Health and Safety for Electricians and
Inspectors
A wide range of information is available to help us avoid
getting injured or sick as the result of our work. I have
summarized reports that I have reason to believe are unbiased but
that you don't need to read in full; and I provide links to other
reports that don't lend themselves to quick summary.
First, though, an excellent web site. The
somewhat-cumbersomely named Electronic Library of Construction
Occupational Safety and Health at http://www.elcosh.org/ offers
papers on work hazards, product recall notices, and a host of other
material categorized by the type of job you're on or by trade.
Saving Electrocution Victims
NIOSH published a report about what it has taken to revive
someone who got zapped badly enough that his heart stopped. The
answer is CPR within four (4) minutes, and then advanced support
from a medic within eight(8). If you leave the victim lying there
with their heart stopped much longer than four minutes without at
least CPR, they may not survive when you might otherwise have saved
them.
Prevent Electrocution from Backfeeds
NIOSH has looked at this one too. Lockout, tagout, safety
grounding, testing; you know the drill.
Sometimes workers make do with deteriorated equipment. NIOSH
published a report about people being shocked, even electrocuted,
because they plugged a three-prong cord into something so badly
damaged that the grounding prong made contact with an energized
terminal. Your secretary thinks it's our responsibility to see that
bad garbage deenergized.
Now for links to health/safety sites that don't
lend themselves to quick summary:
Here's a
92-page NIOSH manual for electrical students, teaching them about
workplace hazards--but only the electrical hazards:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-113/.
For an
overview paper on worker deaths by electrocution, which include
statistics by occupation, age, year, voltage level, etc., see this
link: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-131/.
As additional
reliable links are vetted, they will be added. I don't need to tell
you about UL or NFPA as resources.
========================
Seminars first,
then meetings.
SEMINARS
For a
while, thanks to the generosity of Wayne Robinson, we included
mini-seminars with our regular meetings. That series of
mini-seminars is over. Note, though, that a normal feature of every
www meeting is an educational program for which each member who
attends the full session earns between one and two CEUs.
We did
periodically offer 10-hour seminars, although none has been
scheduled since 2009. However, online seminars are available
through the association, a registered IACET provider. For
information, visit WWW.IAEI.ORG or call 1-800-786-4234.
MEETINGS
This section starts out with information about our next regular
local meeting, and then we have reports of previous meetings, going
back several years to Y2K.
Forthcoming Activities
Our next meeting will take place at 5:30 PM on September 17, 2013, at our usual location: Capital/Tristate Supply's Forestville, MD training facility.
If you didn't make it to our last several meetings, note that our meeting time moved up several meetings back. Please try to be on Time: 5:30.
PROGRAM
“Wiring Devices and Circuit Protection.”
Report of the May 21, 2013 meeting of the George Washington Chapter, IAEI. In addition to our presenter, three inspector members and two associate members attended, plus four guests.
LOCATION
Once again, thanks to the generosity of Ken Cain, VP Marketing for Capital-Tristate Electric Supply, we met in their training facility at 8511 Pepco Place, Upper Marlboro, MD. Our immediate host was Ken’s assistant, Jackie Hart. She helped our presenter sort out the projection system.
To accommodate our presenter’s travel schedule, we postponed our business meeting till after the presentation.
PROGRAM
Steve Rood of Pass & Seymour/Legrand flew in from Syracuse, N.Y. to talk to us about wiring devices and their protection. Steve described and showed us what’s changed and what will be changing, in 2008–and further back, in 2011, and what we can anticipate in the 2014.
Steve has been in charge of marketing for the P&S commercial/industrial product lines, but is in the process of shifting to take over as their Codes and Standards expert because their long-term specialist is retiring at the end of 2013.
He talked about code changes and he talked about related issues. This report will focus on the latter. We see abundant written material on code changes, so why repeat it?
AFCIs were one focus. Although P&S did prototype an AFCI receptacle a dozen years ago, as rumor had it, until now they and other major manufacturers did not see enough of demand to warrant producing them for sale. Steve talked about a proposed requirement for AFCI protection of nearly every new residential circuit. We’ll learn whether this proposal is accepted at the June 2013 NFPA meeting when the 2014 NEC is adopted.
Inspector Daryl Stevens sees increases in AFCI requirements as premature. He’s on his second AFCI tester, and it doesn’t trip all AFCIs! Tripping in response to the AFCI breaker’s own TEST button does not prove to his satisfaction that it protects everything downstream.
Chapter President Robert Welborne, a Plans Examiner for Prince George’s County, Maryland, commented that he expects the 2014 edition to include quite a number of changes. He also mentioned that the County's safety proponents, so slow in moving it on from the 2002 NEC, now have changed focus. He expects Prince George's County to adopt the 2014 NEC shortly after it is published.
More familiar types of protection such as GFCIs were another focus. Although protected-in-use covers have been required for outdoor receptacles that may be used unattended ever since the 1999 NEC was adopted, it took a while for Code language to take into account the mischief that protected-in-use covers can face. Out of this came the requirement for heavy-duty in-use covers, which often are metallic and gasketed at the openings for cord exit. Also out of this came the requirement for Weather-Resistant receptacles. When a cover has ben knocked off, not only can this type of receptacle withstand a certain amount of moisture but its nylon face is UV-resistant.
Heavy-Duty covers have to comply with a specific standard. We also talked about a variety of other markings. The marking “Heavy-duty” on a wiring device, like “Spec grade” or “Commercial Grade,” has no technical meaning. A marketing tool, it may represent a slightly higher, tougher-design position within a company’s product line. Perhaps the device has a nylon rather than a thermoplastic body. Perhaps some metal parts are brass rather than steel. There’s no legal requirement for this, and no consistency across brands.
Nonetheless, if an engineer has specified that devices must be “Commercial Grade” complying with the contract requires installation of devices bearing that marking. Steve did assure us that most of his company’s 125 volt, 20 amp receptacles–the most common receptacle rating used in commercial construction–sport such a marking.
There are other meaningful terms: Hospital Grade; Federal Specification Grade; Isolated Ground (IG). A receptacle may comply with more than one of these standards, and if so, they’ll be marked on it. Visibly? This varies. Isolated Ground devices have had an orange triangle on the face since adoption of the 1996 NEC. Weather Resistant receptacles must show the “WR” after installation. Hospital Grade Devices have a green dot visible on the face. If you have an IG receptacle that is hospital grade, both the orange triangle and the green dot need to
be visible. On the other hand, Tamper Resistant receptacles don’t need visible letters once the cover plate is in place, for a simple reason: the shutters themselves are visible from in front.
Show-and-Tell was fun. Secretary-Treasurer David Shapiro had asked Steve, ahead of time, whether any more-attractive wiring devices were in the works. Steve brought interesting catalogs of cutting-edge device designs.
Catalogs? But this is a hands-on group! No worries: Steve also brought us assorted devices for members to examine, including a combination 120 volt AC/5 volt DC(USB) device, a combination receptacle-surge protective device that buzzes when tripped. It provides common mode noise attenuation from 500 KHz to 30 MHz up to 20 dB. GFCI that also sounds an alarm when tripped sounds especially useful for protecting equipment that should not be left unpowered for a significant length of time but is located in an environment that calls for GFCI protection. How loud? A smoke alarm shrieks a minimum of 75 decibels; these GFCis run about 60 decibels at a similar distance. There were more.
Steve graciously left the equipment for members to adopt. He also handed out code-change booklets. Robert took home a box of hospital-grade devices that may prove useful in the classes he teaches at the community college.
BUSINESS
REPORTS
President Robert Welborne and Membership officer Karl Mirpanah had nothing new to report. Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro reported that our financial picture has not changed. Education Officer Shirley Clay did not attend the meeting or send in a report. All reports were accepted without demur.
There was one other activity. All who knew the Panizaris had the opportunity to sign a condolence card acknowledging the death of Joe’s and Rich’s father. We were sad also to learn, as we were circulating the card, that Ingram Munn’s wife died on April 29.
