception No. 2 as follows:

Exception No. 2: Single and Multiconductor cables of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits with a maxi~m outer diameter of 0.75 inch listed as having adequate f ire-resistant characteristics shall be permitted to extend from the raceway system, in maximum lengths of 30 feet within spaces used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). Any one-foot dimension within the space shall not contain more than six such cables. SUBSTANTIATION: Same as for proposal to add Exception No. 2 to 800-3(d} (See Log #923). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COF%MENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-13. The wording of Proposal 16-13 is a more realist ic approach to unenclosed wiring in air-handling spaces and clarif ies the total number of cables permitted. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

365


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be reported as "Reject" because less than two-thirds of the members eligible to vote have voted in the affirmative and that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMII-FER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~ A T I O N : Add new Exception No. 2 as follows:

Exception No. 2: Single and multiconductor cables of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits with a maximum outer diameter of 0.75 inch listed as having adequate fire-resistant characteristics without excessive smoke generation shall be permitted to extend from the raceway system, in maximum lengths of 30 feet within other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). Any 3 foot by 3 foot square shall not contain more than six cables covered by this Exception and those wires and cables covered by Section 800-3(d) Exception No. 2, Section 760-4(d) Exception No. 2, and Section 820-15, Exception No. 2. SUBSTANTIATION: Supporting comment same as for this submitter's proposal to add Exception No. 2 to Section 800-3(d). PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In the seventh line insert the words "a total of" between the words "contain" and "mere." In the eighth line revise the word "and" to read "including." Also in the eighth line revise the word "covered" to read "permitted" in both places that i t appears.

Revise the referenced exceptions in the last two lines to appear in numerical (section) order. PANEL CO~IENT: Editorial clari f ication. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 6 NEGATIVE: Hansell, Hitchens, Mader, Meehan, Miner. NOT VOTING: Mande.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HANSELL: I voted Negative on Proposal 16-13 because IEEE wishes

to wait for the recommendations of the new NFPA Committee on Toxic Effects before agreeing to any additional uses of exposed "plastic" insulated wire and cable in spaces used for environmental air.

HITCHENS: While I believe that the Panel is responding to a public concern and that the proposal is significantly improved over similar proposals submitted for the 1981NEC, I s t i l l vote to reject the proposal. The proposal, IF ADOPTED, WILL CREATE AN AI~MINISTRATIVE/INSTALLATION/INSPECTION NIG~RE. Installers wi l l be vying to get their type of cable in an allocated space f i r s t , e.g., six remote control and signaling circuit cables (Article 725) could be installed f i r s t in a space, thus negating the installation of communication circuits (Article 800) in the same space. An inspector would need a micrometer (or ruler) to check cable diameter and would have to count cables in many places to assure that the total number of cables meet the area limitations. Further, since cables per the presentexception are also allowed in the same space, the inspector would have to recognize the difference in " l is t ing" (see below) and eliminate from the count of six those listed per the existing exception.

The proposed new exception would allow the installation of 0.75 inch (max.) cables "listed as having adequate f i re resistant characteristics without excessive smoke generation." I SUBMIT THAT THE PANEL IS INTRODUCING FURTHER CONFUSION INTO THE NEC. I f this new exception is added, nationally recognized testing laboratories wil l have to l is t two different cables for use in "other spaces used for environmental air" -- One per the existing exception to have "adequate fire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics" and one per new Exception No. 2 to have "adequate f i re resistant characteristics without excessive smoke generation." There is a subtle difference between the two requirements which, I am afraid, only the Panel wil l comprehend. Perhaps the testing laboratory (UL) that did work for the TSC might understand the differences but what about the other testing laboratories? And what assurance is there that testing cr i ter ia wil l be consistent between testing laboratories?

When the present exception was added in the 1975 NEC, i t was the Panel's intent to encourage the development of insulation co~ounds that would reduce the spread of f i re and smoke. Now that listed cables are available, i t appears that their use wil l not be promoted.

MADER: I believe the intent of the proposal is that the resulting configuration would compare favorably from the f i re and sn~)ke standpoint to cables presently permitted by the exception to Section 725-2(b); however, existing data does not support such a conclusion.

MEEHAN: I believe that the requirement for =Iow smoke" should be a requirement.

I do not believe that the proposal will contribute to safety. What is the difference between "low-smoke" and the term "without excessive smoke generation."

I do not believe that i t is proper to have two different requirements one of "low-smoke" as in the present exception, and "without excessive smoke generation" in the proposed exception.

The enforcement of the number of cables allowed in the three (3) foot by three (3) foot area would be d i f f i cu l t to enforce. At the present time, human nature being what i t is, very seldom is the inspector aware that such installation are being made. Control on new buildings and major alteration would be possible. Also since the Code is not retroactive, i t would be impossible to control such installation in existing buildings.

The present exception was incorporated into the 1975 Code to allow for the development of proper type of cable which were of low-smoke and fire-resistant characteristics. Now we have a proposal for a different approach to another type of cable, one without excessive smoke generation. I vote for rejection.

MINER: This proposal as written is confusing. What is a 3 foot by 3 foot square? What plane is i t in? Is a space less than 3 feet in one dimension excluded. The term "3 foot by 3 foot" should be "3 feet by 3 feet." EXPLANATION OF NOT VOTING:

MANDE: These proposals have merit but specific values for f lre-resistant characteristics need to be specified and the phrase "without excessive smoke generation" requires clarif ication.


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Wiring in Ducts and Plenums RECOMMENDATION: Add new Exception No. 3 as follows:

Exception No. 3 to (b): Single and Multiconductor cables of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits listed as having adequate fire-resistant characteristics shall be permitted within spaces used for environmental air as described in Section 3DO-22(c) when the building or structure is completely protected by an electr ical ly supervised central station-connected sprinkler system.

FPN: See NFPA Publication No. 13-1g76 for information on installation of sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: The stated exception is justi f ied on the basis of the following data:

Ca) NFPA Publication 90A (Air Conditioning and Ventilating System) and all of the other national building codes require that HVAC units in excess of 15,000 CFM capacity be shut down or converted to a smoke control cycle upon detection of products of combustion gases.

(b) The combustible loading in an environmental air plenum is limited as described in NFPA Publication 90A and in national building codes.

Therefore, i t is reasonable to assume that i t is v i r tual ly impossible for a f i re condition to develop in the space used for environmental air and sustain i tsel f to a size which would threaten the l i fe safety of the building occupants or the structural integrity of the building.

I t is then obvious that the only f i re conditions that could involve a hazardous quality of f ire-resistant cable would be a building contents f i re . The effectiveness of automatic sprinklers to control or extinguish a f i re condition is recorded as approximately 97 percent for the types of structures which ut i l ize plenum spaces (see 14th Edition of the Fire Protection Handbook, Page 14-5). I t can further be documented that v i r tual ly a 100 percent effective rate for controlling a f i re can be achieved by automatic sprinkler systems when they are electrically supervised and central station connected. The additional systems are currently being required for major structures constructed in accordance with any of the national building codes (see Classification Unsatisfactory Performance Table 14-1A of the Fire Protection Handbook.

Based on these considerations, the Committee fe l t that the installation of low-voltage fire-resistant cable could be permitted in spaces for environmental air without raceway and not adversely affect the l i fe safety of the building occupants. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels that the substantiation is not sufficient to jus t i fy a Code change at the present time. There are too many unanswered questions in this proposal. The Panel is not convinced that a satisfactory method exists for detecting products of combustion gases in other air-handling spaces, or that i t is v i r tual ly impossible for a f i re to develop in this space or that electr ical ly supervised central station connected automatic sprinklers systems are "v i r tual ly 100 percent effective" in controlling f ires. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 10 NEGATIVE: Cohen, Sessler.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: COHEN: The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Wiring in Ducts and Plenums

was supposedly staffed by experts and charged with developing practices for wiring in these areas. Its recommendations should be accepted unless significant evidence is provided to jus t i fy rejection. Such evidence has not been provided in this case, therefore, the proposal should be accepted unless such evidence is forthcoming by the December 1982 meeting.

SESSLER: An Ad Hoc Subcommittee made the recommendation in concept. I believe we should accept in principle since they have the technical background until such time as they or the 90A Committee make different recommendations. Proposal 16-15 has the preferred wording and should be accepted.

366

Log # 1142 16- 15 - (725-2(b), Exception No~ 3-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMII-FER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group h-E=-(~OI'~N[~N-~ATION: Add new Exception No. 3 as follows:

Exception No. 3 to (b): Single and molticonductor cables of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits listed as having adequate f ire-resistant characteristics without excessive smoke generation shall be permitted within other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c) when the building or structure is completely protected by an electr ical ly supervised central station-connected sprinkler system.

Fine Print Note: See NFPA Publication No. 13-1976 for information on installation of sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: Supporting comment same as for this submitter's preposal to add Exception No. 3 to Section 800-3(d). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 16-14. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: COHEN: This proposal is essentially the same as Proposal

16-14. For the reasons stated there, this should be accepted in principle.

SESSLER: This proposal clari f ies and sl ight ly modifies the intent of Proposal 16-14 and should be accepted for the reasons given in my vote on Proposal 16-14.

Log # 196 16- 16 - (725-11(a)(2)): Reject SUBMITTER: Arnold G: Wencel, Robbinsdale, MN ]TE'[T~IQFIE~NI~ATION: Other Power Sources. In conformance with the 1000 volt-ampere limitation, circuits supplied from power sources other than transformers shall be protected by overcurrent devices rated to limit the circuit power output to 2500 volt-amperes. The maximum power output of the circuit source shall not exceed 10,000 volt-amperes with the overcurrent protection bypassed. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal submitted is the writer's best guess of what Section 725-11(a)(2) is supposed to mean. I t should be pointed out that Section 90-4 intends that the Code wil l carry considerable weight and in Minnesota the Code is incorporated within the state electrical law. Therefore, i t is advantageous that the Code be written plainly so that jurors, attorneys, wiremen and others concerned with Code interpretation may benefit from this enhancement. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COGENT: (1) The Panel does not feel that the proposed wording clarif ies the intent of Section 725-11(a)(2).

(2) The last sentence in the proposal mentions maximum power output which is not the same as the product of maximum current times maximum voltage.

(3) The proposal requires the overcurrent device to limit the maximum power output to 2500 volt-amperes which was not intended by the present Code.

See Panel Action on Proposal 16-16A. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

16- 16A - (725-11(a)(2)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 16 ~ A T I O N : Revise Section 725-11(a)(2) and add a FPN as follows:

To comply with the 1000 volt-ampere limitation of Section 725-11(a), the maximum output of power sources other than transformers shall be limited to 2500 volt-amperes and the product of the maximum current and maximum voltage shall not exceed 10,000 volt-amperes. These ratings shall be determined with any overcurrent protective device bypossed.

FPN: For definitions of Vmax, Imax, and VAmax, see Note 1, Tables 725-31(a) and (b). SUBSTANTIATION: To clar i fy the Panel's intent of Section 725-11(a)(2). PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 893 16- 17 - (725-12): Accept SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee On Control Circuit Protection RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 725-12 to read as follows:

725-12. Overcurrent Protection. Conductors No. 14 and larger shall be protected against overcurrent in accordance with their ampacities. The ampacities shall be those given in Tables 310-16 through 310-19, without derating factors. Overcurrent protection shall not exceed 7 amperes for No. 18 conductors and 10 amperes for No. 16.

Delete the phrase "for (a) and (b)" from each of the three exceptions.

Revise the fine print note to read: For example, see Section 430-72 for motors and Section 610-53

for cranes and hoists. Substitute the words "shall be considered as protected by" with

the words "shall be permitted to be" in Exception No. 2. Substitute the words "shall be considered to be protected by"

with the words "shall require only short-circuit and ground-fault protection and shall be permitted to be protected by" in Exception No. 3. SUBSTANTIATION: Note - No specific wording was agreed upon by the AHSC, but the opinion expressed verbally at the meeting might be paraphrased as follows:

There are several different categories of faults: I . Equipment Faults. A faul t occurs in equipment that can

directly cause a f i re . 2. Low Impedance Fault. A low impedance fault occurs that

causes a high current to flow unti l the overcurrent protective device opens the circuit , Tests involving low impedance faults were used to help form the basis for the present rules in the Code.

3. High Impedance Fault. A high impedance fault either in equipment or a fault at the end of a long conductor run causes a f i re in the wiring that is not protected against overcurrent at or below the conductor ampacity.

4. A "spark" or an "arcing fault" occurs, for example, in a frayed or broken wire.

The high impedancb fault phenomenon can produce a slow "roasting" of the insulated conductor and eventually a f i re i f the current that flows is greater than the ampacity of the conductor, but less than the rating of the overcurrent protective device. Unless i t can be determined that the high impedance faul t is unlikely in a specific application, the conductor, as a general rule, should be required t6 be protected in accordance with the ampacity.

Under those circumstances where the rule in the Code intends that the conductor needs only to be protected against low impedance faults, then the rule should say i t . The phrase %hall be considered as protected by" is not specific, and is not sufficient to properly express the intent of the rule. PANEL ACTION: Accept.

ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 11 NEC4~TIVE: Miner.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MINER: Substitute the words "shall be considered as protected

by" with the words "protected by" in Exception No. 2. This proposal needs editorial correction as noted above.


Secretary's Note: This Comment (No. 70-40, CMP 16) on Proposal 27 was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See NEC-TCD-1980 Annual Meeting. The following was the Secretary's Note with this Comment:

The Correlating Committee has agreed to set up an ad hoc committee as requested.

Proposal 27 was to revise Section 725-12(b) of the 1978 NEC to read as follows: "Conductors of No. 16 and No. 18 shall be protected by overcurrent device(s) rated at a maximum of 10 amperes and 7 amperes respectively." (See 1980 Annual Meeting Report of the National Electrical Cede Committee). The proposal was originally rejected by CMP 16, but was held for further study following receipt of the following comment received during the period of public review. SUBMI1-FER: Walter Mathews, Bussmann Manufacturing Div., ~ I s o n Company RECOP~4ENDATION: We support the author of Proposal 27. SUBSTANTIATION: 20A Overcurrent devices cannot protect No. 16 and No. 18 conductors from reaching excessive temperature based on U.L. standards for 20A overcurrent devices.

I . Conductors No. 18 and No. 16 leaving the enclosure would be subject to high impedance (low grade) faults that would result in excessive conductor temperatures increasing the possibil i ty of f i re .

The following preliminary tests wore made to determine whether 20A overcurrent devices were capable of protecting No. 18 conductors without excessive or dangerous temperatures in conductors or conductor insulation in order to comply with Section 240-1 (see fine print note and reference to Section 110-9 and especially Section 110-10).

367

Preliminary tests of low currents at or near the rating of the overcurrent device showed excessive and damaging temperatures in the conductors violating Section 240-1. See attached data, The higher temperatures were recorded where the conductor was covered such as under a rug, in a raceway, or multi-cable assemblies.

Tests at higher values of short circuit current resulted in excessive damage to conductors violating Sections 240-1 and 110-10. See attached data.

Nowhere else in the Code are No. 18 and No. 16 conductors permitted to leave an enclosure, or be a part of an approved appliance assembly (usually not over 4 to 6 f t long and protected by an overcurrent device not greater than 20 amperes).

We had historical ly considered Article 725 as being an energy limited article, however, after reviewing the scope and Section 725-11(b), we are concerned. 725-I Scope.

Fire print states that "by usage and electrical power limitations - which differentiate from light and power circuit" i f this is the scope then Section 725-11(b) does not comply with the scope...poss~bly 725-11(b) should be an exception instead.

With the l i ab i l i t y spectre getting bigger, we are concerned that with the greater publicity which will be given Section 725-12 and Section 725-11(b), many more installations wil l be going in with No. 16 and No. 18 conductors making the risk and exposure much greater.

We as a manufacturer of overcurrent devices, cannot just i fy or take the responsibility for the protection of conductors No. 16 and No. 18 with overcurrent devices rated at 20A for fault currents of low magnitude or high impedance value based on the time-current characteristics of U.L. standards for 20 ampere overcurrent devices.

Test Results

Test Fuse: 20

Test Started: 9:45 a .m. Ambient: 25°C Current: 15 Amps

Thermocouple Ambient Time #i #2 69 54 27 11:45 71 56 26 1:45 69 55 26 3:45 70 55 26 5:00


Thermocouple Ambient Time #1 #2 67 56 24 9:45 79 71 24 11:45 80 65 25 1:45 81 66 26 3:45 82 64 25 4:45


Therm6couple Ambient Time #i #2 95 72 27 10:15 98 73 27 12:15 97 71 26 2:15 95 69 26 4:15


Th'ermocouple Ambient Time #1 #2

112 83 25 9:45 110 85 26 11:45 121 85 27 1:45 121 88 27 3:45 112 86 27 4:45


Thermocouple Ambient Time #1 #2

134 98 26 9:#5 wire fatigue 144 102 26 12:00 and deterioration 135 100 25 2:15

Test Started: 7:45 a .m. Ambient: 25Oc Current: 24 Amps

Thermocouple Ambient Time new 12 f t wire used

#1 #2 134 97 25 9:15

Wire deterioration noted at 9:30. Test discontinued and wire changed again. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.' PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 16-17. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unan!mously Affirmative.


Secretary's Note: This Comment (No. 70-39, CMP 16) on Proposal 2A was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See NEC-TCD-1980 Annual Meeting. The following was the Secretary's Note with this Comment:


Proposal 2A, submitted by CMP 4, was to revise Section 725-12(b) of the 1978 NEC to read as follows: "Conductors of No. 18 and 16 which extend beyond the equipment enclosure shall be protected by overcurrent devices rated at a maximum of 7 and 10 amperes respectively. Conductors of No. 18 and 16 which do not extend beyond the equipment enclosure and conductors of No. 14 shall be considered as protected by overcurrent devices of not over 20 amperes rating." (See 1980 Annual Meeting Report of the National Electrical Code Committee). The proposal was originally rejected by CMP 16, but was held for further study following receipt of the following comment received during the period of public review. SUBMITTER: Paul P. Gubany, Bussmann Manufacturing Div., ~ i s o n Company RECOMMENDATION: We support this proposal and CMP 4's Substantiation comment. SUBSTANTIATION: The problem is that 20A overcurrent devices as tested per U.L. standards cannot protect No. 16 and No. 18 conductors from excessive temperature or required by Section 240-i.

I . Conductors No. 18 and No. 16 leaving the enclosure would be subject to high impedance (low grade) faults that would result in excessive conductor temperatures increasing the possibil i ty of f i re .

The following preliminary tests were made to determine whether 20A overcurrent devices were capable of protecting No. 18 conductors without excessive or dangerous temperatures in conductors or conductor insulation in brder to comply with Section 240-1 (see fine print note and reference to Section 110-9 and especially Section 110-10).

Preliminary tests of low currents at or near the rating of the overcurrent device showed excessive and damaging temperatures in the conductors violating Section 240-i. See attached data. The higher temperatures were recorded where the conductor was covered such as under a rug, in a raceway, or multi-cable assemblies.

Tests at higher values of short circuit current resulted in excessive damage to conductors violating Sections 240-1 a~id 110-10. See attached data.

Nowhere else in the Code are No. 18 and No. 16 conductors permitted to leave an enclosure, or be a part of an approved appliance assembly (usually not over 4 to 6 f t long and protected by an overcurrent device not greater than 20 amperes).

We had historically considered Article 725 as being an energy limited article, however, after reviewing the scope and Section 725-11(b), we are concerned. 725-i Scope.

Fine print states that "by usage and electrical power limitations - which differentiate from light and power circuit" i f this is the scope then Section 725-11(b) does not comply with the scope...possibly 725-11(b) should be an exception instead.

With the l i ab i l i t y spectre getting bigger, we are concerned that with the greater publicity which wil l be given Section 725-12 and Section 725-11(b), many more installations wil l be going in with No. 16 and No. 18 conductors making the risk and exposure much greater.

We as a manufacturer of overcurrent devices, c~nnot jus t i fy or take the responsibility for the protection of conductors No. 16 aid No. 18 with Overcurrent devices rated at 20A for fault currents of low magnitude or high impedance value based on the time-current characteristics of U.L. standards for 20 ampere overcurrent devices.

Test Results

Test Fuse: 20


Thermocouple Ambient Time #i #2 69 54 27 11:45 71 56 26 1:45 69 55 26 3:45 70 55 26 5:00

Test Started: 7:45 a .m. Ambient: 23°C Current: 18 An~Ds

Thermocouple Ambient Time #i #2 67 56 24 9:45 79 71 24 11:45 80 65 25 1:45 81 66 26 3:45 82 64 25 4:45


368

Thermocouple Ambient Time #1 #2 95 72 27 10:15 98 73 27 12:15 97 71 26 2:15 95 69 26 4:15

Test Started: 7:45 a .m. Ambient: 25°C Current: 22 A~s

Thermocouple Ambient Time #1 #2

112 83 25 9:45 110 85 26 11:45 121 85 27 1:45 121 88 27 3:45 112 86 27 4:45

Test Started: 7:45 a .m. Ambient: 26°C Current: 24 Am~s

Thermocouple An~)ient Time #1 #2

134 98 26 9:45 wire fatigue 144 102 26 12:00 and deterioration 135 100 25 2:15

Test Started: 7:45 a .m. Ambient: 25°C Current: 24 A~s

Thermocouple Ambient Time new 12 f t wire used

#1 #2 134 97 25 9:15

Wire deterioration noted at 9:30. T~st discontinued and wire changed again. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 16-17. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.


Secretary's Note: This Comment (No. 70-40, CMP 16) on Proposal 2A was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See NEC-TCD-1980 Annual Meeting. The following was the Secretary's Note with this comment:


See Secretary's Note for Proposal 16-19 for information.on the original Proposal 2A for revision of the 1978 NEC. SUBMII-TER: F.K. Kitzantides, NEMA ~ A T I O N : We support Proposal 2A by concurring with the substantiating comments of CMP 4. We also concur with the comments of CMP me~er Mr. J. Meehan. SUBSTANTIATION: A 20-ampere overcurrent device will not protect Nos. 16 and 18 wires based on ampacities of conductors as specified in Sections 725-16(a) and 402-5 of the NEC.

The comments in No. 2 above and the foregoing substantiating comments were developed by the Fuse Section of NEMA but, due to the lack of time, the comments have not received the fu l l consideration necessary to reflect all of the interests of NEMA. However, recommendations as to the formal position to be taken on these comments wil l be developed in time for any letter ballot voting by the NEMA representatives on CMP 16. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 16-17. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.


Secretary's Note: This Comment (No. 70-43, CMP 16) on Proposal 27 was for the 1981 Code and was held for further study. See NEC-TCD-1980 Annual Meeting. The following was the Secretary's Note with this comment:


See Secretary's Note for Proposal 16-18 for information on the original Proposal 27 for revision of the 1978 NEC. SUBHI1-FER: F.K. Kitzantides, NEMA ~ A T I O N : We support Proposal 27 by concurring with the substantiating comments of Mr. T. Crnko and CMP 4. We also concur with the comments of CMP member Mr. J. Heehan. SUBSTANTIATION: A 20-ampere overcurrent device will not protect Nos. 16 and 18 wires based on ampacities of conductors as specified in Sections 725-16(a) and 402-5 of the NEC.

The comments in No. 2 above and the foregoing substantiating comments were developed by the Fuse Section of NEMA but, due to the lack of time, the comments have not received the fu l l consideration necessary to reflect all of the interests of NEMA. However, recommendations as to the formal position to be taken on these comments will be developed in time for any letter ballot voting by the NEMA representatives on C~ 16. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 16-17.


Log # 22 16- 22 - (725-15, Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA ~ A T I O N : Add exception as follows: Exception: When installed in factory- or field-assen~Dled control centers. SUBSTANTIATION: In effect, prohibits wiring of many listed metor control center switchboards. Motor control center switchboard assemblies containing disconnecting means, overcurrent devices, starters, and control transformers (Class 1 circuits) in individual units may supply motors or other equipment which are not functionally associated. This section appears to prohibit the installation of the various control conductors (Class I) within the wireway or gutter space containing the various sets of power circuit conductors leaving the switchboard. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The Panel's intent is to prohibit the indiscriminant mixing of power supply and Class 1 conductors unless functionally associated. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 11 NEGATIVE: Hitchens.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HITCHENS: I agree with the submitter's substantiation. A

factory or field-assembled control center includes an enclosure (as defined in Article 100) and, therefore, I believe its wiring methods for f ie ld wiring is covered by Section 725-15. Although in many installations all equipment powered from a motor control center may be considered as functionally associated, some might question or even disagree with the user's interpretation of "functionally associated" and thus prohibit the mixing of power supply and Class I circuit conductors. The submitter describes, in his substantiation, installation methods which have been followed safety for years.

Further, since Class 1 conductors will be provided with overcurrent protection in accordance their ampacity (see Proposal 16-17) there is no apparent reason why they cannot be installed with power conductors i f the conditions of Section 300-3(a) are met.

Log # 1409 16- 23 - (72B-16(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: James M. Daly, The Okonite Co. ]TE'~R~QF~']q~ATION: Add Type "XFH" to third sentence of Section 725-16(b). SUBSTANTIATION: Contingent upon approval of Proposal Log No. 1408 to add Type XFH to Table 402-3. This addition will permit the use of No. 18 and 16 AWG conductors insulated with cross-linked polyethylene for Class 1 circuits when installed in a raceway or a listed cable. Type MC and Type TC cables would then be specifically authorized to use cross-linked polyethylene insulated conductors in sizes 18 and 16 AWG as now authorized in sizes 14 AWG and larger. The proposed insulation thickness of 30 mils is the same thickness as required on No. 14-10 AWG Type XHHW for 600 Volt rating at 90°C conductor ten~)erature in dry locations (Table 310-13). Existing UL listings permit the use of No. 18 and 16 AWG conductors with cross-linked polyethylene insulation in multiconductor Type MC and TC Cables. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 16-24. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1406 16- 24 - (725-16(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: James M. Daly, The Okonite Co. ~ A T I O N : Add Type "RHF-3" to third sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: Contingent upon approval of Proposal Log No. 1405 to add Type RFH-3 to Table 402-3. This addition will permit the use of No. 16 and 18 AWG conductors insulated with the newer 90°C ethylene propylene rubbers for use as f ixture wire and in Class i circuits when installed in a raceway or a listed cable. Type MC and TC cables would then be specifically authorized to use EPR insulated conductors in sizes 18 and 16 AWG. Current UL listings permit the use of these conductors but the NEC does not specifically authorize this conductor type. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The submitter did not offer data to substantiate that the wire type is suitable for use~as Class 1 circuit wiring

especially with respect to its characteristics with regard to abrasion. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 11 NEGATIVE: Mader.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MADER: See action taken by Panel 6, Proposal 6-92, Table 402-3.

369

Log # 615 16- 25 - (725-17(b)(1), Exception-(New)): Reject SUBMI1-TER: Albert Modiano, American Petroleum Institute ~ A T I O N : Add an exception to read as follows:

Exception: Where control and power conductors to a motor are installed in the same conduit, l ight ly loaded (not over 10 percent of ampacity) control conductors shall not be counted in determining derating factors. SUBSTANTIATION: Normally, current in motor control conductors installed in conduit with the motor power conductors is less than 10 percent of the ampacity of the conductors, and the heat generated is less than 1 percent of the heat generated at rated ampac'ity. This heat is insignificant compared with the heat generated in the power conductors, and should not require derating of the power conductors. Exception No. I of Note 8 to Tables 310-16 through 310-19 generally recognizes that derating factors apply to power and lighting conductors only, but does not specifically include motor branch circuits. See proposal (Log # 614) for changing Note 8 to Tables 310-16 through 310-19. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: I t is the Panel's opinion that there is no data to support 10 percent as a reasonable value. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative,

Log # 1225 16- 26 - (Table 725-31(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: W. R. Hitchens, Wilmington, DE J RECOMMENDATION: Under the Class 2, Inherently Limited Power Source column, revise "0-150" column heading to "Over 30-150." SUBSTANTIATION: The present "0-150" heading overlaps with the "0-20" ~nd the "Over 20-30" columns. This has led to confusion. For example, assume a circuit voltage of 15 volts - Is the Power Source Maximum Nameplate Rating limited to 75VA (5.0 X V max per 0-20 column) or O.O07VA (0.005 X V max per 0-150 column)? Reidentification of the "0-150" column wil l c lar i fy the table and wil l be consistent with similar columns in Table 760-21(a) which have no overlapping. PANEL ACTION: Accept.

In the f i f t h line of the substantiation revise "0.007" to read "0.075." PANEL COMMENT: Typographical error. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Af f i rmat ive.

Log # 1226 16- 27 - (Table 725-31(b)): Accept SUBMITTER: W. R. Hitchens, Wilmington, DE ~ A T I O N : Under the Class 2, Inherently Limited Power Source column, revise "0-150" column heading to "Over 60-150." SUBSTANTIATION: The present "0-150" heading overlaps with the "0-20," "Over 20-30", and "Over 30-60" columns. This has led to confusion. For example, assume a circuit voltage of 15 volts - Is the Power Source Maximum Nameplate Rating limited to 75VA (5.0 X V max per 0-20 column) or O.075VA (0.006 X V max per 0-150 column)? Reidentification of the 0-150 column wil l c lar i fy the table and wi.ll be consistent with similar column in Table 760-21(b) which have no overlapping. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 204 16- 28 - (725-37): Reject SUBMITTER: James F. Meehan, New Haven, CT RECOMMENDATION: Add a new sentence as follows:

Transformers shall not be of the plug-in type, or cord-connected to their source of supply. SUBSTANTIATION: Transformers listed as being Class 2 or Class 3 should be of the direct-wired-in type.

Plug-ln transformers for Class 2 or Class 3 Circuits have not been considered by CMP 16. Where control circuits are involved, the control wiring for such circuits should be connected to the secondary of the transformers. The supply side of such transformers should be direct-connected to a proper source of supply. Due to the fact that there are Class 2 transformers listed by recognized testing laboratories on the market, i t is my opinion that such transformers were not considered for use for installations fal l ing within the scope of Article 725.

In my inspection work I find that there are many Burglar Alarm Systems being installed wherein the transformer for supplying the Class 2 Burglar Alarm System is of the plug-in type. In a number of cases, the installer does not concern himself with the type of circuit that he plugs the transformer into. I have found cases where the transformer was plugged into a twenty-ampere heavy-duty circuit which was not designed for circuit to take Class 2 or Class 3 transformers. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The submitter did not supply enough information to substantiate a Code change at this time. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: I vote negatively on this proposal because Chapter 7,

which contains Article 725 which apply to special conditions of and they supplement or modify the general rules of Chapters 1 through 4.

Article 725 does not modify Article 400 in the use of f lexible cords on the supply side of transformers. Uses permitted by Section 400-7 are: 1. pendant cord, 2. wiring of fixtures, 3. connection of portable lamps or appliances, 4. elevator cables, 5. wiring of cranes and hoists, 6. connection of stationary equipment to faci l i tate their frequent interchange, 7. prevention of the transmission of noise or vibration, 8. appliances where the fastening means and mechanical connections are designed to permit removal for maintenance and repair, 9. data processing cables as permitted by Section 645-2.

Since Section 400-7(a) does not include cord-connected transformers when not a part of an appliance, then the transformers referenced in Section 725-37. The exception to Section 725-37 state that input leads to transformers supplying Class 2 and Class 3 circuits shall be permitted to be smaller than No. 14, but not smaller than No. 18 i f they are not over 18 inches long, and i f the insulation complies with Section 725-16(b).

The intent of Section 725-37 indicates that plug-in transformers and cord-connected transformers are not acceptable. There is no exception to allow for the installation of plug-in transformers for Class 2 or Class 3 circuits, which are not an appliance.

Log # 1877 16- 29 - (725-38(a)(2), Exception No. 2): Reject SUBMITTER: Leonard F. Devine, Jr., West Palm Beach, FL ~ A T I O N : 725-38(a)(2), Exception No. 2 should be changed to read:

Where conductors of the different circuits are separated by a partition or are of the same voltage insulation as the l ight, power, or Class i circuits. SUBSTANTIATION: The problem occurs with Section 725-38(a)(2) in which electricians in this area for years have been installing their control wiring for air conditioning units in with the supply conductors as long as the insulation valve of the wire was rated at the same value as the supply conductors. They are no longer allowing this practice because i t so states i t in the Code but most feel that is a poor rule. The reason they feel this way is because i t is okay to run i t in free air subject to physical damage, but not okay to install i t in a raceway system with supply conductors. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The Panel does not agree that providing Class 1 insulation on Class 2 circuits wil l maintain the integrity contemplated since eventually Class 2 circuits become accessible without such insulation or physical protection. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HITCHENS: The Panel has based its rejection on the statement

that "eventually Class 2 circuits become accessible without such insulation ( i .e . , 600 volt) or physical protection." This rationale is inconsistent with that which is currently allowed by Exception No. i to Sections 725-38(a)1 and 725-38(a)3. I f i t is permitted to relax the separation requirements where conditions of existing Exception No. 1 are met, i t seems logical to also relax the requirements where conditions of the proposed new Exception No. 2 are met.

Log # 1417 16- 30 - (725-38(a)(2), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: James M. Daly, The Okonite Co. REC~ATION: Add an additional exception to Section 726-38(a)(2) to read:

"Exception No. 3: Where the conductors of the l ight, power, or Class I circuits are in Type MC cable, the conductors of the Class 2 or Class 3 circuits are enclosed in a metal sheath equivalent to Type MC cable, or both." SUBSTANTIATION: The metallic sheath or armor of Type MC cable is equivalent to the solid noncombustible fixed barrier or partit ion required in cable tray between cables rated 600 volts and those rated over 600 volts as indicated in Section 318-5(f).

This revision would permit the installation of Class 2 or Class 3 multiconductor cables in the same cable tray as l ight, power, or Class i circuits provided either one or both of the cables has the metallic sheath or armor of Type MC cable (a smooth or corrugated tube or an interlocking armor). Type MC cable is limited to 600 volts and higher which is why the 300 volt Class 3 cables cannot be labeled as Type MC cable.

This revision wil l permit installation of Class 2 or 3 circuit cables in the same tray as l ight, power, or Class I circuits and yet s t i l l provide the safety and separation (through the armor barrier) that is currently permitted by Exception No. 1 to Section 725-38(a)(2) and Exception No. 2 to Section 760-2g(a)(3). PANEL ACTION: Reject.

370

PANEL COMMENT: The use of Type MC cable does not previde the physica! protection and isolation afforded by'the fixed barrier when conductors are added or removed during installation and maintenance. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



that Type MC cable does not provide protection and isolation deemed necessary for addition or removal of cables. Exception No. 1 to Sections 725-38(a)I and 725-38(a)3 now allow relaxation of separation requirements where metal-sheathed conductors are used. I t follows that relaxation should also be allowed where conditions of the proposed new Exception No. 3 are met.

Log # 1129 16- 31 - (725-38(a)(2), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: D. J. Christofersen, United Power Association RECOMMENDATION: Exception No. 3: Where Class 2 or Class 3 conductors are used in utility-secured electrical load management equipment as defined in Section go-2(b)(6) and Section 230-47, Exception No. 3 provided all conductors are insulated for maximum voltage of any conductor in the enclosure. SUBSTANTIATION: Provides an electrical load management installation allowing control of water heaters and heating or conditioning systems within a secured enclosure sealed to prevent unauthorized access or tampering. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: There are methods available that will provide the intended isolation and separation. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1671 16- 32 - (725-38(a)(2), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBHITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No. 3:

Where al l conductors that are insulated for the maximum voltage of any conductor within the enclosure, cable or raceway. SUBSTANTIATION: This section as written would not permit the thermostate Class 2 control wiring with 600-volt insulation to be in the same raceway with power conductors. I f , however, the transformer was changed to Class i type with 600-volt insulation, then the wiring would be permitted in the raceway and enclosure. This section needed revision so that Class 2 wiring insulated according to Class I would be permitted. This problem is especially apparent in the wiring of air conditioning systems for dwelling units. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The Panel does not agree that providing Class 1 insulation on Class 2 circuits will maintain the integrity contemplated since eventually Class 2 circuits become accessible without such insulation or physical protection. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 11 NEGATIVE: HITCHENS.


that "eventually Class 2 circuits become accessible without such insulation or physical protection." This rationale could also be applied to what is currently allowed by Exception No. 1 to Sections 725-38(a)1 and 725-38(a)3. I do not believe i t is logical to assume that a user would install one type of cable within an enclosure, cable, or raceway as proposed in the new Exception No. 3 and then change to a second type in midstream as inferred in the Panel's rationale for rejecting the proposed new exception. With the proposed now overcurrent protection requirements (see Proposal 16-17), i t seems that the Panel's concerns on separation should be diminished.

Log # 172 16- 33 - (725-40(a), Exception): Reject SUBMITTER: Ernest C. Magison, Honeywell, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Reword exception as follows:

Exception: Conductors which are not in thermocouple circuits or in circuits conforming to Section BO1-4(b), Exception shall comply with (b)(3) below i f they are installed in cable tray or in hazardous (classified) locations, or both. SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording of Section 725-40(a) Exception is being interpreted in the f ield to require wiring of all circuits in classified locations to be in conformance with Section 725-40(a)(3). This was not the intent of Section 501-4(b), Exception. When Section 501-4(b), Exception was added to the MATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, the intent has to recognize that circuits of very low energy release in normal operation can be installed safely using any functionally satisfactory wiring because, like thermocouple circuits, they pose no significant hazard of causing ignition. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The Panel intended thermocouple circuits to be in PLTC in both hazardous locations and in cable trays and the exception for thermocouple extension wires applies to the conductor only and not the conductor insulation. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

371

Log # 1418 16- 34 - (725-40(b)(3)): Accept

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. SUBMITTER: James M. Daly, The Okonite Co. ~ A T I O N : Change Section 725-40(b)(3) from "No. 22 through 16" to "No. 22 through 12." SUBSTANTIATION: Frequently the length of the circuit requires a conductor larger than 16 AWG due to conductor resistance. This change wil l authorize the use of No. 14 and 12 AWG conductors in Type PLTC cable as currently permitted under UL Subject 13. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

MADER: The "Substantiation" is incorrect as "UL Subject 13" does not permit PLTC cable conductors in sizes other than 16-22 AWG.

Log # 173 16- 35 - (725-40(a)(3)): Reject SUBMITTER: Ernest C. Magison, Honeywell, Inc. ~ A T I O N : Change last line to read: "or directly buried when the cable is IDENTIFIED for this use." SUBSTANTIATION: In chemical plants i t is often necessary to install special conductor or cable insulation to provide resistance to chemical attack per Section 110-11. This cable is often constructed to special order and is not listed. For example, a standard listed cable may have a PVC sheath. The special cable may have a polyethylene sheath over the PVC to provide additional protection against chemical attack. The unlisted cable is safer, but not permitted by present NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE wording. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Revise (a) to read "(b)" - incorrect reference. The Panel feels the present wording conveys our intent. The provisions of Section 90-4 could permit rel ief . VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

ARTICLE 760 -- FIRE PROTECTIVE SIGNALING SYSTEMS

Log # 1143 16- 36 - (Article 760): Accept SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~ A T I O N : Change the word " l ight" to "electric l ight" in the following sections:

760-29(a), 760-29(a)(1), 760-29(a)(I) Exception No. I , 760-20(a)(2), 760-29(a)(3), and 760-20(a)(3) Exceptions Nos. I and 2. SUBSTANTIATION: With the possible inclusion of optical f iber cable in the NEC, this change wi l l c lar i fy that "conductors of l ight" are not optical f iber conductors. Such confusion has already existed in some areas. The change is also consistent with other sections using the term "electric l ight and power" such as Section 800-21, Section 810-12, 13 and Section 820-11(b). PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: See comments for Proposal 16-3 (Article 725).

Log # 206 16- 37 - (760-1): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 16 that article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMITTER: James F. Meehan, New Haven, CT RECOMMENDATION: Add the following sentence.

Burglar Alarm Systems are not a part of this article. SUBSTANTIATION: I t is my opinion that installation standards for Burglar Alarm Systems should have an article other than depend upon Article 760.

As an inspector, i t is my opinion that safety to l i fe from f i re is the main consideration of Article 760.

In the absence of a separate article for Burglar Alarm Systems then Article 725 would cover such installations.

Article 800 the outside wiring for f i re alarms and burglar alarms and i t does not cover the wiring of such systems in the interior of buildings or structures. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The Panel agrees that Article 760 does not cover burglar alarm systems but the Scope as written does not include burglar alarm systems. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: I am voting negatively on the Panel Action because, you

have on the market a present equipment that is listed by a recognized testing laboratory which includes a burglar alarm system using the same equipment transmitter for both f i re and burglar systems.

I refer to Definition in Chapter 1 of NFPA 74. Also reference is made to Section 2-1.6 Con~)ination Systems in Chapter 2 of NFPA 74.

I f NFPA Standard for Household Fire Warning Equipment can include Burglar Alarm and refer to such system as a con~)ination system, then I would like to see that the Proposal 16-37 (Section 760-1) be accepted.

Log # 205 16- 38 - (760-1): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 16 that art icle scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMITTER: James F. Meehan, New Haven, CT RECOMMENDATION: Add second paragraph as follows:

All references to other standards in this article are for advisory information only. These references are not mandatory in the enforcement of this article. SUBSTANTIATION: Because of references to other standards, many Fire Protective Signaling Systems are being connected into circuits which control burglar alarm systems.

Burglar Alarm Systems have not been considered as part of a Fire Protective Signaling System by CMP No. 16. In many cases Burglar Alarm Systems do not protect against the f i re or smoke generation which may occur. I t is my opinion that when other systems of circuits other than Fire Protective Signaling Systems should be considered by CMP No. 16 as to the effect on l i fe safety and property safety due to f i re .

I have also found that the installer tries to use plug-in type of transformers, which also have not been considered by CMP No. 16. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Presently covered by Section 110-1. VOTE ~ PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATIO~ OF VOTE: MEEHAN: I am voting negatively on the Panel Action because, I

believe even though Section 110-I does contain such a statement, the average installer will not look beyond the particular article he is concerned about.

I refer to Article 517 Health Care Facil it ies, the scope of which incorporates the following: '

"All references to other standards in this article are for advisory information only. These references are not mandatory in the enforcement of this art ic le."

Therefore i f such a statement can be accepted in another article, I see no reason for not having i t accepted in Article 760.

Log # 192, 1535 16- 39 - (760-2 and FPN-(New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERS: Walter F. Schuchard, Hingham, MA (192)

~ u b c o m m i t t e e for the NFPA Signaling Systems Correlating Committee (1535) RECON@MENDATION: Change the last phrase of the paragraph to read. "and power-limited circuits shall comply with Part C or, when the marking required by Section 760-23 is deleted, with Part B.

Also add FPN as follows: FPN: Circuits which do not comply with all of the requirements

of Part C are classified as nonpower-limited circuits and must comply with all of the requirements of Part B. SUBSTANTIATION: Without the marking required by Section 760-23, a circuit is a nonpower-limited circuit and must be installed as such, not withstanding the fact that i t may comply with the requirements of Sections 760-21 and 760-22. The proposed additional language serves to make these requirements clear and precise. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revlse the f i r s t line of the proposed wording as follows: Insert a period after "Part C." Delete the words "or, when the marking required by Section 760-2

is deleted, with Part B." Replace with "Circuits not marked according to Section 760-23 shall comply with Part B."

Retain the proposed fine print note. PANEL COMMENT: The Panel feels the revised wording clarif ies the submitter's intent. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: The change in the last phrase of the paragraph while

innocent in appearance has an undercurrent of the manufacturer (perhaps) removing the sticker from the equipment and sending i t out in the f ie ld. I t is my assun~tion that the testing agency wil l make the marking requirements, either being nonpower limited or being power limited.

The above type of deletion of the marking is not what this Panel has in mind. I am sure that the testing for nonpower limited f i re protective signaling circuits would be different from those test contemplated for power-limited f i re protective signaling circuits.

By inference Section 760-23 intends that power-limited circuits shall be marked at terminations. At present the type of marking is lef t up to the testing agency. I t is my belief that to discourage removal of the marking in the f ie ld, the marking shall be of a durable type not readily removed.

The above are my reasons for voting negative on this proposal. There is no reason for a FPN to Section 760-2. The requirements

of Section 760-2 require all f i re protective signaling circuits to comply with Part A of Article 760; in addition, nonpower-limited circuits shall comply with Part B; and power-limited circuit with Part C.

The Panel Action to require marking in accordance with Section 760-2 shall comply with Part B. Section 760-2 refers only to the classifications of the various f i re protective signaling circuits. There is nothing to require marking in Section 760-2.

Log # 1185 16- 40 - (760-4(a), Tit le): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: M. F. Borleis, Electric Light & Power Group RECOMMENDATION: Delete - Products of Co~ustion.

Change t i t l e to read; (a) Spread of Fire. SUBSTANTIATION: In the 1981-82 NFPA Yearbook and Committee l i s t (Page 101) the Scope of the National Electrical Code Committee states:

SCOPE: This Committee shall consist of a Correlating Committee and Code-Making Panels. I t shall have primary responsibility for preparing documents on minimizing the risk of electr ic i ty as a source of electric shock and as a potential ignition source of fires and explosions. I t shall also be responsible for text to minimize the propogation of f i re and explosions due to electrical installations.


SCOPE: The construction, installation, operation and maintenance of systems for air conditioning, warm air heating and ventilating including f i l te rs , ducts and related equipment to protect l i fe and property from f i re , smoke and gases resulting from f i re or from conditions having manifestations similar to f i re .


However, since the introduction of "products of co~W~ustion," the concern has been directed to those possible products of co~ustion generated by electrical systems subjected to fires "external" to the electrical system. The prime concern, i f we must be concerned about products of combustion, should be those generated b y building components and contents subjected to fires possibly caused by overcurrents or short circuits "internal" to the electrical system.

Since we have l i t t l e or no control over the building components and contents, our prime concern is that the electrical system not

be an ignition source or a means of migration. Of the one million or so building fires estimated to occur

annually, approximately 15 percent are attributed to electrical causes. Of the fires of electrical origin, approximately 10 percent are attributed to wires and cables.

The data submitted to the Technical Subcommittee on Wiring in Ducts and Plenums reflects an abi l i ty to control f i re spread in nonmetallic-sheathed cables.

All of the above indicates that wires and cables, that portion of the electrical system that is permitted to be installed in ducts or plenums, is seldom the ignition source for building f ires and less frequently are they the fuel for f i re migration.

As stated in the scopes of the technical committees responsible for the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NFPA 70) and Air Conditioning and Ventilating Systems (NFPA 90 A) and Residence Type Warm Air Heating and Air Conditioning Systems (NFPA 90 B), the responsibility to protect l i fe and property from smoke and gases resulting from f i re lies with the Air Conditioning Committee, not with the National Electrical Code. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 16-4. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

372

Log # 950 16- 41 - (760-4(a)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Robert E. Taylor, Smoke Control Association ~ A T I O N : Change t i t l e : Revise to read:

Prevention of the Spread of Fire and Smoke. Section 300-21. SUBSTANTIATION: To make Code interpretation more precise and accurate, an accepted "scienti f ic" definition of smoke should be used in Section 725-2(a), Section 800-3(c) and Section 760-4(a) in place of the non-definable term "Products of Combustion." The accepted ASTM definition for smoke has been recommended to Panel 1 for inclusion in the definitions.

The ASTM definit ion for SMOKE (n) - the airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases evolved when a material undergoes pyrolosis or combustion.

A member of the Smoke Control Association wil l be pleased to appear before the Panel to discuss this proposed change in greater depth at the Panel's request. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 16-6. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1383 16- 42 - (760-4(a)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Richard B. Boyd, Jr., Raleigh, NC ~ A T I O N : Delete "or Products of Combustion" in heading. SUBSTANTIATION: See substantiation for similar proposal for Section 725-2(a). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 16-5. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 2092 16- 43 - (760-4(d)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: William A. Schmidt, Veterans Administration ~ A T I O N : Cables shall be tested in accordance with UL 910 and shall have an optical density peak of .5 based on a 20 minute f i re test; and a flame spread rating equivalent of 25 without continuing progressive combustion. SUBSTANTIATION: This is an attempt to c lar i fy requirement for wiring in ceiling and plenum areas. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-9. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1144" 16- 44 - (760-4(d)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee to direct the Panel to clar i fy the Panel Action on this proposal and that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~ A T I O N : Ducts or Plenums. Section 300-22 where installed in ducts or plenums or other space used for environmental air.