FUTURE MEETINGS
For our next meeting, September 17, we can anticipate a good brain workout. Robert Welborne is going to take us number-crunching, unless our Shirley offers a different presenter.
Our final meeting this year, November 19, will be honored by Michael Johnston, former director of Codes and Standards for IAEI, who now fills a similar position for NECA.
We adjourned about 7:45 PM, having spent more than 1 1/2 hours on the educational program. They were well spent.
Common Neutrals
Report of the March 19, 2013 meeting of the George Washington Chapter, IAEI
“Common Neutrals” was the advertised program theme. Seven members attended, plus one guest. We started shortly after 5:30, with officers’ reports.
BUSINESS
REPORTS
Education Officer Shirley Clay distributed invitations to attend a $30, eight-hour seminar on PV inspection. It’s focused on, but not limited to, Code officials. The host is IEC Chesapeake, and the instructors are from North Carolina State University, She mentioned that she has scheduled a speaker for our November meeting, and needs suggestions for our May and September programs.
President Robert Welborne and Membership officer Karl Mirpanah had nothing new to report.
Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro reported our level of assets and commented that we have not yet received our bookkeeper’s report and invoice. Also, the International Office offered to sell us various 2014 Code books at a bulk discount. (There was no interest in this.) Finally, as Section Representative, he mentioned that the Eastern Section Board passed our proposed Bylaws changes on up to the International Office.
Our next meeting is scheduled for May 21. There being no new business, after introductions we began our program. In this we were helped immeasurably by our host, Capital/Tristate’s Marketing VP Ken Giles. He provided the use of a laptop whose ports are compatible with their projector cable!
PROGRAM
The program revolved around a series of pictures showing two large, down-facing junction boxes located beneath a residential basement ceiling; the panelboards feeding them; and NEC documents. NFPA’s Dennis Berry kindly blessed our Fair Use of their material.
The core issue is that even when we know in our stomachs that a practice is illegal, even when there is collateral evidence that the NEC does not intend for the practice to be allowed, the practice remains permissible. Only when specific wording is added to the NEC forbidding the approach does it warrant rejection.
This is the case with common neutrals. As we saw in the slide show, in the 2010 Report on Proposals Don Ganiere identified the need to add wording. His proposal led to Section 200.4 in the 2011 NEC. Until a jurisdiction adopts a Code version incorporating this change, or the equivalent in a local amendment, installations using common neutrals have been Code-compliant. This presumes, naturally, that there are no other violations such as circuit mislabeling. There was no objection to Ganiere’s clear explanation of the need for this addition to the article by the members of the Code-Making Panel. The Report on Comments added a supportive comment by Mike Holt, and, again, no objections.
As Andy Cartal pointed out in a pre-meeting telephone consultation, Section 215.4 explicitly permits the limited use of common neutrals for feeders, and Section 225.7 explicitly permits the use of common neutrals in outdoor lighting, Despite the presence of these permissions, without the explicit language in the 2011 Code forbidding common neutrals elsewhere, these sections actually served to limit the use of common neutrals in feeders and outdoor wiring.
What this means in practical terms is that the installation David showed in the slides, which is in a local jurisdiction that has not yet adopted the 2011 NEC can pass. Yes, it includes branch circuits using common neutrals, but the installer sizes the neutral/s so as to carry the maximum return current than may be imposed.
That’s it in a nutshell. Because chapter meetings have room for variety, this didn’t end the matter. To Rick Panizari, any sharing of a return conductor by multiple energized conductors looks like a multiwire circuit. If it doesn’t fit the definition of a multiwire circuit, this just makes it an illegal multiwire circuit. Yet this argument is absent in the ROC and ROP. No one raised this objection as part of the Code-making process.
To Karl Mirpanah, all this misses the point that the installation was a bad design. If you have a long run to a variety of outlets, you don’t mess around with individual low-ampacity branch circuits, you install a subpanel closer to the point of use. Having visited the job pictured, Karl mentioned that the homeowner, not an electrician, was responsible for all that I’d seen. He also explained the reason for the common neutrals. He believed the owner had installed the junction boxes because he had cut back pre-existing branch circuits’ MC cables, and they no longer reached the panelboards.
At this point, our discussion departed from the slide show, from the issue of common neutrals and even from the need to enforce the NEC as written and change it when it doesn’t say what it should.
David mentioned the fact that, so far as he can tell, even in the 2011 NEC, there’s no requirement for handle ties where common neutrals are allowed and commonly found, namely in festoon lighting. This led to a story or two about interrupting energized return conductors. Ingram Munn chimed in here, as did Shirley Clay with stories about dangerous, illegal installations where she’s been called in. In one case, she could see the dark evidence of three small fires the building had already suffered.
Rick mentioned a disagreement he had with someone who was guided by the International Residential Code (IRC). He expressed concern over apparent differences between its electrical provisions and the NEC. David offered to look this up, but unfortunately the person Rick’s dealing with relied on a rather earlier version of the IRC than David has.
Karl noted that electrical Third Party Inspectors in DC now have to pass a test on the ICC’s International Energy Conservation Code. He mentioned that Loudon County, VA has had a motion detector requirement for commercial spaces for 10 years. An office space will have a motion detector (with an override) installed to control lighting, and pass inspection. Then someone will be still enough to trigger shutdown, and they’ll get the detector replaced with a simple switch. He also mentioned (with a little hyperbole) that homeowners can use postcard permits in D.C. to perform any electrical work other than service upgrades.
Having finished our discussion of common neutrals, we had a few slides left. They were a reserve, included in the PowerPoint(R)-type show against the possibility that we would have time to spare.
We had some fun tsk-tsking other problems with this installation, problems that were emphatically evident on the remaining slides. Karl, Rick, and I believe Robert’s guest Chris Shiaris were expressed their disgust with utility (handi-) boxes. One thing is clear: if Karl is called back and asked to inspect the work in the basement panelboards and junction boxes, he’s had plenty of advice on what to look for.
We adjourned a few minutes before 8 PM, having spent about two hours on the program.
Lightning protection versus safety bonding; Firehouse Classification; and AIC Calculation
This is the record of our meeting Tuesday, January 15, 2013.
Two members were present at the announced 5:30 PM start time. Over the next hour or so, further arrivals built attendance up to three Inspector members, three Associate members, and one nonmember. We were quite concerned about the non-appearance of one of the evening’s scheduled presenters, who had planned to arrive at 5 PM to set up the PowerPoint show he had put in long hours developing. Due to his absence, we modified the program.
System Grounding and Lightning Grounding
Karl Mirpanah, P.E., our Membership officer, led us into a discussion of lightning protection and NEC requirements. The risks from lightning strikes lead him to believe that where service comes to one building, which sends a feeder to a second building, you should keep the second building’s grounding system separated from the first building. Otherwise, a strike at Building 2 could result in considerable damage at Building 1. Moreover, we learned perhaps an hour in to the discussion, he does not believe in bonding a building’s grounding electrode system to its lightning protection array’s grounding electrode system.
If he goes on a job and sees the likelihood that a lighting protection system could let a strike cross into the structure’s service equipment, he wants an interrupter installed ahead of the equipment. He received his engineering education in Europe. There, he noted, a main breaker is designed not only to protect against short circuits and overloads but also to detect ground faults and interrupt power to them. However, in those electrical systems a lightning protective fuse is installed ahead of the main breaker.
Everybody got into the act. President Robert Welborne quoted the code Section, 250.106. Rick Panizari suggested that even without a lightning protection array, a building’s grounding electrode system offers some protection. Karl challenged this, saying it would burn right up due to the huge power in a lightning strike. Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro suggested that the main purpose both of installing a building’s normal grounding electrode system and of bonding it to a building’s lightning protection system probably is to minimize differences in touch potential under normal circumstances.