Exception to (d): Single and multiconductor cables covered under Part C and listed as having adequate f ire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics shall be permitted for ducts and plenums as described in Section 300-22(b) and other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal makes editorial changes to use the same wording as in Section 300-22 when referring to ducts, plenums and other space used for environmental air. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise proposed t i t l e of Section 760-4(d) to read: "Ducts, Plenums and Other Air-Handling Spaces."

PANEL COI~MENT: To be consistent with the t i t l e of Section 300-22. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

HANSELL: Panel also accepted the proposer's text, IN ADDITION TO revising his t i t l e . Panel Action as stated is not clear on this.

SESSLER: Same as Proposal 16-8.

Log # 1528 16- 45 - (760-4(d), Exception to (d)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Bernard E. Auerbach, Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation ~ A T I O N : Delete the exception to Section 760-4(d).

SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the exception to Section 725-2 is to permit only single- and multiconductor cables in ducts or plenums "having adequate f ire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics - - - . " Regardless of how "low-smoke producing" the cables may be, the exception permits unrestricted use of such cables. Cumulatively, such possible unlimited use represents a potential extremely hazardous condition.

The National Materials Advisory Board of the National Academy of Sciences published a compendium in 1978 consisting of reports by a task force of noted engineers, toxicologists, and academicians from government, industry, and academia. This report is t i t led, "Flammability, Smoke, Toxicity, and Corrosive Gases of Electric Cable Materials."

The report of Stanley Kaufman and N. F. Yocum of Bell Laboratories (Norcross, Georgia) and J. R. Beyreis and J. W. Skjordahl of Underwriters Laboratories (Northbrook, I l l inois) t i t led "Fire Testing of Communication Cables" are quoted as follows:

"The widespread use of plastic-insulated communications cable in plenums over the past 20 years has been recognized in the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. As of 1975, i t contained a provision that "conductors having inherent f ire-resistant and low smoke-producing characteristics approved for the purpose, shall be permitted for ducts, hollow spaces used as ducts, and plenums..." The Code stops at that point and does not define either the procedure for measuring flame and smoke properties or the acceptance levels of performance. Some localities have attempted to use existing tests and have specified minimum flame spread and smoke ratings per ASTM E-84, "The Surface Flame Spread of Materials Test." E-84 is a building materials test that is not intended to apply to cable."

The 1981NEC s t i l l uses the same language, and testing is s t i l l the same; note the last sentence, "E-84 IS A BUILDING MATERIALS TEST THAT IS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO CABLE."

Smoke in i tsel f poses a serious problem, but with smoke we get toxic gases. The combination is always present in thermal decomposition. In an NBS Technical Note (No. 861) t i t led, "A Survey For The Collection of Professional Opinion on Selected Fire Protection Engineering Topics" a part of the survey results indicated concern over SMOKE AND TOXIC GASES. On page 16, the report states that " . . . the ASTM E-84 test method was not being used properly with respect to the noncombustible definition and that i t should be replaced by ASTM E-136."


Attached are per t inent pages from the National Academy of Sciences Report and NBS Technical Note No. 861 cited in th is documentation. In addi t ion, copies or excerpts of the fo l lowing documents are included fo r the information of and study by the Panel:

"Fire Safety of Polymeric Materials in Buildings, State-of-the-Art" Irwin A. Benjamin; Center for Fire Research, National Bureau of Standards.

"Hazard Characteristics of Combustion Products in Fires: The State of the Art Review" - Dr. Merritt M. Birky; Center For Fire Research; Institute for Applied Technology - National Bureau of Standards.

"Fourth Annual Conference on Fire Research" - lleana M. Martinez and Sonya M. Cherry, Editors; Center for Fire Research, National Engineering Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards.

"Toxicity of Smoke Should Be a Consideration in Selecting Building Materials" - Yves Alarie, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh.

"The Events of The Beverly Hills Fire and Its Long Term Health Effects" - Deborah Wallace, Ph.D., President, Public Interest Scientific Consulting Service.

"Fireman, Save Thyself" - Steven Cohn; American Lung Association Bulletin.

Editorial; Modern Plastics, August 1979. Newsletter; Arthur D. L i t t le , Inc. (Note: A copy of the attachments is available from NFPA on

request.) PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 16-7. V.OTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: i i \ NEGATIVE: Meehan.

COMMENT ON VOTE: MANDE: In casting this vote NEMA advises that i t has not

reached any conclusion as to potential tox ic i ty from products in f i re situations. NEMA is encouraged by the NFPA ongoing act iv i ty on toxic i ty and awaits to review the report of the Ad Hoc Committee when available.

MCNEIL: In casting this vote, ICEA advises that i t has not reached any conclusions as to potential tox ic i ty from products in f i re situations. ICEA is encouraged by the NFPA ongoing act iv i ty on toxic i ty and awaits to review the report of the Ad Hoc Committee, when available, EXPLANATION OF VOTE:

MEEHAN: See comments for Proposal 16-7.

373


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Joseph C. Reed, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. ~ A T I O N : Retain exception to (d) and add the following words:

Adequate fire-resistance and low-smoke producing characteristics shall be defined as having a peak optical density not greater than 0.35, an average optical density not greater than 0.10, and a flame spread not greater than 5.0 feet when tested in accordance with Underwriters Laboratories Standard for Safety UL 910. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal defines by test method and quantitative values the meaning of "adequate fire-resistant and Iow-smeke producing characteristics" as used in the 1981 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE Section 760-4(d) Exception to (d).

The 1975 and 1978 NEC recognized the economics and safety of installing certain low voltage and power limited cables in plenums and other spaces handling environmental air without metallic covering. Thus, the Code provided an incentive for industry to develop cables and a test method to meet this requirement. Since that time, material suppliers, cable manufacturers, communication equipment manufacturers and Underwriters Laboratories have spent large amounts of technical effort and time to meet Code requirements.


I~I Gives reproducible data, Can distinguish between materials as to their flame spread

and smoke-producing characteristics, (c) Gives specific values that can be used for judging

"adequate flre-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics" as required by the 1981 NEC.

Underwriters Laboratories Research Bulletin, Number 56 .(April, 1965), studied the effect of smoke development from a material having a specific smoke rating on the v i s i b i l i t y in a room in which the smoke was collected. The UL test results indicated that materials with developed smoke exceeding a level of approximately 450 produced total obstruction of a lighted exit sign 12 feet away. As this amount of smoke would make human evacuation from a smoke-filled building very d i f f i cu l t , a smoke developed limit of 450 is recommended for use in establishing the definition of low-smoke cable construction as tested in the UL 910 test apparatus. Evaluation of the UL 910 test data referred to above shows that a peak optical density of 0.35 and an average optical density of 0.10 correlates with the 450 smoke developed number.

A flame spread of 5.0 feet in the UL 910 test relates very closely to the flame spread rating of 25 judged adequate for building materials when tested by UL 723 (E-84, NFPA 255). Log # 1021 Continued

Action is underway to include the pertinentparts of UL 910 into NFPA 255 Appendix B. This should be completed in time to use a NFPA 255 reference in place of UL 910 in this proposal and maintain the NEC practice on referencing only NFPA documents. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-10. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

16- 46A - (760-4(d), FPN-(New)): Accept Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating

Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: ~ 16 RECOMMENDATION: Add a FPN to follow Exception No. I to read:

"One method of defining low-smoke producing materials is by establishing an acceptable value of the smoke produced per the UL 910 test to a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 and a maximum average optical density of 0.15. Similarly, f ire-resistant cables may be defined as having a maximum allowable flame travel distance of 5.0 feet in the UL 910 test." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated in response to the principles of Proposals 16-43 and 16-46 and to provide guidance as to the intent of the Panel in reference to f i re resistance and low sn~oke without establishing test requirements within the NEC; a FPN was deemed advisable.

( I t is CMP 16's understanding that the submitter of Proposal 16-46 is now in agreement with the numbers cited in the FPN). PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 10 NEGATIVE: Meehan, Ware.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: Same comments as for Proposal 16-11. WARE: This FPN is not necessary to provide guidance because the

exception requires that cables be " l isted." Article lO0-Definitions provides guidance for "l isted" equipment or materials. I t is not good practice or policy for the NEC to reference a specific testing laboratory, as i t is not good practice or policy to l is t a specific manufacturer of a product. I f UL 910 test parameters are modified in the future, then this FPN could lead to confusion.

Log # 925 16- 47 - (760-4(d), Exception No. 2-(New)): Reject


Exception No. 2: Single and Multiconductor cables covered under Part C with a maximum outer diameter of 0.75 inch listed as having adequate f ire-resistant characteristics shall be permitted to extend from the raceway system, in maximum lengths of 30 feet within spaces used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). Any one foot dimension within the space shall not contain more than 6 such cables. SUBSTANTIATION: Same supporting comment as for proposal to add Exception No. 2 to 800-3(d) (See Log #923) PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on 16-13. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

COHEN: This proposal is similar to Proposal 16-12, therefore, the Panel Comment should reference Proposal 16-12 rather than Proposal 16-13. While Proposal 16-12 references the Panel Action on ProposaI 16-13, additional just i f ication is presented in the Panel Comment on Proposal 16-12.

MADER: Under "Panel Comment" the reference to Proposal 16-13 appears to be incorrect as i t should be to Proposal 16-12.


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMII'TER: Wiring Subcommittee for the NFPA Signaling Systems Correlating Committee RECOMMENDATION: Add a second exception to Section 760-4(d).

"Exception No. 2: Cables covered under Part C (Power-Limited Circuit) shall be permitted within spaces used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c) when the cables are connected to equipment and devices located in the space for purposes of sensing within the f i re area or for d4rect action upon the contained air. SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of this revision is to encourage the proliferation of adequate f i re detection and control of smoke spread in air-handling spaces of buildings by providing a low cost wiring method.

The exception will s t i l l require the use of cables having "adequate fire-resistant characteristics" but omits the requirement that cables be low-smoke producing. The fuel load added to the space is inherently limited by the use limitation and, in the opinion of the submitter, is a negligible amount. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The proposal as submitted does not have any limitations on the number, size or f i re and smoke characteristics of the conductors.

See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-49. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment and that this proposal be reported as "Reject" because less than two-thirds of the members eligible to vote have voted in the affirmative. SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group RECOMMENDATION: Add new Exception No. 2 as follows:

Exception No. 2: Single and multiconductor cables covered under Part C with a maximum outer diameter of 0.75 inch listed as having adequate fire-resistant characteristics without excessive smoke generation shall be permitted to extend from the raceway system, in maximum lengths of 30 feet within other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). Any 3 foot by 3 foot square shall not contain more than six cables covered by this exception and those wires and cables covered by Section 800-3(d) Exception No. 2, Section 725-2(b) Exception No. 2, and Section 820-15 Exception No. 2. SUBSTANTIATION: Supporting comment same as for this submitter's proposal to add Exception No. 2 to Section 800-3(d).

374

PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise the proposed wording as follows: In the fourth line delete the words "to extend from the raceway

system," In the f i f t h line delete the words "in maximum lengths of 30

feet." In the sixth line, after "Section 300-2(c).," insert the

following sentence: "Cables that do not connect to £ire and smoke detectors located

in the space to detect a f i re condition within the space or to air-handling equipment which is used for smoke control purposes shall be limited to a length of 30 feet."

In the seventh line, insert the words "a total of" between the words "contain" and "more." In the same line revise the word "covered" to read "permitted."

In the eighth line revise the f i r s t "and" to read "including." In the same line revise the word "covered" to read "permitted." Revise the referenced exceptions in the last two lines to appear

in section-paragraph order. PANEL COMMENT: This proposal was revised for editorial clari f ication and to allow the relaxation of the 30-foot requirement for f i re protection systems to encourage the use of detection and control systems without compromising the number, size or f i re and smoke characteristics of the conductors. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 6 NEGATIVE: Hansell, Hitchens, Mader, Meehan, Miner. NOT VOTING: Mande.



In the 12th line of Panel Action, "length of 30 feet" should be "maximum length of 30 feet."

HITCHENS: See my comments regarding my negative vote on the Panel's action on Proposal 16-13. Log # 1145 Continued.

MADER: I believe the intent of the proposal is that the resulting configuration would compare favorably from the f i re and smoke standpoint to cables presently permitted by the exception to Section 760-4(d); however, existing data does not support such a conclusion.

MEEHAN: See conTnent for Proposal 16-13. MINER: This proposal as written is confusing. What is a 3 foot

by 3 foot square? What plane is i t in? Is a space less than 3 feet in one dimension excluded?

Editorial - "3 foot by 3 foot" should be "3 feet by 3 feet." EXPLANATION OF NOT VOTING:

MANDE: These proposals have merit but specific values for f ire-resistant characteristics need to be specified and the phrase "without excessive smoke generation" requires clari f ication.


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~'I~R~'IT(~ATION: Add new Exception No. 3 as follows: Exception No. 3 to (d):

Single and multiconductor cables covered under Part C listed as having adequate f ire-resistant characteristics without excessive sn~xke generation shall be permitted within other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c) when the building or structure is co~letely protected by an electr ical ly supervised, central station-connected sprinkler system.

Fine Print Note: See NFPA Publication No. 13-1976 for information on installation of sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: Supporting Comment same as for this submitter's proposal to add Exception No. 3 to Section 800-3(d). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 16-15. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: COHEN: See comment on Proposal 16-15. SESSLER: Same as for Proposals 16-14 and 16-15.



Exception No. 3 to (d): Single and multiconductor cables covered under Part C listed as having adequate f ire-resistant characteristics shall be permitted within spaces used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c) when the building or structure is completely protected by an electr ical ly supervised, central station connected sprinkler system.

375

FPN: See NFPA Publication No. 13-1976 for information on installation of sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: Supporting comment same as for proposal to add Exception No. 3 to Section 725-2(b) (See Log #926). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-14. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 892 16- 52 - (760-12): Accept SUBMII'~ER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Control Circuit Protection iTE']~-ME'-N~)ATION: Revise Section 760-12 to read as follows:

760-12. Overcurrent Protection. Conductors No. 14 and larger shall be protected against overcurrent in accordance with their ampacities. The an~)acities shall be those given in Tables 310~16 through 310-19, without derating factors. Overcurrent protection shall not exceed 7 amperes for No. 18 conductors and 10 amperes for No. 16.

Delete the phrase "for (a) and (b) above" from the exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Note: No specific wording was agreed upon by the AHSC, but the opinion expressed verbally at the meeting might be paraphrased as follbws:

There are several different categories of faults: i . Equipment Faults. A fault occurs in equipment that can

directly cause a f i re . 2. Low Impedance Fault. A low impedance fault occurs that

causes a high current to flow until the overcurrent protective device opens the circui t . Tests involving low impedance faults were used to help form the basis for the present rules in the Code.

3. High Impedance Fault. A high impedance fault either in equipment or a fault at the end of a long conductor run causes a f i re in the wiring that is not protected against overcurrent at or below the conductor ampacity.

4. A "spark" or an "arcing fault" occurs, for example, in a frayed or broken wire.

The high impedance faul t phenomenon can produce a slow "roasting" of the insulated conductor and eventually a f i re i f the current that flows is greater than the ampacity of the conductor, but less than the rating of the overcurrent protective device. Unless i t can be determined that the high impedance fau)t is unlikely in a specific application, the conductor as a general rule, should be required to be protected in accordance with the ampacity.

Under those circumstances where the rule in the Code intends that the conductor needs only to be protected against low impedance faults, then the rule should say i t . The phrase "shall be considered as protected by" is not specific, and is not sufficient to properly express the intent of the rule. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1549 16- 53 - (760-14): Reject SUBMITTER: Wiring Subcommittee for the NFPA Signaling Systems ~ n g Committee RECOMMENDATION: Add second sentence:

Conductors shall be copper and stranded conductors shall have a maximum of seven (7) strands. SUBSTANTIATION: Because Section 760-17 and Section 760-30 have recognized copper and maximum of seven (7) strands to be consistent. Section 760-14 should have second sentence as part of wiring method.

Also, UL Standard No. 62 for f lexible cords and f ixture wire requires seven (7) strand for f ixture wires other than fine stranded. PANEL ACTION: Reject, PANEL COMMENT: This proposal is not applicable to Section 760-14.

See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-56. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 194, 1536 16- 54 - (760-16(a)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERS: Walter F, Schuchard, Hingham, MA (194) ~ u b c o m m i t t e e of the NFPA Signaling Systems Correlating Committee (1536) RECOMMENDATION: Add the word "Copper" at the beginning of each sentence.

Also add "Exception: Wire Types "PTF" and PAF" shall be only for ultra high temperature applications." SUBSTANTIATION: Conductors should be designated as copper, so that 760-16(a) is consistent with 760-17 and 760-30(a).

The exception is necessary because conductors of these wire types are nickel or nickel coated copper and are the only types available in their temperature range.

PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise the exception to read: Exception to (b) and (c). Wire Types PTF and PAF shall be

permitted only for high-temperature applications between 90°C and 250°C. '' PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-56. The word "ultra" was deleted and the temperature range specified to c lar i fy the intent of the proposal.

See also Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-55. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

HANSELL: In the 4th line of Panel Action, "permitted only for" should be "permitted to be used only for . "

Log # 195, 1537 16- 55 - (760-16(b)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee directs that this proposal be referred to CMP 6 for correlation. SUBMITTERS: Walter F. Schuchard, Hingham, MA (195) i~T~Fng'-~-uI~committee for the NFPA Signaling Systems Correlating Committee (1537) RECO~MENDATION: Delete "TFF, TFFN, PFF, PGFF, PTFF, SFF-2, FFH-2, PAFF, ZFF and KFF-2.

Also editor ial ly delete reference to the above for use as permitted by Section 760-16 in Table 402-3. SUBSTANTIATION: Conductors for all above are "fine-stranded" construction where failure of all but one strand could produce a "normal" signal yet fa i l on "alarm" actuation. The purpose of electrical supervision would have been negated. Deletion of the above would result in a maximum of 7 strands now recognized in Sections 760-17 and 760-30. There is enough factor of safety in copper that a single strand of 7 strand conductor can s t i l l carry alarm current. This finding was based on actual tests. This would not be true for fine stranded wire. The types of wire being deleted do not con~oly with the requirements of Sections 760-17 and 760-30 and must be deleted to make Section 760-16(b) consistent with the balance of Article 760. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Accept the proposed deletions and also delete "PTF" and "PAF" in Section 760-16(b). PANEL COMMENT: The deletion of "PTF" and "PAF" is for consistency with the Panel Action on Proposal 16-54. I t is understood the types PTF and PAF wil l not be deleted from Table 402-3 (Applications Provisions Column). VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

16- 56 - (760-16(c)-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 16 RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 760-16(c) to read:

760-16(c). Conductor Materials. Conductors shall be solid or stranded (maximum of 7 strands) copper. SUBSTANTIATION: To incorporate the intent of Proposal 16-53. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 191, 1538 16- 57 - (760-22): Accept SUBMITTERS: Walter F. Schuchard, Hingham, MA (191) ~ u b c o m m i t t e e for the NFPA Signaling Systems Correlating Conlnittee (1538) RECOMMENDATION: Change the f i r s t paragraph to read "any short-circuit faul t" on the f i re alarm system primary (main) power supply, alarm ini t iat ing, signaling line, or required alarm indicating circuits "that would prevent proper alarm operation." SUBSTANTIATION: The wording in the 1981 Code could be interpreted to require supervision of supplementary circuits, standby power circuits and certain annunciator circuits, which are not required to be supervised by the signaling standards. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: While the signaling standard may not require electric

supervision, that is no reason for the Panel to disregard a condition that might occur. I would have to have more information that all supplementary circuits cannot adversely affect the operation of the system for proper alarms. Also where the normal power may be absence, (I refer to the eastern coast blackout of 1965). In such cases I am sure that proper alarm conditions should be maintained, even the electrical supervision.

Safety to l i fe is far more important than the elimination of a particular type of supervision which may be needed.

I quote from the 1979 Volume 7 National Fire Codes page 71-28 Section 2-4 Electrical Supervision, paragraph (c) of 2-4.3.1.

"The circuits of a supplementary signal annunciator, provided that the fault condition of this circuit results only in the loss of annunciation."

Log # 1543 16- 58 - (760-29(a)(I), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBMI1-FER: Wiring Subcommittee for the NFPA Signaling Systems Correlating Committee RECOMMENDATION: Add "Exception No. 3: Where the Class 1 or nonpower-limited f i re protective signaling circuit conductors are part of the same f i re protective signaling system and no conductor operates at more than 150 volts to ground." SUBSTANTIATION: Many jurisdictions require all f i re alarm wiring to be run in conduit. The existing Code, i f followed, requires a dual conduit system to be installed; one conductor for the power-limited circuits and one conduit for the nonpower-limited or Class 1 circuits.

With all the conductors being insulated for at least 300 volts, no shock hazard wil l be introduced by allowing power-limited circuits to be run in the same raceway, conduit or cable with nonpower-limited and Class 1 circuits.

I t has been common practice to run ini t iat ing circuits (typical ly power-limited) and indicating circuits (typical ly nonpower-limited) in the same raceway, conduit or cable system. To my knowledge, this common practice has not led to a shock or f i re hazard. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COF~4ENT: I t is the Panel's intent that power-limited and nonpower-limited wiring not be intermixed due to safety considerations.

See also the Panel Comment on Proposal 16-29. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HITCNENS: The Panel has indicated in its rejection that i t is

concerned about intermixing cables due to safety considerations and makes reference to its comments regarding the rejection of Proposal 16-29. The submitter's proposal covers a system which is functionally associated. Exception No. 1 to Section 760-29(a)1 now allows relaxation of separation requirements. See also my comments regarding my negative vote on the Panel's action on Proposal 16-29.

Log # 188, 1540 16- 59 - (760-29(a)(1), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBMITTERS: Walter F. Schuchard, Hingham, MA (188)

Wiring Subcommittee for the NFPA Signaling Systems Correlating Committee (1540) RECOMMENDATION: Add "Exception No. 3: Circuits of the same f i re protective signaling system operating at not more than 150 volts to ground." SUBSTANTIATION: I t is common practice in many sections of the country to separate circuits of f i re protective signaling systems from all other circuits in order to provide additional protection against disruption of service. Since all wiring and equipment is insulated for at least 300 volts, no additional shock hazard is introduced and the additional protection afforded to power-limited circuits that share the same conduit, raceway, cable, etc. as nonpower-limited circuits would improve the security of the overall system. This change reflects what has been and probably s t i l l is common practice.

In addition, UL listed control equipment may have power-limited and nonpower-limited circuits on adjacent terminals and there is no practical way to prevent this, since the classification of circuits depends not only on limiting the power available at the terminals, but also on the installation procedures, circuit markings and supervision. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-58. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

HITCHENS: I concur in the intent of this proposal as evidenced in ntv vote on Proposal 16-58.

Log # 189, 1541 16- 60 - (760-29(a)(2), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBMII-TERS: Waiter F. Schuchard, Hingham, MA (189) ~ u b c o m m i t t e e for the NFPA Signaling Systems Correlating Committee (1541) RECOMMENDATION: Add "Exception No. 3: Circuits of the same f i re protective signaling system operating at not more than 150 volts to ground." SUBSTANTIATION: I t is common practice in many sections of the country to separate circuits of f i re protective signaling systems from all other circuits in order to provide additional protection against disruption of service. Since all wiring and equipment is insulated for at least 300 volts, no additional shock hazard is introduced and the additional protection afforded to power etc. as nonpower-limited circuits would improve the security of the overall system. This change reflects what has been and probably s t i l l is common practice.

In addition, UL listed control equipment may have ~ower-limited and nonpower-limited circuits on adjacent terminals and there is no practical way to prevent this, since the classification of circuits depends not only on limiting the power available at the terminals, but also on the installation procedures, circuit markings and supervision.

376

PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-58. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

HITCHENS: I concur in the intent of this proposal as evidenced in my vote on Proposal 16-62.

Log # 193, 1539 16- 61 - (760-2g(a)(2), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBMITTERS: Walter F. Schuchard, Hingham, MA (193}

Wiring Subcomittee for the NFPA Signaling Systems Correlating Committee (1539) RECOV~MENDATION: Add "Exception No. 3: Conductors and cables of power-limited, nonpower-limited and Class i signaling circui ts of the same f i re protective signaling system shall be permitted in the same outlet box, junction box, or similar f i t t i ngs or compartments provided all c i rcui ts operate at not more than 150 volts to ground." SUBSTANTIATION: This exception is required to permit e f f ic ient and cost ef fect ive instal lat ions and equipment design. Since the classi f icat ion of c ircui ts depends not only on equipment design, but also on ins ta l la t ion procedures, power-limited and nonpower-limited circui ts can terminate on adjacent terminals of the same terminal str ip of a control unit . Separation of c i rcui ts by barrier or spacing is not practical. UL has l isted such equipment for years without any reported problems. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-58. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Aff irmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:


Log # 1545 16- 64 - (760-29(a)(3), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Wiring Subcommittee for the NFPA Signaling Systems ~o-r~-elat-Fng Committee RECOMMENDATION: Add "Exception No. 3: Where the Class I or nonpower-limited f i re protective signaling c i rcu i t conductors are part of the same f i r e protective signaling system and no conductor operates at more than 150 volts to ground." SUBSTANTIATION: Many jur isdict ions require al l f i r e alarm wiring to be run in conduit. The existing Code, i f followed, requires a dual conduit system to be instal led; one conductor for the power-limited circui ts and one conduit for the nonpower-limited or Class I c i rcui ts .

With al l the conductors being insulated for at least 300 volts, no shock hazard wi l l be introduced by allowing power-limited circui ts to be run in the same raceway, conduit or cable with nonpower-limited and Class i c i rcui ts .

I t has been common practice to run in i t ia t ing c i rcui ts ( typ ica l ly power-limited) and indicating circui ts ( typ ica l ly nonpower-limited) in the same raceway, conduit or cable system. To my knowledge, this common practice has not led to a shock or f i re hazard. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-58. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Aff irmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:


Log # 1544 16- 62 - (760-29(a)(2), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Wiring Subcommittee for the NFPA Signaling Systems ?~o-r-reTa1-Fng Committee RECOMMENDATION: Add "Exception No. 3: Where the Class I or nonpower-limited f i r e protective signaling c i rcu i t conductors are part of the same f i re protective signaling system and no conductor operates at more than 150 volts to ground." SUBSTANTIATION: Many jur isdict ions require al l f i re alarm wiring to be run in conduit. The existing Code, i f followed, requires a dual conduit system to be instal led; one conductor for the power-limited circui ts and one conduit for the nonpower-limited or Class 1 c i rcui ts .

With all the conductors being insulated for at least 300 volts, no shock hazard wi l l be introduced by allowing power-limited circui ts to be run in the same raceway, conduit or cable with nonpower-limited and Class 1 c i rcui ts .

I t has been common practice to run in i t ia t ing circui ts ( typ ica l ly power-limited) and indicating circui ts ( typ ica l ly nonpower-limited) in the same raceway, conduit or cable system. To my knowledge, this common practice has not led to a shock or f i r e hazard. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COF~MENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-58. ~ A C T I O N :

AFFIRFS~TIVE: 11 NEGATIVE: Hitchens.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HITCHENS: See my comments regarding my negative vote on the

Panel's action on Proposal 16-58.

Log # 190, 1542 16- 63 - (760-29(a)(3), Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject SUBMII-FERS: Walter F. Schuchard, Hingham, MA (190)

Wiring Subcommittee for the NFPA Signaling Systems Correlating Committee (1542) RECOMMENDATION: Add "Exception No. 3: Circuits of the same f i re protective signaling system operating at not more than 150 volts to ground." SUBSTANTIATION: I t is common practice in many sections of the country to separate c i rcui ts of f i re protective signaling systems from all other circui ts in order to provide additional protection against disruption of service. Since al l wiring and equipment is insulated for at least 300 volts, no additional shock hazard is introduced and the additional protection afforded to power limited circui ts that share the same conduit, raceway, cable, etc. as nonpower-limited c i rcui ts would improve the security of the overall system. This change reflects what has been and probably s t i l l is common practice.

In addition, UL l isted control equipment may have power limited and nonpower-limited c i rcui ts on adjacent terminals and there is no practical way to prevent this, since the classi f icat ion of c i rcui ts depends not only on l imiting the power available at the terminals, but also on the instal lat ion procedures, c i rcu i t markings and supervision. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-58. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:


377

ARTICLE 770 -- OPTICAL FIBER CABLES

Log # 1147 16- 65 - (Article 770-(New)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. The Correlating Committee advises CMP 16 that article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ]TE'CO'~ITE~I~ATION: Add a new Article 770 to Chapter 7, "Special Conditions," to cover optical fiber cables. 770-I. Scope. The provisions of this article apply to the installation of optical fiber cables along with electrical conductors. This article does not cover the construction of optical fiber cables. I t also does not cover the installation of optical f iber cables in circumstances other than those covered in this article. 770-2. Optical Fiber Cables. Optical f iber cables transmit l ight for control, signaling and communications through an optical f iber.

770-3. Types. Optical f iber cables can be grouped into three types.

(a) Nonconductlve. These cables contain no metallic members and no other electr ical ly conductive materials.

(b) Conductive. These cables contain noncurrent-carrying conductive members such as metallic strength mempers and metallic vapor barriers.

(c) Hybrid. These cables contain optical fibers and current-carrylng electrical conductors and shall be classified as electrical cables in accordance with the type of electrical conductors. 770-4. Optical Fibers and Electrical Conductors.

(a) With conductors for electric l ight, power, or Class 1 circuits. Optical fibers shall be permitted within the same hybrid cable for electric l ight, power, or Class 1 circuits operating at 600 volts or less only where the functions of the optical fibers and the electrical conductors are associated. Nonconductive optical f iber cables shall be permitted to occupy the same raceway or enclosure with conductors for electric l ight, power or Class I circuits operating at 600 volts or less only where the functions of the optical f iber cables and the electric conductors are associated.

Installations in raceway shall comply with Section 300-17. (b) With Other Conductors. Optical fibers shall be permitted

in the same cable, and conductive and nonconductive optical f iber cables shall be permitted in the same raceway or enclosure with conductors of any of the following:

(1) Class 2 and Class 3 remote-control, signaling and power-limited circuits in compliance with Article 725.

(2) Power-limited f i re protective signaling systems in compliance with Article 760.

(3) Communications circuits in compliance with Article 800. (4) Community antenna television and radio distribution systems

in compliance with Article 820. Conductive members of optical f iber cables shall be grounded in

accordance with Article 250. 770-5. Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations in hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and ventilation or air-handling ducts shall be so made that the possible spread of f i re or products of combustion wil l not be substantially increased. openings around penetrations through fire-resistance rated walls, partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods. 770-6. Vertical Runs. optical fiber cables in a vertical run in a shaft shall be listed as having fire-resistance characteristics capable of preventing the carrying of f i re from floor to floor.

Exception: Where the cables are encased in noncombustible tubing or are located in a fireproof shaft having f i re stops at each floor. 770-7. Ducts and Plenums and Other Spaces Used for Environmental Air. Installations of optical f iber cables in ducts or plenums or other spaces used for environmental air shall comply with Section 300-22 as to installation methods.

Exception: Optical f iber cables listed as having adequate f ire-resistant and lew-smoke producing characteristics shall be permitted for ducts and plenums as described in Section 300-22(b) and other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c).

770-8. Grounding of Entrance Cables. Where exposed to contact with electric light or power conductors, the metallic members of aerial optical f iber cables entering buildings shall be grounded or shall be interrupted close to the entrance of the building by an insulating Joint or equivalent device. SUBSTANTIATION: Fiber optic technology should be included in the Code to permit its orderly development and usage for communications, signaling and control circuits in lieu of metallic conductors. I t is reasonable for an optical f iber cable to be installed in electrical raceway and enclosures along with associated electrical conductors. An example of such an application is an optical f iber control circuit for electr ical ly noisy equipment. Since optical fibers are not affected by electrical noise, one could, i f permitted by the Code, run the optical f iber cable in the same raceway with the power wiring. A further example is the use of optical fiber communications cable. One would expect to place this cable in a common raceway along with ordinary metallic conductor telephone cable. However, i f the Code is not changed to recognize optical f iber technology, a separate conduit system may be demanded by some local authorities.

The proposed article divides optical f iber cables into three types: nonconductive, conductive and hybrid. Obviously the nonconductive types cannot be accidentally energized when placed in raceway so i t is proposed that they be permitted in raceway with conductors for electric l ight, power or Class I circuits operating at less than 600 volts only where the functions of optical f iber cables and electrical conductors are associated. Since the conductive optical f iber cables have a potential for inadvertant energizing of metallic strength members and metallic vapor barriers, i t is proposed that these cables be permitted to share raceway with low voltage wiring systems only, and the conductive members of these cables must be grounded. Grounding (or isolation) is also proposed for entrance cables in a manner consistent with the Code requirements for ordinary communications cable.

The proposed article deals with f i re properties of optical f iber cables in a manner identical with other low voltage wiring.

The scope statement, in order to be consistent with the purpose of the Code, which is the "practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of e lectr ic i ty," limits the coverage of the proposed article to Joint installations of electrical cable and optical fiber cable. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise Section 770-4(b)(4) to read:

770-4(b)(5). Add a new Section 770-4(b)(4) to read:

(4) Radio and television circuits in compliance with Part B of Article 810. PANEL COGENT: The new Section 770-4(b)(4) was added to include a f ield application currently employed in an earth-station receiving system. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NEGATIVE: Hitchens, Mande, Meehan.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HITCHENS: While I concur that the subject of f iber optic

technology needs to be addressed by NFPA, I do not believe the NEC is the appropriate place. I t is my opinion i t should be addressed in a separate NFPA standard which could cover not only the electrical considerations but other areas such as splicing, support, environmental considerations, etc. Precedence has already been established for this approach in NFPA 79 (an electrical standard for machine tool wiring).

I believe adoption of this proposal could establish a bad precedent. Should i t be adopted to establish rules by which materials, may be run in raceways with conductors, the scope of the Code could be broadened beyond identifying specific items such as Fiber Optic cable. That is, the Code could cover the inclusion of other noncurrent-carrying types of communication systems in raceway with conductors. Noncurrent-carrying types of systems could also include pneumatic control systems, hydraulic systems, acoustical wave guides, etc.

MANDE: Prefer the wording of the original Proposal 16-66 submitted by the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fiber Optics.

MEEHAN: There has been no fact finding report submitted with the proposal. There is nothing given to indicate the construction of the optical f iber cables.

The Panel in the past has rejected wiring that has had no fact finding evidence as to the abrasive qualities, of the cables.

At the present time Article 90 does not include cables other than electrical conductors.

378

At the present time there are on the market, pneumatic type of controls which have not been accepted as part of the NEC Code. I see no difference between optical fiber cables and the penumatic type of controls.

Is there as of this date any control over the manufacturing of optical fiber cables, do they contain as part of the construction carbon that could very well in the presence of other cables, perhaps become a high resistance circuit under faul t conditions.

Log # 897 16- 66 - (Article 770-(New)): Accept in Principle

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. The Correlating Committee advises C~ 16 that article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee On Fiber Optics ~ D A T I O N : Add a new article to Chapter 7, "Special Conditions," to cover optical fiber cables. The proposed new article has been tentatively number 770.

PROPOSED ARTICLE 770 - OPTICAL FIBER CABLES

770-1. Scope. The provisions of this article apply to the installation of optical f iber cables along with electrical conductors. This article does not cover the construction of optical fiber cables. I t also does not cover the installation of optical fiber cables in circumstances other than those covered in this art icle. 770-2. Optical Fiber Cables. Optical fiber cables transmit l ight for control, signaling and communications through an optical f iber. 770-3. Types. Optical fiber cables can be grouped into three types.

(a) Nonconductive. These cables contain no metallic members and no other electr ical ly conductive materials.

(b) Conductive. These cables contain noncurrent-carrying conductive members such as metallic strength members.

(c) Hybrid. These cables contain optical fibers and current-carrying electrical conductors. 770-4. Locations and Other Articles.

(a) Nonconductive Optical Fiber Cables. Nonconductive optical fiber cables shall be permitted to occupy the same raceway or enclosure with any electrical circuit operating at less than 600 volts. Installations in raceway shall comply with Section 300-17.

(b) Conductive Optical Fiber Cables. When their conductive members are grounded in accordance with Article 250, conductive optical fiber cable shall be permitted to run in raceway or enclosure with any of the following:

( i ) Circuits operating at less than 50 volts in compliance with Article 720.

(2) Class 2 and Class 3 remote-control, siRnaling and power-limited circuits in compliance with Art icle 725.

(3) Power-limited f i re protective signaling systems in compliance with Art icle 760.

I ~ Communications circuits in compliance with Article 800. Radio and television circuits in compliance with Art icle

810. (6) Community antenna television and radio distribution systems

in compliance with Article 820. Instal lat ions in raceway shall comply with Section 300-17. (c) Hybrid Cable. Hybrid cables shall be installed in

compliance with all the applicable requirements of this Code. (d) Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion. Installations in

hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and ventilation or air-handling ducts shall be so made that the possible spread of f i re or products of combustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around penetrations through f i re - res is tance rated wal ls , pa r t i t i ons , f l oo r s , or cei l ings shall be f i restopped using approved methods.

( i ) Vert ical Runs. Optical f iber cables in a ver t ica l run in a shaft shall have f i r e - r e s i s t a n t character is t ics capable of preventing the carry ing of f i r e from f loo r to f l oo r .

Exception: Where the cables are encased in noncombustible tubing or are located in a f i rep roo f shaft having f i r e stops at each f loo r .

(2) Ducts and Plenums. Ins ta l la t ions of opt ical f i be r cables in ducts and plenums shall comply with Section 300-22 as to i ns ta l l a t i on methods.

Exception to (2). Optical f iber cables l i s ted as having adequate f i r e - r e s i s t a n t and low-smoke producing character is t ics shall be permitted for ducts, hollow spaces used as ducts, and plenums other than those described in Section 300-22(a).

(e) Grounding of Entrance Cables. Where exposed to contact with e lec t r i c l i gh t or power conductors, the meta l l i c members of aerial opt ical f iber cables entering bui ldings shall be grounded or shall be interrupted close to the entrance of the bui ld ing by an insu la t ing j o i n t or equivalent device.

SUBSTANTIATION: Fiber optic technology should be included in the Code to permit i ts orderly development and usage for communications, signaling and control circuits in lieu of metallic conductors. The members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fiber Optics consider i t reasonable for an optical f iber cable to be installed in electrical raceway and enclosures along with electrical conductors. An example of such an application is the one of an optical fiber control circuit for electr ical ly noisy equipment. Since optical fibers are not affected by electrical noise, one could, i f permitted by the Code, run the optical fiber cable in the same raceway with the power wiring. A further example is the use of optical fiber communications cable. One would expect to place this cable in a common raceway along with ordinary metallic conductor telephone cable. However, i f the Code is not changed to recognize optical fiber technolo~.y, a separate conduit system may be demanded by some local authorities.

The proposed art icle divides optical fiber cables into three types: nonconductive, conductive and hybrid. Obviously the no nco nduct i ve types cannot be acci dent al I y energized when placed in raceway so i t is proposed that they be permitted in any raceway with circuits operating at less than 600 volts. Since the conductive optical fiber cables have a potential for inadvertant energizing of the metallic strength members, i t is proposed that these cables be permitted to share raceway with low voltage wiring systems only, and the conductive members of these cables must be grounded. Grounding (or isolation) is also proposed for entrance cables in a manner consistent with the Code requirements for ordinary communications cable.

The proposed art icle deals with the f i re properties of optical f iber cables in a manner identical with other low voltage wiring.

The scope statement, in order to be consistent with the purpose of the Code, which is the "practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electr ic i ty," limits the coverage of the proposed art icle to jo int installations of electrical cable and optical fiber cable. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 16-65, the wording of which is more comprehensive and incorporates current CMP 16 actions. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFF IRIV~TIVE : 9 NEGATIVE: Hitchens, Meehan.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE : HITCHENS: See my comments regarding my negative vote on the

Panel's Action on Proposal 16-65. MEEHAN: Same comments as fo r Proposal 16-65.

ARTICLE 800 -- COMMUNICATION CIRCUITS

Log # 1148 16- 67 - (Article 800): Accept SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group RECOMMENDATION: Change the word " l ight" to "electric l ight" in ~he following sections:

800-2, 800-3(a)(1), 800-3(a)(1) Exception No. 1, 800-3(a)(2), 800-3(a)(3), 800-3(a)(3) Exception No. 2, 8(X]-11(a), 800-11(a)(i), 800-ii(a)(2), and 800-11(c)(3). SUBSTANTIATION: With the possible inclusion of optical fiber cable in the NEC, this change will c lar i fy that "conductors of l ight" are not optical fiber conductors. Such confusion has already existed in some areas. The change is also consistent with other sections using the term "electric l ight and power" such as Section 800-21, Section 810-12, 13, and.Section 820-11(b). PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRt~TIVE : 11 NEGATIVE: Meehan.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: See comments on Proposal 16-3.

16- 66A - (800-1): Accept Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 16 that

art ic le scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMII-FER: CMP 16 RECOMHENDATION: Add an additional sentence at the end of the f i r s t paragraph of Section 800-i to read:

"Where optical fiber cable is used Article 770 shall apply." SUBSTANTIATION: To recognize the introduction of Article 770. PANEL ACTION: Accept. ~ L ACTION:

AFFIR~TIVE : 11 NEGATIVE: Meehan.

COMMENT ON VOTE: HITCHENS: My affirmative vote applies only i f Proposal 16-65 is

accepted. (See my negative vote on Proposal 16-65.) EXPLANATION OF VOTE:

MEEHAN: I voted negatively on this proposal because of my negative vote against the inclusion of Article 770 (New) in the NEC. Therefore i f the proposed Article 770 is not included then there is no need of Proposal 16-66A.

379

Log # 1615 16- 68 - (800-X, Part A): Reject SUBMITTER: Melvin K. Sanders, Ankeny, IA RECOM~NDATION: 800-X. Part A, Other Articles. Wiring methods from the point of entrance of communication circuits shall comply with Chapters 1 through 4. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 98-3 indicates that Chapter 8 articles are independent of the other Code requirements and require specific references to other parts of the Code before they apply to an installation. American Telephone and Telegraph (AT & T) is now in the process of ending the practice of being their own installer of circuits within buildings. The new companies which will then take over the actual on-site premise wiring should be subject to the same Code requirements as others who do on-site wir.ing and are subject to inspections.

I t is common practice in our area for telephone cables to be draped across pipes, ducts, and building steel and fastened randomly with ty-raps to everything and anything, most often i t ends up strapped to electric raceway to provide i t with the necessary support. This is taking unfair advantage of the electrical industry having to secure its raceway as detailed in Section 300-11 and elsewhere in the Code. Since load-carrying conductors capability to carry current is dependent upon the dissipation of heat from raceway or cables to the surrounding air, cables fastened to i t inhibit this heat transfer and could cause overheating of the enclosed conductors. Another danger is when an area is involved with a f i re , the exposed telephone cable jackets burn with great heat and intensify damage to the raceway enclosed conductors. I recently helped investigate a f i re in an equipment room of a high-rise office building where the f i re was on nonelectrical origin. The 3 1/2 inch r igid aluminum conduits passing through and into this area were exposed to the f i re heat. One raceway was surrounded with 15 or more large multiconductor telephone cables strapped to i t , with the other raceways clear of cables. The electric conductors within the raceway encircled by the telephone conductors were checked by a megger and found to have a poor insulation reading. Upon removal of these conductors, i t was found the insulation had been overheated and distorted with the conductors showing through the insulation. The other raceways not so encircled by telephone cables were also checked and found to be free from heat degradation. In 1981 NEC Section 384-2 requires space or areas to be free from foreign systems and i t should be that our electrical raceway also be free from being a support for other systems or objects.

The t~q~ical installation has telephone cables passing through short stub sections of pipe and pulled up t ightly so they are kinked over the butt end of the pipe when they are pulled up and secured in place to (generally) a raceway. There is a need to have instructions on supports, protection on cables from edges and support spacings. PANEL ACTION : Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The substantiation is insufficient to support such a substantive change. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 898 16- 69 - (800-3(a)(2)): Reject SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fiber Optics RECO~IENDATION: Change the word " l ight" to " l ighting." SUBSTANTIATION: The words "conductors of l ight" in the phrase "conductors of l ight or power circuits" has been misconstrued to mean optical fibers. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The intent of this proposal has been met by the Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-67. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 11 NEGATIVE: Meehan.

EXPLANATION CF VOTE: MEEHAN: I voted negative on this proposal because of my

negative votes on Proposal 16-3. Wherein I indicate sectlons of the NEC Code that at the present time uses the term "l ighting" instead of " l ight . "

Log # 1149 16- 70 - (800-3(b)): Accept

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMII-FER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group RECOMMENDATION: Vertical Runs. Communications wires and cables, both metallic conductor and optical fiber types, in a vertical run in a shaft shall be listed as having fire-resistant characteri sti cs capable of preventing the carrying of f i re from floor to floor.

Exception: Where the wires and cables are encased in noncombustible tubing or are located in a fireproof shaft having f i re stops at each f loor.

SUBSTANTIATIOn: This proposal adds the word "listed" to the f i re resistance requirements for riser cables and also adds optical fiber cables. The present requirement is ambiguous since a test is not specified. Requiring l ist ing will bring about the implementation of a standardized f i re test. Article 760 already requires l ist ing for power limited circuit conductors in a vertical shaft. Optical fiber cables are included since electrical communications cables and optical fiber communications cables use similar jacketing materials which need to be f i re resistant in order to prevent vertical f i re spread. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 11 NEG~T IVE : Meehan.

COUNT ON VOTE: ~DER: As far as the "Substantiation" is concerned, i t should

be mentioned that Section 760-4(d) mentions only ducts or plenums and not vertical runs. Furthermore, Section 725-38(b) should be examined for a possible conflict. EXPLANATION OF VOTE:

MEEHAN: I voted negatively on this proposal because of the inclusion of optical fiber cables. I f the proposed Article 770 is not accepted then my vote would be affirmative.

Log # 951 16- 71 - (800-3(c)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Condi t i oni ng for comment. SUBMITTER: Robert E. Taylor, ~noke Control Association ~ D A T I O N : Change t i t l e : Revise to read: Prevention of the Spread of Fire and S~ke. Section 300-21. SUBSTANTIATIOn: To make Code interpretation more precise and accurate, an accepted "scientif ic" definition of smoke should be used in Sections 725-2(a), 800-3(c) and 760-4(a) in place of the nondefinable term "Products of Combustion." The accepted A.STM definition for smoke has been recommended to Panel i for inclusion in the definitions.

The ASTM definiton for SMOKE (n) - the airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases evolved when a material undergoes pyrolosis or combustion.

A member of the Smoke Control Association will be pleased to appear before the Panel to discuss this proposed change in greater depth at the Panel's request. PANEL ACTION : Reject. PANEL COM~NT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-6. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affinnative.

Log # 1384 16- 72 - (800-3(c)) : Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlat ing Committee that th is proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning fo r comment. SUBMITTER: Richard B. Boyd, J r . , Raleigh, NC ~ ( ~ A T I O N : Delete "or products of combustion" in heading and f i r s t sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: See substant iat ion fo r s imi lar proposal for Section 725-2(a). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL CL)MM~NI: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-5. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously A f f i rmat ive .

Log # 1187 16- 73 - (800-3(c)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: M. F. Borleis, Electric Light & Power Group ~ N D A T I O N : Revise 800-3(c) to read:

(c) Spread of Fire. Installation in hollow spaces vertical shafts, and ventilation or air handling ducts shall be so made that the possible spread of f i re wil l not be substantially increased. Openings around penetrations through fire-resistance rated walls partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods. SUBSTANTIATION: In the 1981-82 ~PA Yearbook and Committee l i s t (Page 101) the Scope of the National Electrical Code Committee states:

SCOPE: This Committee shall consist of a Correlating Committee and Code-Making Panels. I t shall have primary responsibility for preparing documents on minimizing the risk of electr ici ty as a source of electric shock and as a potential ignition source of fires and explosions. I t shall also be responsible for text to minimize the propagation of f i re and explosions due to electrical instal I ations.