Shirley Clay, who recently rejoined IAEI, agrees that the two grounding electrode systems need to be bonded together. She rose to the occasion and sketched on the whiteboard her idea of where and how they need to be bonded. Her opinion is that they should be bonded with conductors the size of the electrical system’s grounding electrode conductors. This is one of the comments that brought us to the question of sizing lighting array and lightning down conductors. David’s understanding has been that the down conductors need to be a minimum of 10 AWG. Karl talked of the half-inch, probably aluminum rod used both to form the array and to serve as the down conductors in the National Harbor system he has seen. Rick asked how the sections of rod are connected, and Karl suggested welding. How was the rod run? With no bend angle greater than 45 degrees.
This returned David to the argument that there would be no danger from bonding the two grounding electrode systems, using a sharply angled bonding conductor that came back up from the lighting system after the point at which it reached its own electrode–run, in other words, the very opposite of the smooth way lightning down conductors should go. David noted that the intersystem bonding termination required by Section 250.94 seems to be intended for purposes such as bonding to the lightning protection array’s electrode system.
Karl seemed to agree that it would be safe to bond the two systems, if they were bonded right at the ground ring which is his lightning array grounding electrode of choice. (Karl also believes in running a separate down conductor from the lightning array at each corner of the building.)
Business
Shortly after 6:30–having waited till then for the arrival of any members who had forgotten or overlooked our change in starting times--we broke for business. First, the minutes of our previous meeting were accepted unanimously. We dispensed with committee reports to focus on annual meeting tasks.
David explained that, as we lacked a quorum by one Inspector Member, the Inspector Members present could accept Robert’s proposed candidates for this year’s officers, but David would have to send out a mail/email ballot to the full Inspector membership before the nominations could be officially, formally, confirmed.
Robert nominated himself to continue as President, David to continue as Secretary-treasurer and representative to the Eastern Section, and Karl to continue as Membership chair.
This left one critical post vacant: Education. Robert explained the duties of our Education officer, and David elaborated on them. Shirley volunteered to take this on, was gladly accepted by Robert as fill-in appointee, and was unanimously accepted as candidate. There were no volunteers for other positions such as Vice President, Nominating Committee, Auditing Committee, or Budget Committee.
We spent some time discussing possible presenters and topics for future meetings before returning to the evening’s Code talk.
Characterizing Firehouses
We returned to last month’s discussion of firehouses. Rick said he still can’t see calling firehouse spaces residential.
Rick: A sleeping area, sure, but even so why would you use Tamper Resistant receptacles in firehouse sleeping area? There’s no reason for children to stay there.
Daryl Stevens (an Inspector Member whose presence was thanks to Karl’s encouragement): “How do you design multiple use occupancies?”
Rick: “A bunk room is not like a residence where you move furniture around.”
Shirley “Is the ‘apartment’ standalone?”
Rick: “Well, there are bunk rooms, private rooms, common showers, . .”
Robert: “Under 210.60 there are at least two receptacles on separate circuits in the kitchen.”
Daryl: “Some firehouses are like small assembly occupancies; nowadays they are not used as gathering places.”
Robert: “Nowadays is it commercial?”
Daryl: “What is the occupancy limit?”< BR>
Rick: “I’d treat it as commercial. And I could see it as requiring arc-fault protection”
Daryl: “Calling it commercial gives much more latitude for design.”
Robert: “The plan [that started this discussion] started as commercial, but it was kicked back a couple of times.”
Karl: “You can’t call it residential, because it’s not family-occupied.”
Robert “I would size the service for commercial. And straight commercial including the bunk rooms. Though it does have multiple occupancies.”
Daryl: The Takoma Park firehouse has a basketball court in the basement.”
Shirley: The Landover Road firehouse was small, but opened up the biggest room to be used for neighborhood parties.”
David speculated that there might be an NFPA standard specifically addressing firehouses, and for a while Shirley looked for one, using her smart phone. This did not yield any epiphany. Robert promised to check on this Wednesday morning.
Back to Systems’ Grounding
Visiting non-member Monica Cortez, P.E. showed up at this point, and we put her on the spot–we asked her opinion about the bonding of service grounding and lightning array grounding. She agreed with the NEC model: install two grounding electrode systems, but tie them together.
In a last comment on Karl’s concerns about lightning protection, Rick commented that he has a surge arrestor at his meter can, hence upstream of his service equipment.
This brought us to 7:30 pm, when Robert gave his presentation.
Calculating AIC Based on Transformer Rating
Robert finds few people know how to size protective equipment based on transformer impedance. Lacking evidence to the contrary, he starts out by assuming transformer impedance of 5.75%. Using this assumption, he offered a first example:
At 1000kVA a transformer’s primary is fed 4160vV, and it’s stepped down to 480V at its secondary windings. Dividing incoming kVA by voltage, and by 1.73 because the power is carried by three phase conductors, yields 139 Amps coming in through the primary. Table 450.3A covers maximum setting of overcurrent protection for transformers over 600 V, but to keep the calculations simple he sized everything at 100%
Multiply 139 amps by the ratio of primary to secondary (4160/480, which is 8 2/3) and we get 1203 Amps available on the secondary side. We start with 5.75% times 480V to get 27.6 V and because volts=is amps times impedance and thus impedance=volts over amps, 27.6V/1203A=.02294 ohms. Where we assume a secondary no-impedance short circuit or bolted short, that’s the only impedance, we divide the secondary voltage by that, 480/.02294 to get maximum possible secondary current of 20,924 A. This means we need protection at the 22kAIC level.
However, many manufacturers are selling 2-3% impedance transformers, which require higher AIC protection.
As a rule of thumb, Robert commented, with 30 kVA transformers, 10kAIC equipment is fine.
His second example used a 500 kVA transformer, 4160V primary, 208V secondary and 5.75% impedance. He calculated a possible secondary current of 20921.8 amp here. However, with a 3% transformer impedance it would be 46,300 A.
Rick mentioned a shortcut; Daryl grinned and said it has been many years since he had to calculate AIC by hand.
Closing discussion
As we wound down for the evening, Robert mentioned the CE courses he is offering through local community colleges.
A number of people commented on their use of a patent clamp used to bond grounding conductors to enclosures. Nobody believes that their use is required, but most of those present liked them One senior member actively dislikes them.
We adjourned around 8:15.
Followup on firehouses
The next morning, Robert reported some answers, based on the 2003 Life Safety Code and the 2009 International Building Code. A fire station’s bunkroom is to be treated as a multiple occupancy building. He gathered some of this information and mailed it to David. It will live with the chapter’s NEIS collection.
He added, “ If the Life Safety Code classifies it as a "Dormitory", then Article 210.60 would apply which also puts us back at Article 210.52. Just to clarify.”
Followup on transformers and AIC
Robert also mentioned that he and our visitor Monica Cortez have worked on several designs. One involved a transformer serving a water treatment plant. The incoming voltage was 13.2 kV, capacity was 2MVA, secondary voltage 480, which was fed throughout the plant. The manufacturer supplied its impedance, 7.4%, and they had to figure out the AIC. They also faced a challenge keeping the 13.2 kva conductors to a maximum of three 90 degree bends (the utility spec, more severe than the NEC’s restriction) before terminating into switchgear.
Grounding-Bonding Feeders to Other Structures; Classifying Firehouse Spaces; and Powering Jockey Pumps
This is a report of the George Washington Chapter, IAEI’s November 20, 2012 meeting.
We had three Inspector Members, four Associate Members, and three nonmembers, one of whom was our co-presenter, Ray Adkins, P.E. The meeting was called to order and our presentation begun at about 5:45 and finished around 7:20. After this we took care of business.
Before we got under way with the planned presentation, Rich Panizari showed us a handful of THWN conductors some of which had melted in conduit as the result of a fault hundreds of feet away. Only the insulation on the conductors associated with the faulted circuit had melted together; the others that had shared the same underground conduit showed no damage.