380

SCCPE: The construction, instal lat ion, operation and maintenance of systems for air conditioning, warm air heating and ventilating .including f i l t e r s , ducts and related equipment to protect l i f e and property from f i re , smoke and gases resulting from f i re or from conditions having manifestations similar to f i re .

Section 300-21 is and should be primarily concerned with limiting the migration or movement of f i re through f i r e barriers or in environmental air spaces due to the installation of electrical systems with improper materials or improper methods.

However, since the introduction of "products of combustion," the concern has been directed to those possible products of combustion generated by electrical systems subjected to fires "external" to the electrical system. The prime concern, i f we must be concerned about products of combustion, should be those generated by building components and contents subjected to f ires possibly caused by overcurrents or short circuits "internal" to the electrical system.


Of the one million or so building fires estimated to occur annually, approximately 15 percent are attributed to electrical causes. Of the fires of electrical origin, approximately 10 percent are attributed to wires and cables.

The data submitted to the Technical Subcommittee on Wirin~ in Ducts and Plenums reflects an abi l i ty to control f i re spreaoin nonmetal I i c-sheathed cables.

All of the above indicates that wires and cables, that portion of the electrical system that is permitted to be installed in ducts or plenums, is seldom the ignition source for building f ires and less frequently are they the fuel for f i re migration.

As stated in the scopes of the technical committees responsible for the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NFPA 70) and Air Conditioning and Ventilating Systems (NFPA 90 A) and Residence Type Warm Air Heating and Air Conditioning Systems (NFPA 90 B), the responsibility to protect l i fe and property from smoke and gases resulting from f i re lies with the Air Conditioning Committee, not with the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMIVENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-4. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 2093 16- 74 - (BOO-3(d)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: William A. Schmidt, Veterans Administration RECOMMENDATION__: Cables shall be tested in accordance with UL 910 and shall have an optical density peak of .5 based on a 20 minute f i re test; and a flame spread rating equivalent of 25 without conti nui ng progressi ve combustion. SUBSTANTIATION: This is an attempt to c lar i fy requirements for wiring in ceiling and plenum areas. PANEL ACTION: Reject. P~NEL COMYENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-9. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of. the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Joseph C, Reed, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. RECOMMENDATION: Retain exception to (d) and add the following words :

Adequate fire-resistance and low-smoke producin 9 characteristics shall be defined as having a peak optical density not greater than 0.35, an average optical density not greater than 0.10, and a flame spread not greater than 5.0 feet when tested in accordance

th Underwriters Laboratories Standard for Safety UL 910. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal defines by test method and quantitative values the meaning of "adequate f ire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics" as used in the 1981 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE Section 800-3(d), Exception to (d).

The 1975 and 1978 NEC recognized the economics and safety of installing certain low voltage and power-limited cables in plenums and other spaces handling environmental air without metallic covering. Thus, the Code provided an incentive for industry to develop cables and a test method to meet this requirement. Since that time, material suppliers, cable manufacturers, communication equipment manufacturers and Underwriters Laboratories have spent large amounts of technical effort and time to meet Code requirements.

We have sponsored, or have data available on, 81 individual tests conducted by the UL 910 test method. These tests covered seven different insulating materials and eleven cable configurations. Cables as large as 100 pair telephone cableSn(l"Oi inches in diameter) as small as four conductor (0.15 inches diameter), and large and small coaxial cables were tested. Analysis of these data show that the UL 910 test method:

(a) Gives reproducible data,

(b) Can distinguish between materials as to their flame spread and smoke-produci ng characteri sti cs,

(c) Gives specific values that can be used for judging "adequ ate f i re-resi stant and low- smoke producing characteri sti cs" as required by the 1981 NEC.

Underwriters Laboratories Research Bulletin, N~nber 56 (April, 1965), studied the effect of smoke development from a material having a specific smoke rating on the v i s i b i l i t y in a room in which the smoke was collected. The UL test results indicated that materials with developed smoke exceeding a level of approximately 450 produced total obstruction of a lighted exi t sign 12 feet away. As this amount of smoke would make human evacuation from a smoke-filled building very d i f f i cu l t , a s~ke developed limit of 450 is recommended for use in establishing the definition of low smoke cable construction as tested in the UL 910 test apparatus. Evaluation of the UL 910 test data referred to above shows that a peak optical density of 0.35 and an average optical density of 0.10 correlates with the 450 smoke developed number.

A flame spread of 5.0 feet in the UL 910 test relates very closely to the flame spread rating of 25 judged adequate for building materials when tested by UL 723 (E-84, NFPA 255).

Action is underway to include the pertinent parts of UL 910 into NFPA 255 Appendix Bo This should be completed in time to use a NFPA 255 reference in place of UL 910 in this proposal and maintain the NEC practice on referencing only NFPA documents. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-10. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

16-76 - (800-3(d), FPN-(New)): Accept Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating

Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: CNP 16 ~ T I O N : Add a fine print note to follow Exception No. 1 to read as follows:

"One method of defining low-smoke producing materials is by establishing an acceptable value of the smoke produced per the UL 910 test to a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 and a maximLm average optical density o f 0.15. Similiarly, f ire-resistant

cables may be defined as having a maximum allowable flame travel distance of 5.0 feet in the UL 910 test." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated in response to the principles of Proposals 16-74 and 16-75 and to provide guidance as to the intent of the Panel in reference to f i re resistance and low smoke without establishing test requirements within the NEC; a FPN was deemed advisable.

( I t is CMP 16's understanding that the submitter of Proposal 16-75 is now in agreement with the numbers cited in the FPN.) PANEL ACTION : Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIR~TIVE: 10 NEGATIVE: Meehan, Ware.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE : MEEHAN: Same comment as for Proposal 16-11 and in addition the

following. Eliminate the existing FPN. Reason -- Listed cables ~ould have to meet requirements for "low-smoke and adequate f i re-resistant." Therefore the FPN may not be applicable.

WARE: This FPN is not necessary to provide guidance because the exception requires that cables be " l is ted." Article lO0-Definitions provides guidance for "l isted" equipment or materials. I t is not good practice or policy for the NEC to reference a specific testing laboratory, as i t is not good practice or policy to l i s t a specific manufacturer of a product. I f UL 910 test parameters are modified in the future, then this FPN could lead to confusion.

Lo9 # 1150 16- 77 - (800-3(d)): Accept

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~ D A T I O N : Location. Co~nunications wires and cables, both metallic conductor and optical f iber types, and equipment installed in ducts or plenums or other spaced used for environmental air shall also comply with Section 300-22 as b) installation methods.

Exception to (d): Communications wires and cables, both metallic conductor and optical fiber types, listed as having adequ'ate f ire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics shall be permitted for ducts and plenums as described in Section 300-22(b) and other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). SLBSTANTIATION: This proposal adds optical fiber communications cable since electrical communications cables and optical fiber communications cable use similar jacketing materials. Both types of cables present the same potential for f i re spread and smoke production in a f i re . Therefore, the Code should treat them ident i cal I y.

381

Additionally, this proposal makes editorial changes to use the same wording as in Section 300-22 when referring to ducts, plenums and other space used for environmental air. Similar editorial proposals have been made for Sections 725-2(b), 760-4(d) and 820-15. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 11 NEGATIVE : Meehan.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: See comments on Proposal 16-70. (Section 800-3(b).)

Log # 1529 16-78 - (800-3(d), Exception): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for co~m, ent. SUBMITTER: Bernard E. Auerbach, Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation RECOMNENDATION: Delete the exception to Section 800-3(d). SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the exception to Section 725-2 is to permit only single- and multiconductor cables in ducts or plenums "having adequate f i re-resi stant and low-smoke producing characteristics - - - . " Regardless of how "low-smoke producing" the cables may be, the exceptlon permits unrestricted use of such cables. Cumulatively, such possible unlimited use represents a potenti al extremely hazardous condition.

The National Materials Advisory Board of the National Academy of Sciences published a compendium in 1978 consisting of reports by a task force of noted engineers, toxicologists, and academicians from government, industry, and academia. This report is t i t led, "Flammability, Smoke, Toxicity, and Corrosive Gases of Electric Cable Materi al s ."

The report of Stanley Kaufman and N. F. Yocum of Bell Laboratories (Norcross, Georgia) and J. R. Beyreis and J. W. Skjordahl of Underwriters Laboratories (Northbrook, I l l ino is) t i t led "Fire Testing of Communication Cables" are quoted as follows:

"The widespread use of plastic-insulated commumications cable in plenums over the past 20 years has been recognized in the National Electrical Code. As of 1975, i t contained a provision that "conductors having inherent fire-resistant and low smoke-producing characteristics approved for the purpose, shall be permitted for ducts, hollow spaces used as ducts, and plenums..." The Code stops at that point and does not define either the procedure for measuring flame and smoke properties or the acceptance levels of performance. Some localities have attempted to use existing tests and have specified minimum flame spread and smoke ratings per ASTM E-84, "The Surface Flame Spread of Materials Test." E-84 is a building materials test that is not intended to apply to cable."

The 1981 NEC st i l l uses the same language, and testing is s t i l l the same; note the last sentence, "E-84 IS A BUILDING MATERIALS TEST THAT IS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO CABLE."

Smoke in i tse l f poses a serious problem, but with smoke we get toxic gases. The combination is always present in thermal decomposition. In an NBS Technical Note (No. 861) t i t led, "A Survey For The Collection of Professional Opinion on S6lected Fire Protection Engineering Topics" a part of the survey results indicated concern over SMOKE AND TOXIC GASES. On page 16, the report states that " . . . the ASTM E-84 test method was not being used properly with respect to the noncombustible definition and that i t should be replaced by ASTM E-136."


Attached are pertinent pages from the National Academy of Sciences Report and NBS Technical Note No. 861 cited in this documentation. In addition, copies or excerpts of the following documents are included for the information of and study by the Panel :

"Fire Safety of Polymeric Materials in Buildings, State-of-tbe-Art" Irwin A. Benjamin; Center for Fire Research, National Bureau of Standards.

"Hazard Characteristics of Cnmb~stion Products in Fires: The State of the Art Review" - Dr. Merritt M. Birky; Center For Fire Research; Institute for Applied Technology - National Bureau of Standards.

"Fourth Annual Conference on Fire Research" - lleana M. Martinez and.Sonya M. Cherry, Editors; Center for Fire Research, National Englneering Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards.

'~Toxicity of Smoke Should Be a Consideration in Selecting Building Materials" - Yves Alarie, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh.

"The Events of The Beverly Hil ls Fire and I ts Long Term Health Effects" - Deborah Wallace, Ph.D., President, Public Interest Scientific Consulting Service.

"Fireman, Save Thyself" - Steven Cohn; American Lung Association Bul I eti n.

Editorial; Modern Plastics, August 1979. Newsletter; Arthur D. L i t t le , Inc. (Note: A copy of the attachments is available from NFPA on

request. ) PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMJVENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-7.

VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: ~-i- IK~ I'IVL : I i NEGATIVE: Meehan.

COMMENT ON VOTE: , MANDE: In casting this vote NEMA advises that i t has not

reached any conclusion as to potential tox ic i ty from products in f i re situations. NEMA is encouraged by the NFPA ongoing act iv i ty on toxic i ty and awaits to review the report of theAd Hoc Committee when available.

MCNEIL: In casting this vote, ICEA advises that i t has not reached any conclusions as to potential toxic i ty from products in f i re situations. IC£A is encouraged by the NFPA ongoing act iv i ty on toxic i ty and awaits to review the report of the Ad Hoc Committee, when avai I able. EXPLANATION OF VOTE :

MEEHAN: See comments on Proposal 16-7.


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment and that this proposal be reported as "Reject" because less than two-thirds of the members eligible to vote have voted in the affirmative. SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~ G A T I O N : Add new Exception:

Exception No. 2: Communications wires and cables, both metallic conductor and optical fiber types, with a maximum outer diameter of 0.75 inch listed as having adequate fire-resistant characteristics without excessive smoke generation shall be permitted to extend from the raceway system in maximum lengths of 30 feet within other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). Any 3 foot by 3 foot square shall not contain more than six cables covered by this exception and those wires and cables covered by Section 725-2(b) Exception No. 2, Section 760-4(d) Exception No. 2, and Section 820-15, Exception No. 2. SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the proposed exception is to permit the limited use of f ire-resistant cables within the other spaces used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). The proposal would permit, but is not limited to, the ceiling zone system. In this wiring method, cable is installed in raceways to distribution points. From the distribution points, exposed cables extend not more than 30 feet within the environmental air space.

The wording of the proposed exception is modeled after the present exception to Section 800-3(d) which permits unlimited amounts of cables "l isted as having adequate fire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics." The proposed exception s t i l l requires cables having "adequate fire-resistant characteristics," but omits the requirement that the cables be low-smoke producing. Instead, the proposed exception would limit the amount of smoke by limiting the amount of cable by (1) limiting the cables to a maximum of 0.75 inches in diameter, (2) limiting the length to 30 feet, (3) l imiting the number of cables in any one 3 foot by 3 foot square within the space to a maximum of 6, and (4) requiring that the cables not exhibit excessive smoke generation.

Fire tests of cables in the Steiner Tunnel using the UL 910 test method, show that smoke decreases rapidly as the number of cables is decreased. Six 25 pair cables (the type used for the 6 button key telephone set) produce less smoke than some presently approved wiring methods, i .e . , cable in conduit.

Optical fiber cables are included since electrical communications cables and optical fiber communications cables use similar jacketing materials. As far as f i re hazard is concerned, beth types are identical and thus should be treated the same by the Code. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In the seventh line of the proposed wording, insert the words "a total of" between the words "contain" and "more." In the eighth and ninth lines revise the word "covered" to read "permitted."

Revise the referenced exceptions in the last two lines to appear in section-paragraph order. PANEL CO~'~MENT: Editorial clari f ication. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 7 NEGATIVE: Hansell, Hitchens, Mader, Meehan. NOT VOTING: Mande.



HITC~ENS: See my comments regarding my negative vote on the Panel's action on Proposal 16-13.

MADER: I believe the intent of the proposal is that the resulting configuration would compare favorably from the f i re and smoke standpoint to cables presently permitted by the exception to Section 800-3(d); however, existing data does not support such a conclusion.

MEEHAN: See comments on Proposal 16-13.

382

EXPLANATION OF NOT VOTING: MANDE: These proposals have merit but specific values for

f ire-resistant characteristics need to be specified and the phrase "without excessive smoke generation" requires clarif ication.


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Wiring in Ducts and Plenums I~-CI~Q~L~I~ATION: Add new Exception No. 2 as follows:

Exception No. 2: Single and Multiconductor cables with a maximum outer diameter of 0.75 inch listed as having adequate f ire-resistant characteristics shall be permitted to extend from the raceway system in maximum lengths of 30 feet within spaces used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). Any one foot dimension within the space shall not contain more than 6 such cables. SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the proposed exception is to permit the limited use of f ire-resistant cables within the spaces used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). The proposal would permit, but is not limited to, the ceiling zone system, In this wiring method, cable is installed in raceways to distribution points. From the distribution points, exposed cables extend not more than 30 feet within the environmental air space.

The wording of the proposed exception is modeled after the present exception to Section 800-3(d) which permits unlimited amounts of cables "l isted as having adequate fire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics." The proposed exception s t i l l requires cables having "adequate f ire-resistant characteristics," but emits the requirement that the cables be low-smoke producing. Instead, the proposed exception would limit the amount of smoke by l imiting the amount of cable by (1) limiting the cables to a maximum of 0.75 inch in diameter, (2) limiting the length to 30 feet, and (3) l imiting the number of cables in any one foot dimension within the space to a maximum of 6.

Fire tests of cables in the Steiner Tunnel show that smoke decreases rapidly as the number of cables is decreased. Six 25 pair cables (the type used for the 6 button key telephone set) produce less smoke than some presently approved wiring methods, i .e . , cable in conduit. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COM~E'NT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-12.



Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group RECOM~NDATION: Add new Exception No. 3 as follows:

Exception No. 3 to (d): Communications wires and cables, both metallic conductor and optical f iber types, listed as having adequate f ire-resi stant characteristics without excessive smoke generation shall be permitted within other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c) when the building or structure is completely protected by an electrically supervi seal, central stati on-connected spri nkl er system.

Fine Print Note: See NFPA Publication No. 13-1976 for information on installation of sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: The present exception to Section 800-3(d) allows cables "l isted as having adequate f ire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics" as an alternate to the use of metallic conduit. These cables employ premium materials such as fluoropolymers which are very expensive. This proposal enhances safety by promoting the use of sprinklers through a cost trade-off.

Cables that would be "l isted as having adequate f ire-resistant characteristics without excessive smoke generation" are highly f i re resistant state-of-the-art cables made from more conventional and economical materials. Unlike power cable, these cables can not in i t ia te a f i re. They will burn only i f ignited by a substantial f i re , a f i re which the sprinklers would control since the only source of combustibles is the occupied space below the plenum.

Optical f iber communications cables are included in this proposal and given identical treatment to electrical communications cables because these two types of cables use the same material s.

This proposal is similar to one submitted by the Technical Subcommittee on Wiring in Ducts and Plenums except that a constraint on the smoke omissions of the cables has been added. Optical fiber cables have been covered also where appropriate.

PANEL ACTION: Reject. I~A~L COM~NI : See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-15. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION"

AI=FIRMAT IVE : i0 NEGATIVE: Cohen, Sessler.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: ODHEN: See comment on Proposal 16-15. SESSLER: Same as for Proposals 16-14 and 16-15.


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Wiring in Ducts and Plenums RECOI~VENDATION: Add new Exception No. 3 as follows:

Exception No. 3 to (d): Single and multiconductor cables listed as having adequate f ire-resistant characteristics shall be permitted within spaces used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c) when the buildings or structure is completely protected by an electr ical ly supervised, central station connected spri nkl er system.

FPN: See NFPA Publication No. 13-1976 for information on installation of sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: Supporting comment same as for proposal to revise Section 725-2(b) (See Log #926) PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COI~MENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-14. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 1153 16-83 - (800-3(d), FPN): Accept SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~ D A T I O N : Revise FPN to read:

"The conductors...on the protective device to l imit excessive currents and voltages." SUBSTANTIATION: To clar i fy the true function of the protective device which is to place a prescribed l imit on nonoperational transients. The wording is more compatible with the scope of ANSI/UL 497 - Protectors for Communication Circuits. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

~t~DER: To not only make the requirement more complete but to also be more consistent with the scope of UL497, i t is suggested that the FPN be revised to the fo l lowing: "The conductors...on the communication-circuit protector tha t is intended to protect against the ef fects of excessive potent ia ls and currents caused by l i gh tn ing , contacts with power conductors, power induct ion, and r ises in ground potent ia l ."

Log # 583 16- 84 - (800-11(a) ( i ) ) : Accept

Secretary's Note: The Correlat ing Committee directs CMP's 4 and 16 to achieve cor re la t ion . SU~MITTER: Ralph H. Lee, Lee Elect r ica l Engineering, Inc. ~ T I O N : Delete the fo l lowing:

"Where pract i cabl e" SUBSTANTIATION: For safety of communications personnel on poles, the communications conductors should always be below any power conductors. The word "pract icable" is synonymous with "possible," not "pract ica l ," and there are no instances where the proposed placement is' not possible.

Communications personnel are not equipped fo r work among power conductors. PANEL ACTION: Accept, vOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NEGATIVE: Cohen, Hansell, Sessler, S t i lwe l l .

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: COHEN: Concur IEEE (Hansel l ) . HANSELL: I voted Negative on Proposal 16-84 because IEEE does

not agree with the proposal or with accepting i t ; that there are acceptable a lbe i t rare s i tuat ions such as t r o l l e y wires, where communication conductors must be placed above power conductors. I understand CMP 4 rejected a similar Proposal, Proposal 4-9 on Section 225-14(d).

SESSLER: There are special, although rare, circumstances in which a communications attachment on a pole may need to be above a power attachment. Examples would include poles with t ra f f i c control signal cables, q~mmon poles with t ro l l y lines, and poles to cross over electrif ied railroads. The proposal is all inclusive and might be interpreted to include power cables in conduit. Since there is no evidence of f ie ld problems created by the existing rule, i t should not be changed in order to allow some f l e x i b i l i t y for special conditions.

383

STILWELL: There are special circumstances in which a communications attachment on a pole may need to be above a power attachment. Examples such as CATV pole mounted power supplier and t ra f f i c control signal cables may involve installations below communications attachments. Further, the proposal could result in misinterpretation to include power cables in conduit. The existing rule allows f l e x i b i l i t y for special conditions and should not he changed.

Log # 938 16- 85 - (800-11(a)and 800-11(a)(4)-(New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: C. D. Hansell, GTE Service Corporation ~ D A T I O N : Revise to read:

(a) On Poles and In-Span. Where communication conductors and l ight or power conductors are supported by the same pole or run in parallel in-span, the following conditions shall be met:

(4) Supply service drops of 0-750 volts running above and parallel to communication service drops may have a minimum separation of 12 inches (30.48 cm) at any point in the span including the point of and at their attachment to the building provided the nongrounded conductors are insulated and that a clearance of 40 inches (1.015 m) is maintained between the two services at the pole, in accordance with Rule 235CI Exception 3 of the National Electrical Safety Code (ANSI C2-1984). SUBSTANTIATION: Service drop separation requirements should be included, and should be identical to those of the NESC. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In the second line of proposed Section 800-11(a), insert the word "electric" before the word " l ight . "

In the proposed Section 800-11(a)(4) add a t i t l e to read "Cl ear ance ."

In the second line revise the word "may" to read "shall be permitted to."

In the seventh line insert a period after the word "pole" and delete the remainder of the sentence. PANEL COMMENT: Editorial clarif ication and consistency for compliance with the NEC Style Manual. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 11 NEGATIVE : Meehan.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: ~EENAN: In Section 800-11(a) change the word " l ight" to

"lighting" to conform with other sections of the NEC. See comnents on Proposal 16-3. Agree with Panel Action on Section 800-11(a)(4)-(New). I f the word " l ight" were changed to "l ighting" .in Section 800-11(a) my vote would be affirmative.

Log # 939 16- 86 - (800-11(b) and 800-11(b) Exception No.2-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: C. D. Hansell, GTE Service Corporation ~ T I O N : Revise to read:

(b) On Roofs. Conductors passing over buildings shall be kept at least 8 feet (2.44 m) above any roof that may be readily walked upon.

Exception No. 1: Aux i l i a r y bui ld ings, such as garages and the l i ke .

Exception No. 2: A reduction in clearance above only the overhanging portion of the roof to not less than 18 inches (457 mm) shall be permitted i f (i) not more than 4 feet (1.22 mm) of communication service-drop conductors pass above the roof overhang, and (2) they are terminated at a through-the-roof raceway or support. SUBSTANTIATION: To provide the same rel ief afforded power supply service drops in Section 230-24(a) Exception No. 2. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOtE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 940 16- 87 - (800-31(b)(2)): Accept SUBMITTER: C. D. Hansell, GTE Service Corporation ~ T I O N : Revise to read:

(2) Size. The grounding conductor shall not be smaller than No. 14 AWG copper or equivalent. SUBSTANTIATION: No. 18 AW~ is adequate for fused protectors and an individual fuseless protector. However, the industry has universally used No. 14 AWG or larger for years. Common practice today is to furnish two circuits to each dwelling unit and terminate them on fuseless protectors. For these reasons I recommend the minimum be changed to No. 14, and the term AWG added for clari f ication. (Already covered by Section 110-6). PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1154 16- 88 - {800-31(b)(5)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~ D A T I O N : Revise the section as follows:

(5) Electrode. The grounding conductor shall be connected as follows:

a. To the nearest accessible location on (1) the building or structure grounding electrode system as covered in Section 250-81,

2) the grounded interior metal water piping system as covered in ection 250-80(a), (3) the power service accessible means external

to enclosures as covered in Section 250-71(b), (4) the metallic power service conduit, (5) the service equipment enclosure, or (6) the grounding electrode conductor or the grounding electrode conductor metal enclosure; or

b. I f the building or structure served has no grounding means as described in (5)a., to any one of the individual electrodes described in Section 250-81; or

c. I f the building or structure served has no grounding means as described in (5)a. or (5)b., to: (1) an effectively grounded metal structure, or (2) a continuous and extensive underground gas piping system where acceptable to beth the gas supplier and to the authority having jurisdict ion, or (3) to a ground rod or pipe driven into permanently damp earth and separated from lightning conductors as covered in Section 800-12 and at least 6 feet (1.83 m) from electrodes of other systems. Steam or hot water pipes or lightning-rod conductors shall not be employed as electrodes for protectors. SUBSTANTIATION: To consolidate the requirements, to emphasize connecting to the nearest f ac i l i t y which is part of the grounding system, to mention the accessible means external to enclosures, and to include the requirement for 6-foot separation from the electrodes of other systems.

We believe that in the interest of safety the power service and telephone grounds should be common and with a connection as short as practical thereby minimizing potential differences between the two systems. Direct connection to some part of the power service grounding system should be encouraged under all circumstances.

The proposal also will simplify the wording of the present section and make i t easier to understand. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In Section 800-31(b)(5)a.(4), revise the word "conduit" to read "raceway ." PANEL OOM~ENT: The Panel believes that the term raceway is more inclusive. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIR~TIVE: 11 NEGATIVE: Meehan.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: ~EHAN: I voted negatively on this proposal because the Panel

Action does not go far enough. While I agree that the term "raceway" instead of conduit might be appropriate, I have reservations.

Among the reservations are: Does Article 250 recognize all metallic raceways as a suitable electrode grounding conductor. I f all metallic raceways are not recognized as suitable for electrode grounding conductor, then such metallic raceways should be spelled out.

One must not forget that when reference is made to Sections 800-31(b)(5)a.(3) and (5) i t is intended to recognize; (Section 800-31(b)(5)a.(3)) a metallic enclosure, in (Section 800-31(b)(5)a.(5)) i t is intended to mean a metallic service equipment enclosure that is grounded.

I f the Panel intention is to just change "conduit" to "raceway" then they should go a step further and indicate which raceways are suitable for grounding as per Art icle 250. Also to indicate that any connection for grounding in Section 800-31(b)(5) includes

metallic enclosures, etc.

Log # g41 16- 89 - (8~O-31(b)(5)a. through e.): Reject SUBMITTER: C.D. Hansell, GTE Service Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

a. To the nearest accessible location on the nearest of: (1) the building or structure grounding electrode system as covered in Section 250-81, (2) the grounded interior metal water piping system as covered in Section 250-80(a), (3) the power service accessible means external to enclosures as covered in Section 250-71(b), (4) the metallic power service conduit, (5) the service equipment enclosure, or (6) the grounding electrode conductor or conduit; or

b. I f the building or structure served has no grounding means as described in (5)a, to any one of the individual electrodes described in Section 250-81: or

c. I f the building or structure served has no grounding means as described in (5)a or (5)b, to: (1) an effectively grounded metal structure, or (2) a continuous and extensive underground gas piping system where acceptable to both the gas supplier and to the authority having jurisdict ion, or (3) to a ground rod or pipe driven into permanently damp earth and separated at least 6 feet (1.83 m) from lightning conductors and electrodes of other systems. Steam or hot water pipes or lightning-rod conductors shall not be employed as electrodes for protectors.

384

SUBSTANTIATION: To consolidate the requirements, to emphasize connecting to the nearest f ac i l i t y which is part of the grounding system, to mention the accessible means external to.enclosures, and to include the requirement for 6 foot separation from the electrodes of other systems. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: The intent of this proposal is covered by Proposal 16-88. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

NEGATIVE: Meehan, EXPLANATION OF VOTE:

MEEHAN: See comments f o r Proposal 16-88.

Log # 186 16- 90 - (800-31(b)(5)b. and c . ) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA !~E'~bI~E'I~IT~TION: Change the word "conduit" to "raceways or cables." SUBSTANTIATION: Metallic cables and raceways other than conduit are permitted for service supply conductors, and i t seems reasonable to also permit these to be used as a grounding point. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part.

Accept the revision of the word "conduit" to read: "raceways ."

PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-88. The use of the word "cables" was rejected because there is no acceptable means for making connections to cables. VOTE ON PA~L ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: ~tL~N: See comments for Proposal 16-88.

Log # 1155 16- 91 - (800-31(b)(6)): Accept SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group I~E'-CI)I~E'-N~ATION: Delete the third sentence:

"In every case the connection to the grounding electrode shall be made as close to the earth as practicable." SUBSTANTIATION: The statement dates back at least to the 1907 ~C. I t has apparently been overlooked since the more recent emphasis on protective grounding has been on common bending and grounding to l imit potential differences between systems. A connection closest to earth is not necessarily compatible with this concept and is in conflict with the permissible grounding locations in Section 250-71(b), and in Section 800-31. Also see supporting comment for proposal on Section 800-31(b)(5). PANEL ACTION: Accept. , ~TOI'E-'(~I~-FT~-L ACTION: Unanimously Affin~ative.

ARTICLE 810 -- RADIO AND TELEVISION EQUIPMENT

16- 91A - (810-2): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 16 RECOMMENDATION: In Section 810-2 add a last sentence to read:

"Where optical fiber is used Art icle 770 shall apply." SUBSTANTIATION: To recognize the introduction of Article 770. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


CO~ENT ON VOTE: HITCHENS: My affirmative vote applies only i f Proposal 16-65 is

accepted. (See my negative vote on Proposal 16-65.) EXPLANATION OF VOTE :

MLL~N: ~ee comments on Proposal 16-66A.

Log # 1130 16- 92 - (810-1): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 16 that article scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMITTER: D. J. Christofersen, United Power Association RECOMMENDATION: Propose changing the descriptive paragraph to read as follows:

This article covers radio and television receiving equipment and amateur radio transmitting equipment, but not equipment and antennas for coupling carrier current to power line conductors or radio-type load management equipment. SUBSTANTIATION: Requirements stated in this section of the Code would place d i f f i cu l t and cost prohibitive restrictions on the installation and operation of u t i l i t y radio-type load management equipment. The modification of this statement would enforce the fact that ut i l ity-furnished or required load management equipment installation and operation fa l ls under the jurisdiction of said u t i l i t y as does power line carrier equipment.

PANEL ACTION : Reject. PANEL COMMENT: In the second line of the proposed wording the submitter deleted the words "and receiving equipment" from this section without any substantiation. The Panel feels that radio equipment on the premises should be covered. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1156 16- 93 - (810-21(f) and 810-21(j)-(New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group RECOMMENDATION: Revise the section as follows:

(~) Flectrode. The grounding conductor shall be connected as follows:

(1) To the nearest accessible location on (1) the building,or structure grounding electrode system as covered in Section 250-81, (2) the grounded interior metal water piping system as covered in Section 250-80(a), (3) the power service accessible means external to enclosures as covered in Section 250-71(b), (4) the metallic power service conduit, (5) the service equipment enclosure, or (6) the grounding electrode conductor or the grounding electrode conductor metal enclosure; or

(2) I f the building or structure served has no grounding means as described in ( f ) (1), to any one of the individual electrodes described in Section 250-81; or

(3) I f the building or structure served has no grounding means as described in (f)(1) or ( f)(2), to: (1) an effectively grounded metal structure, or (2) a continuous and extensive underground gas piping system where acceptable to beth the gas supplier and to the authority having jurisdict ion, or (3) to a ground rod or pipe driven into permanently damp earth and separated at least 6 feet (1.83 m) from lightning conductors and electrodes of other systems. Steam or hot water pipes or. lightning-rod conductors shall not be employed as electrodes for protectors.

((g),j) (h), ( i ) - no change. • Bonding of Electrodes. A bonding jumper not smaller than

No. 6 copper or equivalent shall be connected between the radio and television equipment ground and the power grounding electrodes where.the requirements of (f) above result in the use of separate electrodes. Bonding together of all separate electrodes shall be permitted. SUBSTANTIATION: To consolidate the requirements, to emphasize connecting to the nearest f ac i l i t y which is part of the grounding system, to mention the accessible means external to enclosures, and to include the requirement for 6-foot separation from the electrodes of other systems.

We believe that in the interest o f safety the power service and radio grounds should be common and with a connection as short as practical thereby minimizing potential differences between the two systems. Direct connection to some part of the power service grounding system should be encouraged under all circ~stances.

The proposal also will simplify the wording of the present section and make i t easier to understand.

The new (j) Bonding of Electrodes is added to be compatible with similar sections in Articles 800 and 820 and to peint out the need for common bonding. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In Section 810-21(f)(4), change the word "conduit" to "raceway." PANEL COMMENT: The Panel believes that the term raceway is more i ncl usi ve. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRNATIVE : 12 NEGAT IVE : Meehan.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: See comments on Proposal 16-88 plus the added comment

below. Connection to the gas piping as proposed in Section

810-21(f)(3)(2) should include that the connection to such an electrode shall be between the supply to the bui lding or structure and the meter. The connection should be the same as stated in Section 800-31(b)(6). I would hate to be the mechanic changing a gas meter where a grounding connection is made on the house side of the meter. I f a spark should develop there could possibly be a f i r e or an explosion. I believe that th is needs correct ion.

Note to CMP 5. I believe that th is should be taken care of in Section 250-83(a).

385

ARTICLE 820 -- COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION AND RADIO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

16- 93A - (820-I): Accept Secretary's Note: The Correlating Committee advises CMP 16 that

art icle scope statements are the responsibility of the Correlating Committee and that the Correlating Committee accepts the Panel Action. SUBMII-FER: CMP 16 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the second sentence of the f i r s t paragraph in the section to read:

"Where the installation is other than coaxial, Articles 770 and 800 shall apply as applicable." SUBSTANTIATION: To recognize the introduction of Article 770.

Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


COI~MENT ON VOTE: HITCHENS: My affirmative vote applies only i f Proposal 16-65 is

accepted. (See my negative vote on Proposal 16-65.) EXPLANATION OF VOTE:

~EHAN: See comments on Proposal 16-66A.

Log # 1157 16- 94 - (Article 820): Accept SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group I~'-O{)-#~L~N-FIATION: Change the word " l ight" to "electric l ight" in the following sections:

820-11(a), 820-11(e)(1), 800-13(a), 800-13(a) Exception No. 1, 800-13(b), 800-13(c) and 800-13(c) Exception No. 2. SUBSTANTIATION: With the possible inclusion of optical fiber cable in the ~C, this change will c lar i fy that "conductors of l ight" are not optical fiber conductors. Such confusion has already existed in some areas. The change is also consistent with other sections using the term "electric l ight and power" such as Section 800-21, Section 810-12, 13, and Section 820-11(b). PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



16- 94A - (820-11(c), Exception Nos. i and 2-(New)): Accept SUBMII-TER: C~ 16 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 820-11(c) by deleting the words "is accessible for pedestrian t ra f f ic " to read "that may he readily walked upon."

Add Exception Nos. I and 2 as follows: Exception No. 1: Auxiliary buildings such as garages and the

like. Exception No. 2: A reduction in clearance above only the

overhanging portion of the roof to not less than 18 inches (457 ram), shall be permitted i f (1) not more than 4 feet (1.22 m) of communication service drop conductors pass above the roof overhang, and (2) they are terminated at a through-the-roof raceway or support. SUBSTANTIATION: To provide the same rel ief afforded power supply service drops in Section 230-24(a), Exception No. 2 PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1382 16- 95 - (820-14): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMII-FER: Richard B. Boyd, Jr., Raleigh, NC RECOM~NIIATION: Delete "or products of combustion" in heading and f i r s t sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: See substantiation for similar proposal for Section 725-2(a). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Comment on Proposal 16-5. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1186 16- 96 - (820-14): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: M. F. Borleis, Electric Light & Power Group RECOM~NDATION: Revise Section 820-14 to read:

(c) Spread of Fire. Installation in hollow spaces vertical shafts, and ventilation of air-handllng ducts shall be so made that the possible spread of f i re wil l hot be substantially increased. Openings around penetrations through fire-resistance rated walls, partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods. SUBSTANTIATION: In the 1981-82 ~PA Yearbook and Committee l i s t (pg. 101) the Scope of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE Co(nmittee states: SCOPE: This Committee shall consist of a Correlating Committee and Code-Making Panels. I t shall have primary responsibility for preparing documents on minimizing the risk of electr ic i ty as a source of electric shock and as a potential ignition source of fires and explosions. I t shall also be responsible for text to minimize the propogation of f i re and explosions due to electrical installations.

On Page 59 of the same document, the Scope of the Air Condi t i oni ng Committee st ates:

SCOPE: The construction, installation, operation and maintenance of systems for air conditioning, warm air heating and ventilating including f i l t e rs , ducts and related equipment to protect l i fe and property from f i re , smoke and gases resulting from fire. or from conditions having manifestations similar to f i re .


However, since the introduction of "products of combustion" the concern has been directed to those possible products of combustion generated by electrical systems subjected to f ires "external" to the electrical system. The prime concern, i f we must be concerned about products of combustion, should be those generated by building components and contents subjected to fires possibly caused by overcurrents or short circuits "internal" to the el ectri cal system.


Of the one million or so building fires estimated to occur annually, approximately 15 percent are attributed to electrical causes. Of the fires of electrical origin, approximately 10 percent are attributed to wires and cables.

The data submitted to the Technical Subcommittee on Wiring in Ducts and Plenums reflects an ab i l i ty to control f i re spread in nonmetallic sheathed cables.

All of the above indicates that wires and cables, that portion of the electrical system that is permitted to be installed in ducts or plenums, is seldom the ignition source for building fires and less frequently are they the fuel for f i re migration.

As stated in the scopes of the technical committees responsible for the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NFPA 70) and Air Conditioning and Ventilating Systems (NFPA 90 A) and Residence Type Warm Air Heating and Air Conditioning Systems (NFPA 90 B), the responsibility to protect l i f e and property from smoke and gases resulting from f i re lies with the Air Conditioning Committee, not with the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COI~VENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-4. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 2094 16- 97 - (820-15): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: William A. Schmidt, Veterans Administration ~ D A T I O N : Cables shall be tested in accordance with UL 910 and shall have an optical density peak of .5 based on a 20 minute f i re test; and a flame spread rating equivalent of 25 without continuing progressive combustion. SUBSTANTIATION: This is an attempt to clar i fy requirements for wiring in ceiling and plenum areas. PA~L ACTION: Reject. PANEL COI~MENT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-9. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1023 16- 98 - (820-15, Exception): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMI1-TER: Joseph C. Reed, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. RECOMMENDATION: Retain exception to Section 820-15 and add the following words:

386

Adequate fire-resistance and low-smoke producing characteristics shall be defined as having a peak optical density not greater than 0.35, an average optical density not greater than 0.10, and a flame spread not greater than 5.0 feet when tested in accordance with Underwriters Laboratories Standard for Safety UL 910. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal defines by test method and quantitative values the meaning of "adequate fire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics" as used in the 1981 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE Section 820-15, Exception to 15.

The 1975 and 1978 NEC recognized the economics and safety of install ing certain low-voltage and power-limited cables in plenums and other spaces handling environmental air without metallic covering. Thus, the Code provided an incentive for industry to develop cables and a test method to meet this requirement. Since t hat time, material suppl i ers, cable man ufacturers, comnuni cation equipment manufacturers and Underwriters Laboratories have spent large amounts of technical effort and time to meet Code requ i rem ent s.


(a) Gives reproducible data, (b) Can distinguish between materials as to their flame spread

and smoke-produci ng c haracteri sti cs, (c) Gives specific values that can be used for judging

"adequate f ire-resi stant and low-smoke producing characteristics" as required by the 1981 NEC.

Underwriters Laboratories Research B~lletin, Number 56 ( ~ r i l , 1965), studied the effect of smoke development from a material having a specific smoke rating on the v i s i b i l i t y in a room in which the s~ke was collected. The UL test results indicated that materials with developed smoke exceeding a level of approximately 450 produced total obstruction of a lighted exi t sign 12 feet away. As this amount of smoke would make human evacuation from a smoke-filled building very d i f f i cu l t , a smoke developed limit of 450 is recommended for use in establishing the definition of low smoke cable construction as tested in the UL 910 test apparatus. Evaluation of the UL 910 test data referred to above shows that a peak optical density of 0.35 and an average optical density of 0.10 correlates with the 450 smoke developed number.

A flame spread of 5.0 feet in the UL 910 test relates very closely to the flame spread rating of 25 judged adequate for building materials when tested by UL 723 (E-84, NFPA 255).

Action is underway to include the pertinent parts of UL 910 into NFPA 255 Appendix B. This should be completed in time to use a NFPA 255 reference in place of UL 910 in this proposal and maintain the NEC practice on referencing only NFPA documents. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Pane] Action and Comment on Proposal 16-10.


16-99 - (820-15, EPN-(New)): Accept Secretary's Note: I t was theaction of the Correlating

Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: CMP 16 I~'-CI~-#~:-NI~IATION: Add a FPN to follow Exception No. 1 to read:

"One method of defining low-s~ke producing materials is by establishing an acceptable value of the smoke produced per the UL 910 test to a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 and a maximum average optical density of 0.15. Similiarly, f ire-resistant cables may be defined as having a maximum allowable flame travel distance of 5.0 feet in the UL 910 test." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated in response to the principles of Proposals 16-97 and 16-98 and to provide guidance as to the intent of thePanel in reference to f i re resistance and low smoke without establishing test requirements within the NEC; a FPN was deemed necessary.

( I t is CMP 16's understanding that the submitter of Proposal 16-98 is now in agreement with the numbers cited in the FPN.) PANEL ACT ION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

)~I-FIRMA[IVE : I I NEGATIVE: Meehan, Ware.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: Same comment as for Proposal 16-11. WARE: This FPN is not necessary to provide guidance because the

exception requires that cables be " l is ted." Article lO0-Definitions provides guidance for "l isted" equipment or materials. I t is not good practice or policy for the NEC to reference a specific testing laboratory, as i t is not good practice or policy to l i s t a specific manufacturer of a product. I f UL 910 test parameters are modified in the future, then this FPN could lead to confusion.


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group RECOMMENDATION: Location. Circuits and equipment installed in ducts or plenums or uther'space used as for environmental air.

Exception: Coaxial cables listed as having adequate f ire-resistant and low-smoke producing characteristics shall be permitted for ducts and plenums as described in Section 300-22(b) and other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal makes editorial changes to use the same wording as in Section 300-22 when referring to ducts, plenums and other space used for environmental air. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

After the word "used" in the f i r s t sentence, delete the word "as." In the second line of the f i r s t sentence, insert the words "shall also comply with Section 300-22 as to installation methods" before the period. PANEL COI~MENT: The revised wording expresses the submitter's intent. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: MEEHAN: I f i t is the proposer's intention that this proposal be

the same as Proposal 16-8, to change the t i t l e of Section 820-15 to include the t i t l e of Section 300-22 which is "Wiring in Ducts, Plenums, and Other Air-Handling Spaces" then I would change my vote to affirmative. See Panel Action on Proposal 16-3.

Log # 1159 16- 101 - (820-15, Exception No. 2-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment and that this proposal be reported as "Reject" because less than two-thirds of the members eligible to vote have voted in the affirmative. SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~ N G A T I O N : Add new Exception No. 2 as follows:

Exception No. 2: Coaxial cables with a maximum outer diameter of 0.75 inch listed as having adequate f ire-resistant characteristics without excessive s~ke generation shall be permitted to extend from the raceway system in maximum lengths'of 30 feet within other sp~ce used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). Any 3 foot by 3 foot square shall not contain more than six cables covered by this exception and those wires and cables covered by Section 800-3(d) Exception No. 2, Section 725-2(b) Exception No. 2, and Section 760-4(d) Exception No. 2. SUBSTANTIATION: Supporting comment same as for this submitter's ppAroposal to add Exception No. 2 to 800-3(d).

NEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. In the seventh line of the exception insert the words "a total

of" between the words "contain" and Umore." In the eighth line revise the word "and" to read "including." Also in the eighth line revise the word "covered" to read

"permitted" in both places that i t appears. Revise the referenced exceptions in the last' two lines to appear

in article-section order. PANEL COMMENT: Editorial clarif ication. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIR~TIVE: 7 NEGATIVE: Hansell, Hitchens, Mader, Meehan, Miner. NOT VOTING: Mande.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: HA~ELL: ! voted negative on Proposal 16-101 because IEEE

wishes to wait for the recommendations of the new NFPA Committee on Toxic Effects before agreeing to any additional uses of exposed "plastic" insulated wire and cable in spaces used for environmental air.

HITCHENE: See my comments regarding my negative vote on the Panel's action on Proposal 16-13.

~tADER: I believe the intent of the proposal is that the resulting configuration would compare favorably from the f i re and smoke standpoint to cables presently permitted by the exception to Section 820-15; however, existing data does not support such a conclusion:

MEEHAN: See comments on Proposal 16-13. MINER: This proposal as written is confusing. What is a 3 foot

by 3 foot square? What plane is i t in? Is a space less than 3 feet in one dimension excluded? The term "3 foot by 3 foot" should be "3 feet by 3 feet." EXPLANATION OF NOT VOTING:

MAN[E: These proposals have merit but specific values for f ire-resistant characteristics need to be specified and the phrase "without excessive smoke generation" requires clari f ication.

387

Log # 921 16- 102 - (820-15, Exception No.2-(New)): Reject

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Wiring in Ducts and Plenums RECOM~NDATION: Add new Exception No. 2 as follows:

Exception No. 2: Coaxial cables with a maximum outer diameter of 0.75 inch listed as having adequate fire-resistant characteristics shall be permitted to extend from the raceway system in maximum lengths of 30 feet within spaces used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c). Any one foot dimension within the space shall not contain more than 6 such cables. SUBSTANTIATION: Same supporting comment for the revision of Section 800-3(d) (See Log #922). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COM~NT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-101. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Wiring in Ducts and Plenums ~ A T I O N : Add new Exception No. 3 as follows:

Exception No. 3: Coaxial cables listed as having adequate fire-resistant characteristics shall be permitted within spaces used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c) when the building or structure is completely protected by an electrically supervised, central station connected sprinkler system.

FPN: See NFPA Publication No. 13-1976 for information on installation of sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: Supporting comment same as for the proposal to revise Section 725-2(b). (See Log #926.) PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COM~NT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-14. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 11 NEGATIVE: Cohen, Sessler.



Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that this proposal be referred to the NFPA Committee on Air Conditioning for comment. SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group RECOMMENDATION: Add new Exception No. 3 as follows:

Exception No. 3: Coaxial cables listed as having adequate fire-resistant characteristics without excessive smoke generation shall be permitted within other space used for environmental air as described in Section 300-22(c) when the building or structure is completely protected by an electr ical ly supervised, central station connected sprinkler system.

Fine Print Note: See NFPA Publication No. 13-1976'for information on installation of sprinklers. SLBSTANTIATION: Supporting comment same as for this submitter's proposal to add Exception No. 3 to 800-3(d). PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COM~I'NT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-15. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE : 11 NEGATIVE: Cohen, Sessler.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: COFEN: See comment on Proposal 16-15. SESSLER: Same as for Proposals 16-14 and 16-15.

Log # 1161 16- 105 - (820-22(f)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~ T I O N : Revise the section as follows:

(f) Electrode. The grounding conductor shall be connected as follows:

(1) To the nearest accessible location on ( I ) the building or structure grounding electrode system as covered in Section 250-81, (2) the grounded interior metal water piping system as covered in Section 250-80(a), (3) the power service accessible means external to enclosures as covered in Section 250-71(b), (4) the metallic power service conduit, (5) the service equipment enclosure, or (6) the grounding electrode conductor or the grounding electrode conductor metal enclosure; or

(2) I f the building or structure served has no grounding means as described in ( f)(1), to any one of the individual electrodes described in Section 250-81; or

(3) I f the building or structure served has no grounding means as described in (f)(1) or (f)(2), to: (1) an effectively grounded metal structure, or (2) a continuous and extensive underground gas piping system where acceptable to beth the gas supplier and to the authority having jurisdict ion, or (3) to a ground rod or pipe driven into permanently damp earth and separated from lightning conductors as covered in Section 820-11(e)(3), and at least 6 feet (1.83 m) from electrodes of other systems. Steam or hot water pipes or lightning-rod conductors shall not be employed as electrodes for protectors. SUBSTANTIATION: To consolidate the requirements, to emphasize connecting to the nearest fac i l i t y which is part of the grounding system, to mention the accessible means external to enclosures, and to include the requirement for 6 foot separation from the electrodes of other systems.