Grounding-Bonding Feeders to Other Structures
After discussing this phenomenon, we moved on to the featured presentation. The installation that led to the conflict between engineering judgment and NEC requirements came to be designed because of a series of fires at two apartment buildings. The local inspection authority insisted that the owner bring more power to the buildings if he wanted to continue renting apartments in them.
The upgrade consisted of a service brought to one building and a feeder from this to the second. Both were plain masonry buildings, with no building steel. The P.E. designer, Ray, did not like the idea of running a grounding conductor back to the first building. It turned out that his main concern was with the likely result of a lightning strike to the second building. He would have preferred to give it just a simple path to ground at the second building.
Ray had brought along blueprints, as prepared by the architect, and was able to trace the circuiting and paths he was describing. With a larger group we would have needed to use the projector and PowerPoint or equivalent slides. Here we managed to gather around his part of the table, some of us craning our heads a wee bit.
The snarl that we gradually untangled is that Ray looked at bonding and grounding as ensuring a path to earth; as the rest of us made clear, we look at it as ensuring a relatively low-impedance path for faults in the electrical system to complete their circuits to points of origin so as to trip their overcurrent devices. Ray understands quite clearly that lightning is unlikely to trip overcurrent devices. However, he was concerned about possible risk to people at the first building from lightning strikes at the second.
Chapter outreach officer Pete Bowers suggested an exotic possibility: Ray’s installer could run an isolated grounding conductor to the second building’s panelboard. This option did not interest Ray.
As Ray explained the details of his design, we learned that the feeder had been run underground in rigid metal conduit almost to the second building, with just the last few feet enclosed in PVC conduit. Chapter secretary-treasurer David Shapiro suggested that he bond the end of the metal conduit to the second building’s panelboard. In the course of the discussion, Pete had emphasized that it is quite common for knowledgeable people to insist on a separate grounding conductor, because they distrust the tightness of couplings, connectors and setscrews and don’t want the system to ultimately have a high-resistance ground.
Ray moved on to talk about the IEEE position that for protection against events such as nearby lightning strikes, two surge protectors should be used, one upstream and one further down. As we talked about the paths that lightning takes, Pete talked about the need for smooth turns in lightning arrays’ down conductors--and mimed shaping them.
After we were done with all the side issues raised by the topic of Code requirements for grounding and bonding–and grounding electrodes, and the need to join all available elements of a grounding electrode system, we moved on to the second presentation.
Classifying Firehouse Spaces
Ray’s second concern also was presented accompanied with an architect’s blueprint. It showed the planned upgrade of a firehouse. How should the space be categorized, in terms of load calculations, circuit supply to cooking and dining and bathroom areas, and receptacles? Should they treat it all as residential, partly as residential, or not at all?
Should any of it be treated as a place of assembly? In another firehouse, the large area their equipment normally occupies sometimes is cleared and used for fundraising dances. In the past, this fire company had not made such an assembly-type use of the space. Should this be considered?
The plans showed bunk rooms, a few private dorm rooms, bathrooms, a workout room, a commercial-type kitchen that was used to prepare food for fundraising events, more- and less- private bathrooms, a conference room in which the firefighters often hung out and watched television while waiting for fire calls, a watch room, . . .
If the building was not all residential, did it require a fire alarm system? If the building was all residential, GFCI receptacles were needed accessible to every bathroom sink. If all–or a particular area--was residential, load generally could be calculated at three watts per foot. On the other hand, receptacle spacing would be far touchier. Outside of dormitory and bunkroom areas, did the building need to be treated as residential in terms of egress requirements? In this instance, the architect and plan reviewer agreed the answer to this last question was no. The electrical inspector on this job wanted AFCI protection in the fitness room and the conference room. He also wanted Tamper-Resistant receptacles installed throughout this adults-only occupancy, and residential receptacle spacings only in the dormitory rooms.
We chewed this over, a good bit. The most important concern, we agreed with Ray, is to achieve some consistency between plan reviewers and inspectors in making these decisions.
Next came the question of wiring method. The job was specced for MC cable, but could NM be used? Pete raised the question of building height, but a number of others pointed out that the NEC has dropped this criterion, substituting building type, as described in (2011) NEC Annex E. Subsequent to our meeting, Pete looked at information in the (2003) International Building Code, and found neither anything to contradict Annex E guidance nor anything that would help us classify firehouses or areas within them. The IBC essentially refers the user to the NEC for guidance on electrical design.
Jockey Pumps
After we had our fun with this challenge, chapter president Robert Welborne raised the question of whether a sprinkler system’s jockey (pressure-maintenance) pump can and perhaps should be fed from the same circuit as the fire pump. Ed Bihlear noted that if the jockey pump is fed from a non-emergency panel that is generally accessible, it can accidentally lose power all too easily. When this is the case, the pressure drops only so far before the fire pump itself will come on. This means all the whistles and bells go off, with the fire department alerted. Therefore, it is far better to feed the jockey pump from an emergency panel. Here’s a case where NEC Article 695 is more permissive than NFPA 20. In fact, the jockey pump can be fed off the fire pump controller.
Ray brought up the tap rule. Ed mentioned a job on which the fire pump kept being activated and he kept being asked to adjust the overcurrent device’s trip setting till finally he balked and looked for himself, finding a defective solenoid.
After this we thanked Ray and let him go. His wife, who is also his business partner, had been waiting outside all this time! (She did have her smart phone for company.)
At about 7:20 Chapter president Robert Welborne convened our business meeting and turned the floor over to David, who was briefed in September on the procedures that are particularly important to those who oversee us. Although we were shy of a quorum, as usually is the case, we proceeded as though we were in a position to transact business.
David started out by announcing that IAEI’s server is down at present, and then brought up the question of our chapter’s minutes. The minutes on our web site were unanimously accepted.
Then, Robert, representing our education committee, gave his report. A number of members expressed interest in another field trip, to visit a generating facility that uses gas primarily rather than coal. Robert looks forward to consulting with Harry to plan future programs. This report too was unanimously accepted.
Next, Pete, our outreach officer, was asked to discuss relations with other groups. He mentioned that the forthcoming Maryland Uniform Electrical Licensing Exam Committee meeting would be open to all. It takes place on the evening of November 28, at Capital Tristate - White Marsh, 8009 Corporate Drive, White Marsh, MD.
After this, he shared some thoughts about problems with Washington, D.C.’s Third Party Inspection (TPI) system. He mentioned difficulties in the areas of record-keeping, of supervision by a Person In Charge (PIC) registered as a P.E., and of the interface with DC inspectors. Pete got agreement on one aspect from Karl Mirpanah, another TPI, and from David, who had resigned as a TPI out of discomfort with the PIC format.
Pete’s report was unanimously accepted.
Our membership report was next. Karl Mirpanah had no news; Robert mentioned having talked about the organization to ten people. This report too was accepted unanimously.
Finally, David offered the Treasurer’s report. Because we lack both a Budget committee and an Audit committee, he detailed our financial income and expenses for the year. He particularly brought to the meeting’s attention the generosity of Pam Panizai, our bookkeeper.
Next, he detailed the costs associated with sending a chapter representative to the Eastern Section meeting. We have traditionally sent the secretary-treasurer as our representative, covering all expenses. This goes back to the days when we were offering seminars that brought in extra income. The short version of all this is that we’re broke. Because we’re a relatively small chapter and engage in no income-producing activities, we rely totally on the twice-yearly dues distribution. It’s not enough to cover annual meeting expenses, certainly not when the meeting is on Rhode Island.
David’s report, including his suggested plan for expenditure of what we have--reimburse what we can, but leave $100 in the kitty--was unanimously accepted.
October 2012 Meeting
We visited Genon’s Chalk Point generating plant on October 9, 2012. (Genon may be owned by NRG Energy, Inc. by the time you read this.) We kept this field trip informal rather than treating it as a normal meeting. This was largely out of consideration for our host, who’d had a long day. In addition to this concern, not only didn’t we have a quorum, our roster included as many guests as members. We had two Inspector Members, two Associate Members, and four guests, all Professional Engineers.