We believe that in the interest of safety the power service and cable grounds should be common and with a connection as short as practical thereby minimizing potential differences between the two systems. Direct connection to some part of the power service grounding system should be encouraged under all circumstances.

The proposal also will simplify the wording of the present section, and make i t easier to understand. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In proposed Section 820-22(f)(4) revise the word "conduit" to "raceway." PANEL CON~IENT: The Panel believes that the term raceway is more inclusive. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:



Log # 185 16- 106 - (820-22(f)(2),(3)): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA RECOMWENGATION: Change the word "conduit" to "raceways or cabies." SUBSTANTIATION: Metallic cables and raceways other than conduit are permitted for service supply conductors, and i t seems reasonable to also permit these to be used as a grounding connection point. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Part.

Accept the revision of the word "conduit" to read "raceways." PANEL COM~NT: See Panel Action and Comment on Proposal 16-105. The use of the word "cables" was rejected because there is no acceptable means for making connections to cables. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: ~EEHAN: See comment on Proposal 16-88.

Log # 1162 16- 107 - (820-22(g)): Accept SUBMITTER: L. H. Sessler, Telephone Group ~M~NGATION: Delete the third sentence:

"In every case the connection to the grounding electrode shall be made as close to the earth as practicable." SUBSTANTIATION: The statement was used from Section 800-31(b)(6) when Article 820 was developed and dates back to at least the 1907 NEC. I t has apparently been overlooked since the more recent emphasis on protective grounding has been on common bonding and grounding to l imit potential differences between systems. A connection closest to earth is not necessarily compatible with this concept and is in conflict with the permissible grounding locations in Sections 250-71(b) and in 820-22. Also see supporting comment for proposal on Section 820-22(f). PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF VOTE: ~EHAN: I believe that the last sentence of Section 820-22(g)

refers to connections on gas piping. See comments on Proposal 16 -93.

General Note: Numbering of section, subsection and subparagraphs should be reviewed. They do not all comply with numbering as recommended by NEC Manual.

388

CHAPTER 9. TABLES AND EXR~IPLES

TABLES

Log # 1696 8- 130 - (Chapter 9, Tables, Note 3): Reject

Secretary's Note: The Correlating Comntttee directs that this proposal be referred to CNP 6 for action. ~ : Charles "Hike" Holt, Concepts In Elec~rlcity Inc. RECI~W4ERDATION: Chapter gA Tables, Note 3: "When conduit nipples haN~l~ a maximum length not to exceed 24 inches (610 mm) are Installed between boxes, cabinets, and similar enclosures, the nipple shell be permitted to be f i l l ed to 60 percent of i ts total cross-sectional area, (and Note 8 of Tables 310-16 through 310-19 does not apply to this condition.) Deleted material in parenthesis. SUBSTANTIATION: This sentence would be unnecessary by adding Exception 4 to Note 8 to Tables 310-16 through 310-19 reading:

Exception 4. Derating factors o f Note 8 do not apply to conductors in a raceway.

Reject. : The derating factors of Note 8 shall apply to

conductors. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 2077 8- 121 - (Chapter 9, Tables 3A, 38, and 3C): Accept ~ : F. K. Kttzanttdes, NEMA I(ECOIqqENOATION: Delete Trade Size 4 1/2 inch. SUB~-rANTIATIdN: This trade size of r igid metal conduit has nBt been sold or manufactured as a standard electrical product for at least ten years . Removing the 4-1/2 inch trade size from the NEC wil l make i t consistent with ANSI C80.1, C80.2 and C80.5. PAICEL ACTION: Accept. Ir0~-or1~Ql~L ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 990 6- 97 - (Chapter 9, Table 5): Accept

Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Comtttee that CNP 6 be advised that the use of kcmtl is not conslstentwtth the NFPA Manual of Style. SUBMITTER: Oohn E. Conley, General Electric Company ]~rOi)RILr]~I~ATION: Revise as follows:

Col. No. I Size Col. No. Present Proposed

18 ANG 7 .0064 .0062 12 AWG 5 .0251 .0252 10 Al~ 5 .0224 .0222 10 AWG 9 .0159 .0158 8 AHG 3 .0854 .0645 6 ~ 9 .0467 .0468 4 AWO 9 .0669 .0670 3 ~ g .0803 .0804 2 AWG g .1313 .1320 (30 g .1974 .1948 0000 9 .2999 .3000 6OO MCM 7 .8792 .8791

1000 MOt 3 1.7531 1.7530 1250 MCM 11 1.7672 1.7671 1500 MCM 5 2.2748 2.2751 1750 MCM 3 2.8895 2.8832

SUBSTANTIATION: Corrections: Typographical and calculation errors.

All area values in Table 5 were recalculated using the present dimlCers. A 10-place electronic calculator was used with a set value of Pi. The corrections listed above were indicated.

Frem an engineering standpoint, al l values should be rounded to 3 signif icant figures; e.g. 2.8832 should be 2.88. P/~(EI. AC~ION: Accept. PANEL O(Offi!NT: Revise HOM to read kcmtl for editorial consistency. V~"~iT-F~QT~ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.


Secretary's Note: I t was the actton of the Correlating Coamtttee that ~ 6 be advised that the use of kcmil ts not consistent wlth the NFPA Manual of Style. ~ T C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN

ION: Use the following table. Delete existing table and footnotes.

Table 8 Bare Conductor Properties

DC Resistance at 75uc ', 167UF Stranding Overall Copper Aluminum

Size Area Quantity Diam Dim Ar~a Bare Coated AWG/MCM clr.mll -- inch inch in c ohm/t~:T ohm/HFT ohm/MFT

18 1620 i -- 0.040 0.001 7.52 7.78 12.4 18 1620 7 0.015 0.046 0.002 7.70 8.12 11.7

16 2580 1 0.051 0.OO2 4.73 4.90 7.78 16 2580 7 0"019 0.058 0.OO3 4.83 5.09 7.94

14 4110 1 - - 0.064 0.003 2.97 3,08 4.89 14 4110 7 0 .024 0.073 0.004 3.04 3.14 5.00

12 6530 1 - - 0.oo1 0.005 1.87 1.94 3.08 12 6530 7 0.030 0.oo2 0.0o6 1.91 1.98 3.15

I0 10380 I -- 0.102 0.008 1.18 1.22 1.93 10 103a0 7 0.038 0.116 0.011 1.20 1.24 1.98

B 16510 I -- 0.128 0.013 0.740 0.759 1.22 8 16510 7 0 .049 0.146 0.017 0.754 0.780 1.24

6 26240 7 0.061 0.184 0.027 0.475 0.492 0.782 4 41740 7 0.077 0.232 0.042 0.299 0.309 0.491 3 52620 7 0.087 0.260 0.053 0.237 0.245 0.389

2 66360 7 0.OO7 0.292 0.067 0.188 0.194 0.308 I 83690 19 0 .066 0.332 0.OO7 0.149 0 .154 0.245

1/0 105600 19 0 .074 0.373 0.109 0.118 0.122 0.194

2/0 133100 19 0.084 0.419 0.138 0.0936 0.0969 0.154 3/0 167800 Ig 0.OO4 0.47~) 0.173 0.0742 0.0768 0.122 4/0 211600 lg 0 .106 0.528 0.219 0.0589 0.04504 0.0969

250 - - - 37 0.082 0,575 0.260 0.0498 0.0516 0.0819 3OO -- - 37 0 .090 0.630 0.312 0.0416 0.0430 0.0684 350 - - - 37 0.097 0.681 0.364 0.0356 0.0368 0.0585

400 - - - 37 0.104 0.728 0.416 0.0311 0.0319 0.0512 5OO -- - 37 0 .116 0.813 0.519 0.0249 0.0256 0.0410 600 - - - 61 0 .992 0.893 0.626 0.0208 0.0215 0.0341

700 -- 61 0 .107 0.964 0.730 0.0178 0.0183 0.0293 750 --- 61 0 ,111 0.998 0.782 0.0166 0.0170 0.0273 800 - - - 61 0 .114 1 .03 0,834 0.0156 0.0160 0.0256

900 - - - 61 0 .122 I .OO 0.940 0.0138 0.0142 0.0228 1000 -- 61 0.128 1 .15 1 . 0 4 0.0125 0.0128 O.OL~5 1250 - - - 91 0 .117 1.29 1.30 0.00997 O.0102 0.0164

1500 - - - 91 0.128 1 .41 1 . 5 7 0.00831 0.00852 0.0137 1750 --- 127 0 .117 1 .52 1.83 0.OO712 0.OO730 0.0117 2000 --- 127 0 .126 1 .63 2.09 0.OO623 0.00639 0.0102

CHAPTER g TABLE 8 FOOTNOTES These resistance values are valid ONLY for the perimeters as

given. Using conductors having coated strands, different stranding type, and especially, other teweratures, change the resistance.

Class B stranding is listed as well as solid for some sizes. Its overall diameter and area Is that of its circumscribing circle. The construction information Is per NE~ WCB-Ig76 (Rev 5-1980). The resistance is calculated per National Bureau of Standards Handbook IOO, dated 1966, and Handbook lOg, dated 1972. The IACS conductivlties used: bare copper - 100%, aluminum - 61%.

SUBSTANTIATION: The existing values have many errors. The above tabTe gives ~slstences at a standard operating temperature (75oc) rather than at room temperature. I t also l is ts information for C!ass B 18-10 AWG. These format changes have been speclfJcally incorporated: Diameter and area 1s listed to the nearest 0.001 inch; resistance computed to 3 significant figures; numbers are separated into groups of 3 on either side of the decimal by spaces; fractions are further Identlfled by zero in front of the decimal; the table has been grouped into 2 or 3 lines per group, each separated by blank lines; and the diameter for solid conductors has been listed only in the overall diameter column. PANEL ACTION: Accept. ~ : Revise MCM to read kcmll for editorial consistency. VOTE Or( PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

389

Log # 1608 6- I00 - (Chapter 9, Table 8): Reject SUBMITTER: Bernard L. Stone, White Plains, NY ~ A T I O N : In heading reading "DC Resistance OHMS/M Ft at 25uc, 77UF ,,

Delete "M Ft" and insert in its place "K Ft" SUBSTANTIATION: The use of "M" meaning one-thousand is in conflict with American National Standards Institute a~breviations in which "M" means Mega or i0 ° and K means kilo or i0 ~. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Long standing industry practice is to use M Ft. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 9 NEGATIVE: Coffey.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE: COFFEY: I am voting negative on the Panel Action to reject this

proposal because Proposal 6-3, which was to replace "MCM" with the "kcmil" was accepted by this Panel because, " i t brings Code in compliance with ANSI abbreviations." To reject this proposal (Proposal 6-100) based on, "long standing industry practice" is inconsistant. As I recommended in my comment for Proposal 6-3, let 's keep the present length designator as a parenthetical equivalent. I t would appear as "Kft (Mft)."


Secretary's Note: I t was the action of the Correlating Committee that CMP 6 be advised that the use of kcmil is not consistent with the NFPA Manual of Style. SUBMITTER: C. E. Muhleman, Marion, IN ~ A T I O N : Substitute the following table which gives actual ac resistance values, rather than an approximation factor.

CHAPTER 9, TABLE g ac Resistance & Reactance

60OV cables, 3 phase, 60 Hz, 75Oc - Three single conductors paralleled in conduit

Size Bare Copper Aluminum Nonmagnetic Magnet ic Nonmagnetic Magnetic

Rac X L Rac X L Rac X L Rac X L

OHMS TO NEUTRAL PER MFT 14 3.1 0.054 3.1 0.068 12 2.0 0.051 1.9 0.064 3.Z 0 .051 3.2 0.064 10 1.2 0.048 1.2 0.059 2.0 0 .048 2.4 0.059 8 0 . 7 8 0 .048 0.78 0.060 1.3 0 .048 1.3 0.060 6 0 . 4 9 0 .046 0 . 4 9 0 .057 0 . 8 1 0.046 0 .81 0.057 4 0 . 3 1 0 ,043 0 . 3 1 0 .054 0 . 5 1 0.043 0 .51 0.054

3 0 . 2 4 0 .042 0 . 2 4 0 .053 0 . 4 0 0.042 0.40 0.053 2 0.19 0 .041 0.19 0.052 0.32 0.041 0.32 0.052 1 0 . 1 5 0 .041 0 . 1 5 0 .052 0 . 2 5 0.041 0 .25 0.052

I/0 0 . 1 2 0 .040 0 . 1 2 0 .050 0.20 0.040 0.20 0.050 2/0 0.097 0.039 0.098 0.049 0 . 1 6 0.039 0.16 0.049 3/0 0.077 0.038 0.078 0.048 0 . 1 3 0.038 0.13 0.048

4/0 0.061 0.038 0.062 0.047 0.10 0.038 0.10 0.047 250 0.052 0.038 0.053 0.048 0.085 0.038 0.086 0.048 300 0.044 0.037 0.045 0.046 0.071 0.037 0.072 0.046

350 0.038 0.037 0.039 0.046 0.061 0.037 0.062 0.046 400 0.034 0.036 0.035 0.045 0.053 0.036 0.054 0.045 500 0.027 0.036 0.029 0.044 0.043 0.036 0.044 0.044

600 0.023 0.036 0.026 0.045 0.036 0.036 0.037 0.045 750 0.019 0.035 0.022 0.044 0.029 0.035 0.030 0.044

1000 0.016 0.034 0.019 0.043 0.022 0.034 0.024 0.043

Class B stranding was used; the computations are based upon 100% IACS copper, 61% IACS aluminum.

The values are valid ONLY for the parameters as given. Different operating temperatures and/or different installation configuration or environment wil l change the values.

At the stated parameters, capacitive reactance is negligible, so only inductive reactance is given. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed table wil l save time and be exact for the given parameters shown. PANEL ACTION: Accept. PANEL COMMENT: Under "Size" column add:

AWG and kcmil for editoria] consistency. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1717 6- 101 - (Chapter 9, Table 9): Reject SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc. ~ A T I O N : Delete entirely from Chapter 9 Table 9, wire sizes from No. 3 to 4/0 AWG and corresponding multiplying factors. SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 9 Table 8 indicates that Chapter 9 Table 9 shall be used for alternating current multiplying factors when larger than No. 4/0. Since there is no adjustment for skin effect for conductors No. 4/0 and smaller, the inclusion of the wire sizes smaller than 4/0 is unnecessary. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 6-99. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1190 6- 102 - (Chapter 9, Table 9): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Olaf G. Ferm, Ferm's Fast Finder Index ~ A T I O N : Change wording of the Table headings under Multiplying Factor to read:

For Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cables in Air or Nonferrous Conduit For Ferrous Metallic-Sheathed Cables or all Cables in Ferrous

Metallic Raceways. SUBSTANTIATION: In its present wording the table neglects the fact that i f aluminum or copper or brass-covered conductors are used the readings wi l l be the same as when nonmetallic conduit is used. The key words used in this table should be ferrous or nonferrous raceways or cables.

(See) attached sheet from FERM'S FAST FINDER INDEX (Note: A copy of attachment available from NFPA on request.)

PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Action on Proposal 6-99. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1600 i - 125 - (Chapter 9, Tables 10, I I , 12 and 13-(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Pollak, The Aluminum Association, Inc. ~ A T I O N : Tables 10-13, Chapter g. Tables 10-13 give recommended connector installing torques for copper and aluminum conductors. They are for guidance only where no tightening information is available and should not be used to replace manufacturers instructions which should always be followed.

Table 10 Tightening Torque for Screws a

Wire Size

Torque, Pound-lnches Slotted Head No. 10

and Larger b Hexagonal Head- Slot Width--Inches External Drive

To 3/64 Over 3/64 Socket Wrench Slot Length--Inches Split-Bolt Other

To 1/4 Over 1/4 Connectors Connectors

18-10 AWG 20 35 80 75 8 25 40 80 75 6 35 45 165 110 4 -- 45 165 I i0 3 - - 50 275 150 2 - - 50 275 150 I - - 50 275 150 I / 0 - - 50 385 180 2 /0 - - 50 385 180 3/0 -- 50 500 250 4/0 -- 50 500 250 250 kcmll -- 50 650 325 300 . -- 50 650 325 350 -- 50 650 325 400 -- 50 825 325 500 - - 50 825 375 600 - - 50 I000 375 700 -- 50 I000 375 750 -- 50 i000 375 800 -- 50 1100 500 900 -- 50 II00 500 1000 -- 50 1100 500 1250 . . . . 1100 600 1500 . . . . I I 0 0 600 1750 . . . . 1100 600 2000 . . . . 1100 600

a. Clamping screws with multiple tightening means: for example, for a slotted hexagonal head screw, use the highest torque value associated with the different tightening means. b. For values of slot width or length other than those specified, select the largest torque value associated with conductor size. c. For slot lengths of intermediate values, select torques pertaining to next shorter slot length.

390

2- 192 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 1): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 2 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Example No. 1 as follows and renumber i t "No. l (a}" .

ONE-FAMILY DWELLING

The dwelling has a floor area of 1500 square feet exclusive of unoccupied cellar, unfinished att ic, and open porches. Appliances are a 12 kW range and a 5.5 kW dryer.

Computed Load (see Section 220-10(a)): General Lighting Load

1500 sq f t at 3 watts per square feet = 4500 watts Minimum number of branch circuits required (See Section 220-2(b))

General Lighting Load 4500 watts ÷ 120 volts = 37.5 A: This requires 3-15 A,

2-wire or 2-20A 2-wire circuits Small Appliance Load: Two 2-wire 20 A circuits (See 220-3(b)) Laundry Load: One 2-wire 20 A circuit (See 220-3(c))

Minimum Size Feeder Required (See Section 220-I0(a)): General Lighting 4500 watts Small Appliance Load 3000 Laundry 1500

Total General Light & Small Appliance 9000 watts

3000 Watts at 100% 3000 9000-3000=6000 Watts at 35% 2100

Net General Lighting & Small Appliance Load 5100 watts Range Load (See Table 220-19) 8000 Dryer Load (See Table 220-18) 5500

TOTAL LOAD 18,600 watts

For 120/240 volt 3-wire single-phase service or feeder 18,600 watts ÷ 240 volts : 77.5 A.

Net computed load exceeds 10 kW. Service conductors shall be 100 amperes (See Section 230-41(b)(2)).

Feeder and Service Neutral Lighting and Small Appliance Load 5100 Watts Range Load 8000 watts at 70% 5600 Watts TOTAL 10,700 Watts

10700 w ÷ 240 V = 44.6 amperes SUBSTANTIATION: To upgrade to new nominal voltage standards, to correct previous errors and to clar i fy Panel's intent. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

CUNNINGHAM: Proposal 2-192 for Example No. l(a) and the following proposals completely revising the example problems were the result of a technical subcommittee whose goals were to upgrade to the new nominal voltage standards to correct previous errors, to simplify and clar i fy Panel 2's intent. I urge the public to carefully review these examples to identify errors and misunderstandings so that the Panel can correct them at the f inal meeting.

YERKE: In lead paragraph indicate that the lighting is incandescent and the dryer is rated 240 volts.

Change "Feeder and Service Neutral" to "Neutral for Feeder and Service."

Indicate that the ampacity of the neutral is a minimum. A conductor with greater ampacity could be uti l ized.

Log # 41 2- 187 - (Chapter 9, Examples 1, l(b), 1(c)): Reject SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA RECOMMENDATION: Revise Example to indicate feeder load contributed by required or nonrequired outlets installed exterior of the computed floor area specified by Section 220-2(b). SUBSTANTIATION: No feeder load is indicated for the outdoor receptacle required by Section 210-50(d) and the exterior lighting outlet(s) required by Section 210-70(d). Section 220-2(a) specifies a unit load per square foot EXCLUDING open porches, garages, and exterior areas. Table 220-2(b) and the fine print note clearly apply to outlets IN dwelling units but do not appear to include exterior outlets. Multiple receptacle and lighting outlets supplied from dwelling unit(s) general lighting circuits for porches, single or multiple garage or parking areas, yard lighting, patios, tennis court areas, pole lights, floodlights, outbuildings, etc., may contribute substantial load to the feeder to service-entrance conductors. Section 220-2(c) specifies a minimum 180 volt-amperes load for each of these outlets exterior of the computed floor area. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Examples cannot consider all conditions. Special conditions should be included in the computations. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

2- 193 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 1(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 2 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Example No. "l(a) as follows and renumber i t " l (b)": In the heading delete "Single and replace i t with "one". Change "units" to singular "unit". Replace the period at the end of the sentence with a comma and add the following: "one 8-ampere, 115V rated disposal and one lO-ampere, 120V rated dishwasher. See Article 430 for general motors and Article 440 Part G for air conditioning equipment. Motors have nameplate ratings of 115V and 230V for use on 120V and 240V nominal voltage systems."

Revise the fine print to read as follows: From previous Example No. l(a), feeder current is 78 amperes

(3-wire, 240 volts). Line A Neutral Line B

amperes from Example l(a) 78 45 78 one 230V air conditioner 6 6 one 115V air conditioner and 120V dishwasher 12 12 10 One 115V disposal 8 8 25% of largest motor (Section 430-24) 3 3 2

Amperes per line 99 68 104

For feeder neutral, use largest of the two appliances for unbalance. SUBSTANTIATION: To upgrade to new nominal voltage standards, to correct previous errors and to c lar i fy Panel's intent. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

YERKE: Delete the word "three." Put an asterisk after "one 115V air conditioner and 120V dishwasher" and before the footnote, "For feeder . . . . "

2- 194 - (Chapter 9, Example No. l (b)) : Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 2 RECOMMENDATION: Make the following changes:

Tit le to: "Example No. 2(a) Optional Calculation for One-Family Dwelling Heating Larger than Air-Conditioning."

Change calculation: "21,480 watts ÷ 230 volts = 93 amperes" to "21,480 watts ÷ 240 volts = 89.5 amperes".

Change calculation: "11,900 watts ÷ 230 volts = 51.7" to "11,900 watts ÷ 240 volts = 49.6 amperes". SUBSTANTIATION: To upgrade to new nominal voltage standards and to correct previous errors. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 40 2- 188 - (Chapter 9, Examples l(b), 1(c)): Accept SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Westlake Village, CA ~ A T I O N : Revise Examples to indicate feeder neutral load contributed by electric clothes dryer(s) or washer-dryer(s). SUBSTANTIATION: Examples do not indicate feeder neutral load contributed by electric clothes dryer. The majority of electric clothes dryers rated 120-208 or 120-240 volts require a neutral conductor for operation of the drive motor and controls. This motor is a line-to-neutral connected load as referred to in Section 220-22, and other like-connected motors are deemed to contribute to neutral load (see example 1(a)). Although not indicated in the examples, a large number of dryers installed in a multifamilydwelling or laundromat could contribute substantial neutral load. For example: 40 dryers installed in a multifamily dwelling, each with a 1/4 HP 120 volt drive motor; assume a worst-case condition where all the motors are connected to the same phase and neutral; the resulting connected unbalanced load is approximately 232 amperes. Omission of this neutral load is in conflict with Section 220-22. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

2- 195 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 1(c)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 2 RECOMMENDATION: Change as follows:

Change t i t l e to: "Example No. 2(b) Optional Calculation for One-Family Dwelling Air Conditioning Larger than Heating".

Add to end of line: "42 X 230": "assume P.F. = 1.0". Change calculation: "28,820 ÷ 230 volts" to:

"28,820 watts ÷ 240 volts = 120 amperes". Starting with: "2.4 kW ovens" rewrite as follows: 2-4 kW ovens plus I-5.1 kW cooking unit totals 13.1 kW Table 220-19 permits 55% demand factor 13.1 kW X .55 = 7.2 kW feeder capacity

7200W X 70% for neutral load 5040 watts dishwasher 1200 watts Total 11340 watts 11,340 watts ÷ 240 volts = 47.25, use 47 amberes

392

Table 11 Torque for Slotted Head Screws a Smaller Than No. 10 for Use with No. 10 AWG or Smaller Conductors

Torque -- Lb-lnches Screw Slot Screw-Slot Width--Inches Length--Inches c Less Than 3/64 More Than 3/64

To 5/32 7 9 5/32 7 12 3/16 7 12 7/32 7 12 1/4 9 12 9/32 -- 15 9/32+ -- 20


Table 12 Torque for Socket Head Screws a

Socket Size Across Flats--Inches Torque, Pound--Inches I/8 45 5/32 100 3/16 120 7/32 150 1/4 200 5/16 275 3/8 375 I/2 500 9/16 600


Table 13 Lug Bolting Torques

Bolt Diameter Inch Tightening Torque Pound-Feet

1/4 or less 6 5/16 11 3/8 19 7/16 30 1/2 40 5/8 or more 55

SUBSTANTIATION: Connectors can be improperly installed because of a lack of proper connector tightening information. To diminish this possibility, reference information covering recommended connector tightening torques should be included in Chapter 9. These tables are not proposed in the form of requirements because they are unenforceable. Attached are copies of pages from UL 486A and UL 486B, the source of these tables, which are identical for use with either copper or aluminum conductors. Note: A copy of attached material is available from NFPA on request. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: Since this proposal has been submitted as guidance, i t is referred to the editor of the NEC Handbook. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

EXAMPLES Log # 1670 2- 182 - (Chapter 9, Part B-Voltage): Reject SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc. RECOMMENDATION: For the uniform application of the provisions of (A~ticle 210, 215 and 220) "this section," a voltage of 115 and 230 V shall be used in computing the ampere load on the conductor. (Deleted material in parentheses and added material in quotations.) SUBSTANTIATION: By removing references to Articles 210, 215 and 220, this section would not require that all load calculations use 115 and 230 Volt but would use the voltage of the system for sizing of equipment and conductors such as 120, 240, 277, 480 and 208 Volt. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Panel Proposal 2-183. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

2- 183 - (Chapter 9, Part B-Voltage): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 2 RECOMMENDATION: Revise voltage as follows:

Voltage. For uniform application of Articles 210, 215 and 220, a nominal voltage of 120, 120/240, 240 and 208Y/120 volts shall be used in computing the ampere load on the conductor. SUBSTANTIATION: See Substantiation for Proposal 2-118. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1228 2- 184 - (Chapter 9, Part B-Voltage): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Robert M. Milatovich, Clovis, CA ~ A T I O N : Change 115 and 230 to 120 and 240. SUBSTANTIATION: This would bring Sections 210, 215 and 220 in line with the Examples. PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle. PANEL coMMENT: See Panel Proposal 2-183. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1737 2- 181 - (Chapter 9, Part B-Fractions of an Ampere): Accept SUBMITTER: Charles Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change "(larger than 0.5)" to "(.5 or larger)." SUBSTANTIATION: Recognized mathematical processes round off decimals at .5 and larger to the next higher number. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1998 11- 83 - (Chapter 9, Part B-Fractions of an Ampere): Accept SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Chapter 9, Section B. Fractions Of An Ampere.

Change "(larger than 0.5)" to "(0.5 or larger)." SUBSTANTIATION: Recognized mathematical processes round off decimals at .5 and larger to the next higher number. PANEL ACTION: Accept. PANEL CO.M~IENT: Round-off instructions as indicated by the submitter are built into calculators and computer software. Such standardized instructions are in the interest of safety and should be recognized in the NEC. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1728 2- 185 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 1): Accept SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc. ~ A T I O N : Delete: Reduced size neutral shall be permitted, usually two trade sizes smaller than the ungrounded conductors. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 220-22 does not substantiate this method of size of the grounded conductor. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 702 2- 186 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 1): Accept SUBMITTER: David Smith, City of Dallas Electrical Inspection ITE'L'OI~F~'I~ATION: Delete: Reduced size neutral shall be permitted usually two trade sizes smaller than the ungrounded conductor. SUBSTANTIATION: This note is not addressed in the Code any place else except here. This note causes a direct conflict with Section 220-22. Electricians try to use this one note as a rule of thumb for all types of services. I t is very important to have the proper size neutral conductor on any type service. The only reason this works on this particular situation is because of the extended rating for No. 4 conductors on 100 ampere single family residences. PANEL ACTION: Accept. vul~ uN FAN~L ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

391

SUBSTANTIATION: Update to new nominal voltages and to correct present errors. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative. COMMENT ON VOTE:

YERKE: Line "42 X 230" should be change to line "42 X 240" and change the calculations accordingly.

Log # 1599 2- 189 - (Chapter g, Example No. 2): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Pollak, The Aluminum Association, Inc. ~ A T I O N : Next-to-last line in Example No. 2 should read as follows: "Use No. 8 copper or No. 6 aluminum or copper-clad aluminum..." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is submitted to clarify the proper size equivalent of aluminum conductor for the application.

The size limitation is based upon an ampacity requirement which can be met with an aluminum conductor sized to provide the required ampacity. The Panel is referred to Section 230-41(b), Exception No. 1 which includes No. 6 aluminum or copper-clad aluminum; this proposal would have the example more clearly reflect the proper size aluminum conductor for the applicat!on. PANEL ACTION: Reject. PANEL COMMENT: See Proposal Comment 2-50. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

2- 201 - (Chapter 9, Example Nos. 2, 5 and 7): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 2

I ~ A T I O N : Delete existing Example Nos. 2, 5 and 7. SUBSTANTIATION: See new Examples. PANEL ACTION: Accept.


2- 196 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 3): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 2 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

STORE BUILDING (Present Example No. 3 Revised)

A store 50 feet by 60 feet, or 3000 square feet, has 30 feet of show window. There are a total of 80 duplex receptacles. The service is 120/240-volt, single-phase (3-wire service).

Computed Load (Section 220-10) *General Lighting Load:

3000 square feet at 3 watts per square foot X 1.25 11,250 watts

Show Window Lighting Load: 30 feet at 20(] watts per foot 6000 watts

Receptacle Load (Section 220-13) (Assume unity power factor):

80 receptacles at 180 va = 14,400 va or watts IO,O00W at 100% 10,000 watts (14,400 - 10,000) W at 50% 2200 watts

Outside sign circuit (600-6(c)) 1,200 volt-amperes or watts 1200 watts

30,650 watts Minimum Number of Branch Circuits Required

General Lighting Load: 11,250 ÷ 240 volts = 47 amperes for 3-wire, 120/240.

The lighting load may be served by 2-wire or 3-wire 15- or 2D-ampere circuits with combined capacity equal to 47 amperes or greater for 3-wire circuits or 94 amperes or greater for 2-wire circuits.

Show Window: 6000 watts ÷ 240 volts = 25 amperes for 3-wire, 120/240. The show window lighting may be served by 2-wire or 3-wire

circuits with a capacity equal to 25 amperes or greater for 3-wire • circuits or 50 amperes or greater for 2-wire circuits.

Receptacles required by Section 210-62 are assumed to be included in the receptacle load above if these receptacles do not supply the show window lighting load.

Receptacle Load: 14,400 watts ÷ 240 volts = 60 amperes for 3-wire 120/240.

The receptacle load may be served by 2-wire or 3-wire circuits with a capacity equal to 60 amperes or greater for 3-wire circuits or 120 amperes or greater for 2-wire circuits.

Minimum Size Feeders (or Service Conductors) Required (Section 215-3).

For 120/240-volt, 3-wire system: 30,650 watts ÷ 240 volts = 128 amperes

*The above examples assume that the entire lighting load is continuous. The general lighting load is increased by 25 percent in accordance with Section 220-2. No branch circuit may serve a continous lighting load greater than 80 percent of its rating. SUBSTANTIATION: To upgrade to new nominal voltage standards, to correct previous errors and to clar i fy Panel's intent. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

2- 197 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 4): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 2 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

CHAPTER 9, EXAMPLE NO. 4 MULTIFANILY DWELLING

Renumber as Example No. 4(a) and revise as follows: Multifamily dwelling having 40 dwelling units. Meters in two banks of 20 each and individual subfeeders to each

dwelling unit. One-half of the dwelling units are equipped with electric ranges

not exceeding 12 kW each. Other half of ranges are gas ranges. Area of each dwelling unit is 840 square feet. Laundry fac i l i t ies on premises available to all tenants. Add no

circuit to individual dwelling unit. Add 1500 watts for each laundry circuit to house load and add to the example as a "house load."

Computed Load for Each Dwelling Unit (Article 220): General Lighting Load:

840 square feet at 3 watts per square foot 2520 watts Special Appliance Load:

Electric Range (Section 210-19) 8000 watts Minimum Number of Branch Circuits Required for Each Dwelling Unit (Section 220-3):

General Lighting Load: 2520 watts ÷ 120 volts = 21 amperes or two 15-ampere, 2-wire circuits; or two 2D-ampere, 2-wire circuits.

Small Appliance Load: Two 2-wire circuits of No. 12 wire (See Section 220-3(b)).

Range Circuit: 8000 watts ÷ 240 volts = 33 amperes or a circuit of two No. 8's and one No. 10 as permitted by Section 220-22.

Minimum Size Subfeeder Required for Each Dwelling Unit (Section 215-2):

Computed Load: (Article 220): General Lighting Load: 2520 watts Small Appliance Load, two 20-ampere circuits 3000 watts

Total Computed Load (without ranges) ~'5~2"O-watts Appllcation of Demand Factor:

3000 watts at 100% 3000 watts 2520 watts at 35% 882 watts

Net Computed Load (without ranges) 3882 watts Range Load 8000 watts

Net Computed Load (with ranges) 11,882 watts For 120/240-volt, 3-wire system (without ranges):

Net Computed Load, 3882 watts ÷ 240 volts = 16.2 amperes. Size of each subfeeder (See Section 215-2).

For 120/240-volt, 3-wire system (with ranges): Net Computed Load, 11,882 watts ÷ 240 volts = 49.5 amperes.

Subfeeder Neutral: Lighting and Small Appliance Load 3882 watts Range Load, 8000 watts at 70% (See Section 220-22) 5600 watts

Net Computed Load (Neutral) 9482 watts 9482 watts ÷ 240 volts = 39.5 amperes

Minimum Size Feeders Required from Service Equipment to Meter Bank

(For 20 Dwelling Units - 10 with Ranges): Total Computed Load:

Lighting and Small Appliance Load, 20 X 5520 watts 110,400 watts

Application of Demand Factor: 3000 watts at 100% 3000 watts

107,400 watts at 35% 37,950 watts Net Computed Lighting and Small Appliance 40,590 watts Load

Range Load, 10 Ranges (less than 12 kW, Col. A, Table 220-19)

25~000 watts Net Computed Load (with ranges) 65,590 watts

For 120/240-volt, 3-wire system: Net Computed Load, 65,590 watts ÷ 240 volts=273 amperes.

Feeder Neutral: Lighting and Small Appliance Load 46,590 watts Range Load: 25,000 watts at 70% (See Section 220-22) 17~500 watts

Computed Load (neutral) 58,090 watts 58,090 watts ÷ = 240 volts = 242 amperes

Further Demand Factor (Section 220-22): 200 amperes at 100% 200 amperes 42 amperes at 70% 29 amperes

Net Computed Load (neutral) 229 amperes Minimum Size Main Feeder (or Service Conductors) Required (Less Houseload). (For 40 Dwelling Units - 20 with Ranges):

Total Computed Load: Lighting and Small Appliance Load, 40 X 5520 watts

220,800 watts

393

Application of Demand Factor: 3000 watts at 100% 3000 watts

117,000 watts at 35% 40,950 watts 100,800 watts at 25% 25~200 watts

Net Computed Lighting and Small Appliance 69,150 watts Load

Range Load, 20 ranges (less than 12 kW, Col. A, Table 220-19) 35~000 watts Net Computed Load 104,150 watts

For 120/240-volt, 3-wire system: Net Computed Load, 104, 150 watts ÷ 240 volts = 434 amperes

Feeder Neutral: Lighting and Small Appliance Load 69,150 watts Range Load, 35~000 watts at 70% (See Section 220-22) 24~500 watts

Computed Load (neutral) 93,650 watts 93,650 watts ÷ 240 volts = 390 amperes.

Further Demand Factor (See Section 220-22): 200 amperes at 100% 200 amperes 190 amperes at 70% 133 amperes

Net Computed Load (neutral) 333 amperes

See Tables 310-16 through 310-19, Notes 8 and 10.

SUBSTANTIATION: To upgrade to new nominal voltage standards, to correct previous errors and to clari fy Panel's intent. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

YERKE: I t is suggested that "house load" be defined. In the example, the "house load" is not added.

Move "Size of each subfeeder" up two lines on Page 208. Ampacity of subfeeder neutral for calculations without ranges is

not stated on Page 208. The feeder neutral wattage is 40,590 instead of 46,590 on Page

209.

Log # 1746 2- 190 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 4(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in Electricity Inc. IT~-O-MI~FE-N~ATION: Changes reference from "Section 210-25(b), Exception No. 2" to Section 210-52(e)." SUBSTANTIATION: This is an error in the 1981 Code which makes a reference to the 1978 NEC. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

2- 198 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 4(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 2 ~ A T I O N : Revise as follows:

CHAPTER 9, EXAMPLE No. 4(a) OPTIONAL CALCULATION FOR MULTIFAMILY DWELLING

Renumber as Example No. 4(b) and revise as follows: Multifamily dweHing equipped with electric cooking and space

heating or air conditioning and having 40 dwelling units. Meters in two banks of 20 each plus house metering and

individual subfeeders to each dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit is equipped with an electric range of 8kW

nameplate rating, four 1.5 kW, separately controlled 240-volt electric space heaters, and a 2.5 kW 240-volt electric water heater.

A common laundry fac i l i t y is available to all tenants (Section 210-52(e), Exception No. i ) .

Area of each dwelling unit is 840 square feet. Computed Load for Each Dwelling Unit (Article 220): General Lighting Load:

840 square feet at 3 watts per square foot 2520 watts Electric Range 8000 watts Electric Heat 6 kW 6000 watts (or air conditioning i f larger) Electric Water Heater 2500 watts

Minimum Number of Branch Circuits Required for Each Dwelling Unit:

General Lighting Load, 2520 watts ÷ 120 volts = 21 amperes or two 15-ampere 2-wire circuits or two 20-ampere 2-wire circuits. Small Appliance Loads: Two 2-wire circuits of No. 12 (See Section 220-3(b)). Range Circuit 8000 watts X 80% ÷ 240 volts = 27 amperes on a circuit of three No. 10 AWG as permitted in Column C of Table 220-19. Space Heating 6000 watts ÷ 240 volts = 25 amperes.

No. of circuits (See Section 220-3). Minimum Size Subfeeder Required for Each Dwelling Unit (Section 215-2):

Computed Load (Article 220): General Lighting Load 2520 watts Small Appliance Load, two 20-ampere circuits 3000 watts Total Computed Load (without range and space heating) 5520 watts

Application of Demand Factor: 3000 watts at 100% 3000 watts 2520 watts at 35% 882 watts

Net Computed Load (without range and space heating) 3882 watts

Range Load 6400 watts Space Heating, Section 220-15 6000 watts Water Heater 2500 watts

Net Computed Load for individual dwelling unit l ~ w a t t s

For 120/240-volt, 3-wire system Net Computed Load 18,782 watts ÷ 240 volts = 78 amperes

Subfeeder Neutral (Section 220-22) Lighting and Small Appliance Load 3882 watts Range load 6400 watts at 70% (See Section 220-22) 4480 watts Space and Water Heating (no neutral) 240 volt 0 watts

Net Computed Load (neutral) ~ w a t t s 8362 watts ÷ 240 volts = 35 amperes

Minimum Size Feeder Required from Service Equipment to Meter Bank for 20 Dwelling Units:

Total Computed Load: Lighting and Small Appliance Load

20 X 5520 watts Water and Space Heating Load

20 X 8500 watts Range Load 20 X 8000

Net Computed Load (20 dwelling units) Net Computed Load Using Optional Calculation

(Table 220-32) 440,400 watts X .38

167,352 watts ÷ 240 volts = 697 amperes Minimum Size Main Feeder Required (less house load) (For 40 Dwelling Units):

Total Computed Load: Lighting and Small Appliance Load

40 X 5520 watts Water and Space Heating 40 X 8500 watts Range Load 40 X 8000 watts

Net Computed Load (40 dwelling units) Net Computed Load Using Optional Calculation

(Table 220-32) 880,800 watts X .28

246,624 watts ÷ 240 volts = 1028 amperes Feeder Neutral Load for Feeder from Service Equipment to Meter Bank for 20 Dwelling Units:

Lighting and Small Appliance Load 20 X 5520 watts

First 3000 watts at 100% 107,400 watts at 35% Subtotal

20 Ranges = 35,000 watts at 70% (See Table 220-19 and Section 220-22) Total 65,000 watts ÷ 240 volts = 271 amperes

Further Demand Factor (Section 220-22) First 200 amperes at 100% Balance: 71 amperes at 70% Total

Feeder Neutral Load of Mains Feeder (less house load) for 40 Dwelling Units:

Lighting and Small Appliance Load 40 X 5520 watts 220,800 watts First 3000 watts at 100% 3000 watts

120,000 watts - 3000 watts = 117,000 watts at 35% 40,950 watts 220,800 watts - 120,000 watts = 100,800 watts at 25% 25~2Q0 watts

Net Computed Lighting and Small Appliance Load 69,150 watts 40 Ranges = 55,000 watts at 70% 38L500 watts (See Table 220-19 and Section 220-22) Total 107,650 watts 107,650 watts ÷ 240 volts = 449 amperes

Further Demand Factor (Section 220-22) First 200 amperes at 100% 200 amperes Balance: 249 amperes at 70% 174 amperes Total 374 amperes

SUBSTANTIATION: To upgrade to new nominal voltage standards, to correct previous errors and to clari fy Panel's intent. PANEL ACTION: Accept.


110,400 watts

170,000 watts 000 watts

watts

167,352 watts

220,800 watts 340,000 watts watts

atts

246,624 watts

110,400 watts 3,000 watts

37,500 watts 40,500 watts 24~500 watts

65,000 watts

200 amperes 50 amperes

250 amperes

394

2- 199 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 5(a)-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 2 ~ A T I O N : Add new Example.

EXAMPLE No. 5(a) MULTIFAMILY DWELLING SERVED AT 208Y/120 VOLTS, THREE PHASE

All conditions and calculations the same as for Multifamily Dwelling served at 120/240 volts, single phase except as follows:

Service to each dwelling unit shall be 2-phase legs and neutral. Minimum Numper of Branch Circuits Required for Each Dwelling Unit (Section 220-3):

Range Circuit : 8000 watts ÷ 208 volts = 38 amperes or a c i rcu i t of two No. 8's and one No. 10 as permitted by Section 220-22.

Minimum Size Subfeeder Required for Each Dwelling Unit (Section 215-2).

For 120/208-volt, 3-wire system (without ranges) Net Computed Load: 3882 watts ÷ 208 volts = 18.7 amperes.

For 120/208-volt, 3-wire system (with ranges): Net Computed Load: 11,882 watts ÷ 208 volts = 57.1 amperes. Subfeeder Neutral: 9482 watts ÷ 208 volts = 45.6 amperes.

Minimum Size Feeders Required from Service Equipment to Meter Bank {for 20 Dwelling Units-t0 with Ranges)

For 208Y/120-volt, 3-phase, 4-wire system. Ranges: Maximum number between any two phase legs = 4

Twice 4 = 8. Table 220-19 Demand = 23,000 watts Per phase demand: 23,000 watts ÷ 2 = 11,500 watts Equivalent 3-phase load = 34,500 watts

Net Computed Load ( to ta l ) : 40,590 watts + 34,500 watts = 75,090 watts

76,090 watts ÷ (208)(1.732) = 208.4 amperes Feeder Neutral Size

40,590 watts + 34,500 watts at 70% = 64,700 watts Net Computed Neutral Load:

64,700 watts ÷ (208)(1.732) = 179.6 amperes Minimum Size Main Feeder (less house load) (for 40 Dwelling Units-20 with Ranges)

For 208Y/120-volt, 3-phase, 4-wire system Ranges: Maximum number between any two phase legs = 7

Twice 7 = 14. Table 220-19 Demand = 29,000 watts Per phase demand: 29,000 ÷ 2 = 14,500 watts Equivalent 3-phase load: 43,500 watts

Net Computed Load ( to ta l ) : 6g,150 watts + 43,500 watts = 112,650 watts

112,650 watts ÷ (208)(1.732) = 312.7 amperes Main Feeder Neutral Size

69,150 watts + 43,500 watts at 70% = 99,600 watts 99,600 watts ÷ (208)(1. 732) = 276.5 amperes

Further Demand Factor (Section 220-22) 200 amperes at 100% 200.0 amperes 76.5 amperes at 70% 53.6 amperes

Net Computed Load 2 ~ amperes SUBSTANTIATION: To upgrade to new nominal voltage standards, to correct previous errors and to c la r i f y Panel's intent. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Aff irmative.

Minimum Size Main Feeder Required (less house load) (40 dwelling units):

Net Computed Load: 246,624 watts ÷ (208)(1.732) = 685.1 amperes Main Feeder Neutral Load:

107,650 watts ÷ (208)(1.732) = 298.8 amperes Further Demand Factor (Section 220-22)

200 amperes at 100% 200.0 amperes 98.8 amperes at 70% 69.2 amperes

Net Computed Load ~-g~-~-amperes

SUBSTANTIATION: To upgrade to new nominal voltage standards, to correct previous errors and to c la r i f y Panel's intent. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1745 2- 191 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 7): Accept SUBMITTER: Charles "Mike" Holt, Concepts in E lec t r ic i ty Inc. I~L~T(~q~L"~I~ATION: Chapter 9, Example No. 7. Thirty ranges rated as 12 kW each are supplied by a 3-phase, 4-wire, 120/208 vo l t feeder, (10 ranges on each phase), 10 ranges are connected between two phases. Deleted material in parentheses. SUBSTANTIATION: Ten ranges are not connected on each phase, they are connected between phases. This wi l l provide coordination to Section 220-19 of the NEC which refers to ranges between phases on a wye system. PANEL ACTION: Accept. PANEL COMMENT: See new Examples. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

Log # 1919 11- 84 - (Chapter 9, Example 8): Accept SUBMI1-FER: B. L. Auger/Mark Shapiro, Michigan Chapter IAEI RECO~ENDATION: Revise the example with regard to branch-circuit and ground-fault protection to ref lect Section 430-52 without the exception. Remove "and is not suff ic ient for the start ing current of the motor." from the second sentence and add, " i f the lO0-ampere fuse is not suff ic ient for the start ing current of the motor." to the end of the third sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: In the 1981NEC the rule allowing motor short-circui t protection to be rounded of f upward was ( jus t i f iab ly ) made an exception rather than the basic rule. A check of various manufacturer's fuse curves shows that a lO0-ampere nontime-delay fuse would hold.

Let the example serve its intended function of c lar i fy ing the Code. PANEL ACTION: Accept. VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: Unanimously Affirmative.

2- 200 - (Chapter 9, Example No. 5(b)-(New)): Accept SUBMITTER: CMP 2 ~ A T I O N : Add new Example.

EXAMPLE NO. 5(b) OPTIONAL CALCULATION FOR MULTIFAMILY DWELLING SERVED AT 208Y/120 VOLTS, THREE PHASE

All conditions and calculations the same as for Optional Calculations for Multifamily Dwelling served at 120/240 vo l t , single phase except as follows:

Service to each Dwelling Unit shall be two-phase legs and neutral.

Minimum Number of Branch Circuits Required for Each Dwelling Unit (Section 220-3).

Range C i r c u i t : 8000 watts at 80% ÷ (208) = 30.7 amperes or a c i rcu i t of two No. 8's and one No. 10 as permitted by Section 220-22. Space Heating: 6000 watts ÷ 208 volts = 28.8 amperes. Two 20-ampere, 2-pole circui ts required, No. 12.

Minimum Size Subfeeder Required for Each Dwelling Unit. Computed Load (120/208-volt, 3-wire c i rcu i t )

Net Computed Load: 18,782 watts ÷ 208 volts = 90.3 amperes Net Computed Load (neutral): 3882 watts + 6000 watts + 2500 watts + 6400 watts at 70% = 16,862 watts 16,862 watts ÷ 208 volts = 81.1 amperes

Minimum Size Feeder Required for Service Equipment to Meter Bank (20 dwelling units):

Net Computed Load: 167,352 watts ÷ (208)(1.732) = 464.9 amperes Feeder Neutral Load:

65,000 watts ÷ (208)(1.732) = 180.4 amperes

395