Genon had security procedures in place. First off, our ID was checked against the list of visitors approved for the evening. As soon as we entered the gate, had to sign releases in which we took responsibility for our own safety.
However, releases were not enough. We had been warned of the need to bring Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
We all started out with hard hats and, one way or another, protection for our ears and eyes. The one engineer who had forgotten to bring safety glasses was given a pair–awfully nice of our host–and two or three accepted earplugs. Ed Bihlear was the only one of us who brought ear muffs, leftovers from his days with a Metro contractor.
As soon as we had convoyed into the parking lot, we were escorted into a classroom trailer where we enjoyed a briefing from Wayne Hale, Chalk Point’s trainer and our immediate host.
His topics ranged from material sources to legal requirements to politics to chemistry to waste heat fish farming to supplying gypsum for drywall manufacture.
We also heard his views about state versus federal pollution standards and about election year versus normal attitudes towards coal.
After the briefing, we spent over two hours on our guided tour through the awesome generating plant. The scale is immense. In explaining the critical need for backup power to assure bearing lubrication continues to be pumped in,
Wayne commented that an order for a replacement 13.8 kV motor might result in a three year wait for delivery. Still, bigger is not always best. Toward the end of our visit, Wayne commented to Haddus Neway, an avid questioner, that they are reaching the inversion point where the economies of scale diminish. It may be more cost-effective to install two huge motors or fans rather than one single--colossal--unit.
As we toured the outside plant, the PPE seemed hardly necessary. On our way up to the control center, though, we walked past loud, dirty--let’s repeat “loud” once more--equipment such as a monster turbine. In this environment we appreciated our hearing protection. Amusingly, a few questions and comments continued to be offered during this stroll; this seemed like chatting with a dentist while his drill whirs and grinds inside your mouth. Giant generators roar.
One aspect of a generating plant that seemed particularly important for us to understand is the difference in rules that utility operations face. In accordance with NEC 90.2 (B) they are generally covered under the National Electrical Safety Code, the NESC, which the utility itself is responsible for enforcing, not the NEC. Sure, consumers have a lot to say about electricity prices, and reliability, and sometimes pollution. However, to have nobody looking over your shoulder telling you to keep to the rules as you run your job seems worlds different from the electrical work that we know.
We saw that it’s not quite so hard-and-fast. Soon after our briefing began, Robert Welborne pointed out that applications of NEC 90.2 (A)(4). Thanks to this, the wiring in buildings not used for generation, such as the classroom trailer we started in, or the storage buildings that we had walked past, remains under the NEC. The AHJ enforcing it remains the local AHJ. Later, when we were all ascending in an elevator inside the building that contains a huge turbine, coal conveyor, and so forth, Karl Mirpana pointed out the elevator certificate, enforced the same as it would in any other establishment. Our guide, Wayne, also sits on the plant’s OSHA committee, and safety committee, and ergonomics committee, and more. These help the utility address yet more requirements enforced by outside bodies.
A question remained: how does a facility ensure that it complies with the NESC? When Wayne brought us in to the operations center–we were warned again to touch NOTHING--we asked one of the white-shirted operators about NESC enforcement. He explained that before any change is made, the engineering department prepares a proposal. Our equivalent in NEC-land may be plans, or permit applications. At the generating plant, the proposal is sent upstairs for several levels of approval. Then when the work is performed, he said they send in-house inspectors to confirm its compliance. (One of our former chapter presidents, perhaps in a similar fashion, fills this last function for a government entity that functions as its own AHJ.)
Not long after our visit to the Star Trek-like control center, Wayne guided us back to the classroom trailer. He asked for final questions, we distributed CEU certificates to those owed them for attending previous meetings, and we reminded people of our next meeting.
After this we headed home, keeping careful watch on the dark roads, as Wayne had warned us about deer and wild turkey.
Next
Most Recent Meeting
Mistakes Frequently Found on Electrical Plans
This
is the report of the George Washington Chapter’s meeting the
evening of May 15, 2012. We had seven attendees: four Inspector
members and three Associate.
Our new
President, Robert Welborne, provided the educational presentation,
describing mistakes frequently found in the plans accompanying
permit applications. We had a lively
discussion, with everyone engaged.
The first
section Robert mentioned is 250.24(C)(1), requiring a neutral at
each service disconnect under most conditions. Next, we spent a
good bit of time going through examples of 250.122 applications.
Plans with paralleled conductors have showed equipment grounding
conductors in each raceway sized for just the conductors within
each raceway. Also, where ungrounded conductor sizes have been
increased, perhaps not because of required derating but to reduce
the expense of wasted energy, designers have neglected to increase
neutral sizes.
He commented
that often the Professional Engineer (P.E.) who stamps the plans is
a mechanical engineer. How is this legal? So long as the P.E.
claims some knowledge of electrical topics, he is allowed to take
responsibility for the design of electrical plans.
Karl Mirpana,
our Membership Officer, mentioned that in Washington, D.C., the
P.E. has to be an electrical engineer. Jim Wooten, our long-term
President and presently our Past President and Vice President, said
that it is quite common for a civil engineer to stamp plans in PG.
(We were happy to see Jim looking a whole lot better than he had at
our last meeting or two, and sounding livelier.)
Robert
continued, mentioning that in his experience every designer or P.E.
whom the plan reviewer has had to contact has accepted his correction civilly.
This said, he has been challenged by companies that did not want to
have to modify their plans. He has had as many as six people in the
room, trying to change his determination. However, he showed his
calculations, and the engineers and officials and lawyers could not
show these calculations to be wrong, so he stood his ground, and
the jurisdiction's chief of plan review stood by him. The engineers
had to redesign the installation in order to receive their permit.
To save time,
comments on plans are emailed nowadays, with backups kept on the
county’s computer. Pete warned that the plan reviewer had better keep
his own backup copies.
In answer to a
question, the judicious plan reviewer mentioned that he checks not only the electrical
plans but also whatever associated plans are submitted, to make
sure there are no conflicts and no necessary items omitted from the
electrical plans. This can add up to as much as 16 pages,
John Hoff asked
Robert how long the reviewer spends reviewing a set of plans and checking
over the calculations. The answer was, “As much as a day.”
Johnny said it had sounded like it could take a week.
Johnny beefed
about the amount of time PG’s permit process can take
nowadays with Sparky having to get on the same lines and go through
the same clerks as everyone else. Robert did mollify him somewhat
by mentioning that the permit office now works through lunch.
For a while we
discussed large projects a reviewer may review,
such as amusement parks. Johnny wondered what kind of power a
roller coaster draws. We learned that the answer can be 500
kVA–with the circuit protection upsized to 250% to allow for
starting current.
The
conversation roved widely. Pete Bowers commented on plans that left
spare room for additional circuit breakers, but didn’t allow
for any additional loads in sizing the panel feed.
Secretary-treasurer
David Shapiro mentioned that he had just seen a Smart Meter at a DC
residence. To his surprise, the meter cover was secured with a
crimped-wire seal. This conflicted with what Steve Atkinson, P.E.,
manager of engineering for Pepco, told us a year ago: that Smart
Meters would all use locking rings. No complaints here.
Various members
talked about how they have dealt with the power company in
performing service upgrades. Pete asked others what they do to
follow up on completed heavy-ups. Do they check with the utility?
The AHJ responsible for the cut-in notice? Pete said it has taken
as long as three years for the utility to finish its part. He also
said that one party to the process (I won’t get specific)
lies. Johnny said he calls the customer to learn whether the
changeover has been completed.
Now Robert went
back to his presentation. Another frequent mistake, he said, is
confusing Table 250.66, for system grounding, with 250.122, for
equipment grounds. Inadequate panel schedules is another common
error, we agreed. Article 518, Assembly Occupancies, is complicated
by the factor noted in 518.2(B), that a mix of occupancies commonly
found is in one structure. At least one reviewer notes on such plans that those
portions to which Article 518 is applicable must comply with its
rules.
The last item
in the prepared presentation was the local adopting statute, PG
Subtitle 9. The County is getting ready to adopt the 2011 NEC, and
a revised version of Subtitle 9 is being reviewed for adoption.
Items that will be covered in the 2011 NEC have been removed from
Subtitle 9. An example of what is found in Subpart 9 is a
requirement for not just lighting but emergency lighting at the
electrical panels in commercial occupancies. Pete commented that
this would be required elsewhere; apparently it was in Subtitle 9
to ensure that electricians unfamiliar with life safety rules would
notice it.
With this, the
presentation was done. Now Karl went up to the whiteboard to
describe and draw a problem he had faced on a recent inspection. An
installer wanted to use PVC as a service mast, extending a few feet
above the building. Karl insisted that it be replaced with rigid or
intermediate steel conduit, and the electrician asked him to point
out this requirement in the NEC.
We shared many
stories about the need for rigidity, but finally the resolution
came down to the AHJ’s right to demand a mast satisfying him
as “adequate,” in accordance with Section 230.28.
That was about
it for (a non-exhaustive overview of) the technical portion of the
meeting. We did handle one business item before leaving: our vote.
While we did not quite achieve a quorum under present rules,
ballots had been sent to all Inspector Members more than 20 days
before the meeting, so between ballots that were returned by mail,
and those filled out by the two Inspector Members at the meeting
who had not returned them beforehand, we had a valid vote.
Everything up for a vote passed. This includes our slate of
officers, the proposed bylaws amendments, and Robert’s
request for chapter support for his candidacy for IAEI’s
manpower pool.
In other
matters, our Programs Officer, Nigel Nesbeth, picked up a CEU
certificate, and . . . no one went home with the
monograph mentioned in the meeting announcement: American Society
of Agricultural Engineers Paper No. 86-4529, “Electrical
wiring methods and materials for swine housing.” Not
surprising: no one had arrived wearing a Stetson, to improve his
chances. (If you read the meeting notice, you might understand
this. If not, don't worry about it.)
Previous Activities
This is the report of the George
Washington Chapter's business meeting the evening of March 20,
2012. Because of the critical importance of this evening's
business, the ten attendees (five Inspector members and five
Associate) came prepared to focus on the well-being of the chapter,
without taking time out for an educational presentation.
Retiring president Jim Wooten started in informally around 6:30,
with a full house. Returning member Johnny Hoff and Third-Party
Inspector Tom Siewicki introduced themselves to Secretary David
Shapiro. Tom was the lone member to return the SASE mailed out with
the meeting notice, at the suggestion of Vice President Robert
Welborne. (Tom's note, saying that he would make it to the meeting
if he could, arrived in the chapter's mailbox the day after the
meeting.) Loyal attendee Karl Mirpanah also avoided being late,
despite having been stuck in traffic. (Karl's cell phone message
saying he was running late but en route reached the David's
sweetheart, David having already left.)
We learned that inspectors in the adjoining Delmarva chapter,
whose meetings have been quite well attended, receive compensatory
time for attending. In the early years of our chapter, this was
true of inspectors working for Prince George's County, Maryland,
who made up a good part of our membership. Still, the lack of CE
requirements, and in fact for any credentialling, has not prevented
50-some inspectors and electricians from sticking with our chapter.
<
The major question remains: how we can best serve the members
who haven't been showing up regularly to enjoy our meetings and
programs? Another question is how we can best serve the larger
electrical community, especially the community of local inspectors,
and ideally attract them to IAEI.
Many ideas were bruited by Harry Langway, Joey Panizari, and the
rest of us, a goodly number being approaches that are used by other
groups. They ranged from dinner meetings, general mailings to local
members of the industry, media ads, flyers in supply houses and
on-including preparation of a snazzier web site. Some of these are
unrealistic, while others may be pursued.
Pete Bowers plans to talk to other organizations about possible
synergies, as well as siccing one of his daughters on the
appearance of our web presence. Jim selected him for service on the
Board as temporary Outreach and Publicity Officer, to be confirmed
in our forthcoming election. Karl, who was in the process of
transferring his membership to our chapter, has clear ideas about
challenging people to bring in member candidates. He himself plans
to bring another five inspectors into the organization and to our
meetings. Karl was selected as temporary Membership Officer, to be
confirmed in our forthcoming election.
To round out the slate, Jim selected Robert Welborne to succeed
himself temporarily as President and David as
Secretary-Treasurer/Section representative, while Jim himself takes
the position of Past President and Vice President, for as long as
he is able to attend. (He was not looking well.) This is all
subject to confirmation by the electorate All these
appointments/nominations were confirmed unanimously by the
inspectors present, as was the plan for David to submit the
proposed revised Bylaws and Robert's application for the CMP
candidate pool in the same mailing as the Board candidates.
No one present was selected as temporary program/ Education
officer, or as Budget/Audit officer.(After the meeting, our
provisional president selected Nigel Nesbeth as temporary and
nominee Program/Education Officer.)
The other thing that happened at the meeting is that we shared
war stories. Heads were shaken over the lack of commitment among so
many in our industry who seem nothing more than time-servers. David
tried to argue against the apparent blanket dismissal of ordinary
inspectors, but his voice was mighty lonely.
Fortunately, grousing was not the focus of the evening. We got
some work done!
We did hear one piece of very bad news: long-term member Ron
Kimble is deathly ill, in even worse shape than Jim. David will
send him a card on behalf of all of us.
Jim called the meeting to a close about 8:30.
In January 2012 we
had five associate members and five inspector members–one shy
of a quorum–plus nine student guests.
President Jim
Wooten opened the meeting at 6:30 by talking about membership.
People he’s approached don’t consider the return worth
$105.- a year. A couple of attendees, starting with Pete Bowers,
said they consider it well worth the money.
Jim proposed that
we consider either disbanding the chapter or merging with the
Chesapeake Chapter, which holds well-attended meetings in Odenton,
Maryland. He also announced that he plans to resign as president.
However, he will stay on until we elec t a replacement at our next
meeting, presuming we achieve a quorum.
We proceeded to the educational program. Our scheduled presenter
had bowed out, so David Shapiro presented two program segments: one
on 2011 Code changes relevant to photovoltaic installations (PV)
and a second with information from the Fall, 2011 meeting of the
American Council on Electrical Safety (ACES).
Members volunteered
that the 2011 NEC has been adopted by a number of Maryland
jurisdictions: The Eastern Shore; Frederick County; and Howard
County. Montgomery County was also mentioned, but they appear to
still be enforcing the 2008 NEC.
David started with
the 14 slides from the IAEI 2011 Analysis of Changes addressing
Article 690. The very first slide showed an array of solar panels
mounted at a good angle. Why, David asked our student guests,
weren’t these flat? After all, the sun is overhead. One of
them answered that the sun rises at one end of the sky and sets at
the other end. If these were set up to track the sun, that would
make sense. However, this was a fixed array; why wasn’t it
laid flat? Eventually someone volunteered that the angle depended
on latitude, how far north the array is installed.
Another interesting
discussion concerned the slide on qualified individuals. Several
members described the available training, the certifications it
leads to, and the costs of this training. Following it with a
picture of someone in heavy-duty PPE gave us pause. Ed Bihlear
noted that a suit rated at 80 Calories, as this one seemed to be,
has 200% of the rating needed to work around the maximum allowable
energy. How much voltage and fault current might this entail? A
whole lot more than is likely to be associated with PV systems.
After the Article
690 slides, David moved almost to the beginning of the Analysis,
discussing other Code changes that don’t concern PV directly.
However, they too might need to be considered in performing PV
installations.
They included:
110.28;
250.64(B);
250.122;
310.15(B)(2)(a);
310.15(B)(2)(c).
This one led to a good bit of comment, including a hint from Pete,
who was just back from the 2014 CMP meetings, that significant
clarification is coming. Also, the images of rooftop installations
led to a bit of discussion regarding the need for expansion
fittings. Several members were not aware that most of the
information needed to calculate these is right in the Code.
We
continued with: 314.28(E);
342.30 (C) and its parallels in other
chapters. This too brought up a bit of discussion, and an excellent
kibitz: Ed noted that one of the slides appears to show running
thread leading from couplings into the left-hand enclosures.
Another slide appeared to show conduit running between two
enclosures that were well under three feet apart, but nonetheless
nicely secured with clamps. Joey Panizari commented that this was
simply a matter of going beyond the requirements of the NEC, which
is a minimum standard.
And
finally:
406.4(D)(6). This led to a few comments that “protected
while in use” covers always seem to be broken off.
This took us about
3/4 of an hour. Next, we took a ten-minute break. After the break,
David picked up with the second presentation. This was built around
the slide show prepared by ACES for presentation to IAEI chapters.
David eliminated some of the slides, added a few from the Customs
and Border Patrol site and elsewhere, and tacked on a number,
provided by consultant Bob Baker, that are particularly germane to
counterfeit and improperly rebuilt equipment.
The next hour was
devoted to the slide show, David’s two pages of notes from
the ACES meeting and subsequent dialogue with Bob Baker, and
questions and comments from chapter members and guests.
We started with
three slides showing different tools used by customs agents to
check out steel pipe being brought into the country. Jim commented
on counterfeit conduit he discovered on one job: on the outside it
looked fine, but the inside was all rust.
From here we went
on to Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs) and FEBs
(Field Evaluation Bodies). We learned that maybe one out of six
labs inquiring about NRTL status actually applies. Due to personnel
shortages at OSHA, it can take three years for NRTL status to be
granted. Furthermore, there are only two OSHA auditors to perform
ongoing review of the 300 existing NRTLs. Even so, NRTLs have been
known to lose the accreditation. Wyle Laboratories, which listed
some PV equipment, lost NRTL status in September 2011.
Members were
surprised to learn that OSHA does not certify FEBs. It’s up
to AHJs to judge whether FEBs, most of which are not NRTLs, qualify
under the new NFPA 790 standard, and whether their field
evaluations comply with NFPA 791.
Field Evaluations
can be extremely expensive, but they’re necessary; they find
problems. But NRTL listing and labels are also not something to
take for granted. The members had a nice little discussion of
equipment without labels or with iffy-looking labels. Jim inspected
a job involving the installation of several signs, one of which was
missing its label. The installer told him that he’d figure
out what happened to the label, if Jim could give him 10 minutes.
When Jim came back after looking at other parts of the job, the
formerly naked sign had a label–taken off the sign next to
it!
David reported
that, in the case of iffy-looking equipment or labels, NRTLs find
it helpful to receive clear digital photos and label numbers.
One of our student
guests was very anxious when he heard about how, in case of damage
or injury due to defective, counterfeit, or simply unlisted
equipment, liability could spatter everyone who had overlooked the
equipment’s fraudulent or missing label. Pete suggested that
if a customer wants him to install unlisted equipment, he should
ask the inspector. This way, he can tell the customer the the
inspector’s demanding field evaluation, rather than requiring
such an expensive step himself. Jim commented that sometimes when
he’s rejected installations, contractors have gone over his
head and gotten the okay.
Our guest remained
worried. Pete commented that the lawyers decide who gets sued, and
they go after the deepest pockets. David brought in another
perspective, courtesy of Karl Mirpanah. Karl has a whole array of
inspector certifications. Consequently he carries a million dollars
worth of coverage for Errors and Omissions and Liability. He told
us what he pays for coverage: ouch! Someone commented that if Karl
had been sued, his premiums would be even higher.
The last set of
slides concderned counterfeit and improperly remanufactured
equipment. The U.S. has 354 ports, and penalties for smuglging are
way too low to discourage it. If it can be criminalized under
Immigration and Customs security/Homeland Security, this may make a
difference. Contraband that's come in overland and intercepted at
our borders isn't necessarily even seized; some is marked "RTM";
"Return To Mexico"; and generally is unloaded on South
Americans. While most Chinese coutnerfeits come in through Mexico,
counterfeit Cutler-Hammer breakers, manufactured in India and
Pakistan, enter through Canada. These look good, but they have been
responsible for fires. There was plenty more, but . . . you had to
be there. See for one example of bad remanufacturing. David
continued going through slides and notes till not quite 8:30.
After the
presentation, Jim again raised the question of the chapter’s
future. Harry Langway will ask the Chesapeake Chapter whether they
would be interested in alternating meetings: bring our members
there one month, their members here the next.
If nothing turns
up, David will survey our members, asking whether each one wants
the chapter closed--or whether the member wants to volunteer for
one of our vacant offices!
Our November 15
meeting was unusual. Our president, Jim Wooten, never made it in;
this is rare. (A subsequent check confirmed that he was okay; we
just had our wires crossed (ooh, bad metaphor)). On the other hand,
we had a better crowd than usual, 19: four inspector members, four
associates and eleven nonmembers.
We postponed most
chapter business, in the hope that we would reach a quorum. Pete
Bowers did talk for a few minutes about a licensing issue on which
he wanted us to take a stand. However, lacking a quorum, we
couldn’t vote to take a stand even if doing so were in
accordance with IAEI policy, a point on which we were not clear.
Pete said he will call Dave Clemens to inform him of the concern
and get policy guidance. So we started with the educational talk, a
bit past 6:30. This took about one and a half hours, earning two
(2) CEUs for paid-up IAEI members. CEU certificates for our
September meeting were printed by the International Office, and
note that IAEI is an IACET-certified training provider. The same
will be true for this and future meetings, so long as we get IAEI
approval for the topics and presenters. (This requires that we
apply about a month in advance.).
Another unusual
aspect of the meeting was the degree of interaction.
Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro showed 15 field shots of
violations, but the evening’s program was far from a one-way
monologue.
With each slide,
David asked the audience to identify any violations, any problems
in what they could see. Once we agreed on those–and some of
them took a good bit of discussion–he asked for explanations
of why they were violations. “It’s not to Code”
is a bare minimum. He challenged the group to identify what danger
each one violation represented. If the guidance in proposing a Code
change is to “show the bodies,” when we enforce the
Code we should generally be able to say why compliance is
important.
Next, he asked
people to name the Code sections they might cite. This too took
some back-and-forthing, with people busily flipping through their
Code books. If we can’t identify the Code wording–assuming
we had the time to do so–“do this” sounds awfully
like “do the job the way the inspector likes it to be done.”
Finally, we looked
at the question of grandfathering. How long had the violations we
identified in fact been violations? What could we say if someone
claimed they had been part of the installations all along? As Pete
Bowers pointed out, the last person to get his hands on the work
being inspected tends to be the one who faces the blame. There’s
a natural tendency to say that work must have complied at the time
it was installed. David had looked up the history of each rule, and
supplied dates when they had first appeared. In many cases, he was
able to present an image of the original Code page.
We enjoyed a good
bit of tussling, giving each slide all the time it deserved.
(Wouldn’t it be nice if inspections could proceed that way,
rather than being so rushed!) Along the way, people made
interesting points.
One picture showed
armored cable in an indoor wet location. David noted that had the
cable been ACL, it would have been suitable for the environment.
Because quite a few less-experienced people were present, he
described the BXL/ACL he’s seen, which contains a lead sheath
inside the armor. Pete told us that around 1965 he was installing
BXL that had the lead sheath on the outside of the armor; it turned
his hands silvery.
Pete was far from
the only person speaking up in response to the pictures. Harry
Langway identified suspicious-looking, apparently substitute screws
in a picture showing a panel cover. This was not one of the
pictures that David had selected to illustrate that particular
violation. Joe Panizari identified one violation by Code citation
without even looking it up. So did Robert Welborne and others.
Nigel Nesbith, a former member, was pretty handy with his Code
book. Another visitor, Matt Begley, was one of the bravest
attendees, in his willingness to take a shot at the questions David
posed about the rules’ history. One of the younger visitors
saw a picture with a rubber-and-cloth insulated grounded conductor
made up tight inside a cabinet with a sharp right angle, and asked
whether this was a violation. If he hadn’t asked, he wouldn’t
have learned that this is in fact legal.
All together, we
had looked at and discussed 15 slides by a little after 8 PM, when
we took a break. When we came together again, David invited those
attending to help themselves to CDs of the 2010 White Book, which
we were able to distribute thanks to a special effort on the part
of UL’s John Cangemi. John has been giving out the current
edition, but we had a special need for the 2010. Because local
jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C. still enforce the 2005 NEC,
John was kind enough to obtain CDs of this earlier edition of the
White Book, whose indices correlate to the 2005 and the 2008 NEC.
After this
distribution, David invited those who hadn’t faded away
during the break to vote on whether to continue with the last 10
images, whether to have Vice President Robert Welborne lead a
discussion of a couple of Code issues that interested him, or
whether to shut down for the evening. The third choice carried, by
a small margin. In addition to some other program material that has
not yet been selected, Robert will prepare some discussion of the
two Code issues for our January 17 meeting. We will also be voting
on our 2012 officers, and on Robert’s application for the
Code Making Panel manpower pool–if we attain a quorum.
September 20th’s
meeting was unusually protracted. Our speaker, the estimable John
Cangemi, came bright and early, despite being misled by his GPS. He
was met before 6:30 by our president, Jim Wooten, and Ed Bihlear.
(Ed had been up since 3-something, but stayed the course.) Vice
President Robert Welborne and Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro
slid in more or less on the dot at 6:30, and that was it. Finally
another five members showed up, and Jim formally opened the meeting
around 7:10 with five inspectors and four associates.
After Jim opened
the meeting, he asked for chapter business. David reported that our
executive branch is missing an important element. Because we lack a
Programs officer, no one sees to it that various local
jurisdictions accept our continuing education programs. While David
submits programs to the International Office for approval, that
does not automatically take care of local licensing authorities.
No one volunteered
to take on the responsibility, and no one brought up any other
chapter business, so we proceeded to Code matters. After making
sure that everyone had a 2011 White Book to hand, John set out by
emphasizing that he was here to serve us, to answer our questions,
wherever that might lead, and as long as we cared to go. He was
every bit as good as his word, and we kept him till 9:30.
To get us rolling, John talked for some time about water-exposed
electrical equipment. He went beyond just electrical equipment. He
described a case where the contents of a ceiling were scattered,
but then were gathered up for reuse. However, fire-treatment for
blown-in ceiling insulation is water-soluble, so once it got wet it
lost some fire protection. Ed commented that an EC&M article
had noted that in five years normal humidity can damage insulating
board.
We moved on to the
2011 White Book, which came out at the end of June. To make it
easier for us to deal with the effects of NEC renumbering and other
revision, it has two indices relating products to Code sections.
One list correlates product categories likely to be suitable for
uses associated with Sections of the 2011 NEC and one matched them
up with Sections of the 2008 NEC.
Because local
jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C. still enforce the 2005 NEC,
subsequent to the meeting John was kind enough to obtain for our
chapter members CDs of the 2010 White Book, whose indices correlate
to the 2005 and the 2008 NEC.
In addition to the
guide information and indices, there are marking guides in the back
of the book, for several types of equipment.
From here, we moved
on to discuss assorted products.
What do
electricians do when they come across an antiquated system that
fused the grounded circuit conductor? Some cut a piece of copper
plumbers’ tubing to take the place of the cartridge fuse, or
inserted a penny behind a plug fuse. Others lift the grounded line
and load conductors from their lugs and splice them. However, John
noted, Bussman used to make Edison-base solid brass bypasses, and
still makes cartridge-type bypasses. Utilities used a nonmetallic
equivalent to keep circuits in vacant apartments disconnected. We
were amused at utilities’ confidence.
John next talked
about new and upgraded lighting, alerting us to potential retrofit
problems.
The first is that
people typically miss a requirement that comes with a new
fluorescent ballast regarding the maximum permissible distance
between the edge of a lamp and grounded metal. When going from T12
to T8 lamps--even more the case when going to T5--lampholders may
need to be changed for shorter ones. Instructions, he emphasized
repeatedly, are part of Listing.
Here’s
another potentially problematic retrofit. A cheap way to increase
light output from a luminaire is to add in a reflector. Mounting a
reflector using arbitrarily placed zip screws could violate
installation instructions. For one thing, they're sharp and can
damage conductors.
Under the 2008 NEC,
luminaires must be listed. How about retrofits? UL's retrofit
program allows a retrofit product to specify that you can start
with any listed product meeting certain specifications, or to
specify a single listed product.
There are unlisted
LED retrofits on the market that bypass the ballast to feed 120V to
lampholders, and the kit, drivers, lamps and all are in a tube that
expects to be supported by the lampholders.
Joe Panizari
commented that so many problems are due to a homeowner buying at
Lowe's or Home Depot. John quoted a study which found that
homeowners tended to read instructions and connect conductors to
terminals more appropriately than did contractors. There are many
stories of contractors being lazy about checking for line vs load
conductors when installing GFCIs. That was one reason for the 2006
standard change.
John’s
answers to questions from members on other topics:
Any fitting with
“Suitable for direct burial” designation is
automatically concrete tight.
Only some
compression fittings can be used with EMT in wet locations. Without
a functional o-ring, they'll leak. Look for the marking on the box
of fittings.
Why not make the
presently voluntary markings on MC cable mandatory? A
manufacturer’s color code indicating voltage system CAN
mislead. The Code doesn't require it be used only there--the cables
are all listed for 600V, and an installer who ran shy of the
120/240 cable could easily have installed some of the 277/480 cable
that he had on hand.
How hard-headed is
New York City? Contrary to rumor, NYC permits NM and plastic boxes
in 1-2 family dwellings. They're using the 2008 NEC with about 60
modifications, or, till December 31, 2011, the 2005 NEC with a
greater number of local amendments.
GFCI protection is
required for all temporary power during repair, remodeling,
refurbishing, . . ., including use of a power tool in a fully wired
room. So if you’re on the ladder using a drill, and it’s
not battery-operated or hand-driven (other ancient members may
remember “egg-beaters”), you need a GFCI with your
extension cord. John joked (?) that you need the GFCI at the female
end of the extension cord; where he comes from, if you plug a long
cord into a GFCI adapter, you’ll lose power suddenly. . .
when the GFCI walks.
Getting back to the
issue of listing requirements including manufacturers’
instructions, John commented that if one manufacturer is especially
liability-shy and adds in restrictions beyond what the NEC
requires, we’re free to buy a different manufacturer’s
listed product.
How about the
September/October IAEI News article claiming that there are much
better ways to prevent electrical fires than we now use? John had
not seen the article, but he noted that one manufacturer offers a
listed “glow point” receptacle that senses overheating
and shuts down in response. However, it is listed simply as a
receptacle. If the manufacturer had asked UL to investigate its
extra, added ability, they would have come up with suitable tests.
There are STPs, Standards Technical Panels, covering all kinds of
products.
Asked about
installing receptacles with ground up versus down, John confirmed
once again that there is no requirement or preference associated
with the standard, even though there is always a proposal.
How about
installing a USB connector in the same box, or even receptacle, as
power? It could be done, but the barriers would be investigated for
suitability before it would receive listing.
Jim mentioned
having turned down a restaurant that wanted to use machine made
with UL components but with no overall listing. John commented that
an "RU"-marked recognized component will specify
conditions of acceptability. Even Listed products need to comply
with temperature, spacing, performance requirements. So, if an
assembly of listed or recognized components is very simple, an AHJ
can accept it, but if it includes unknowns, or needs testing, he
would be taking chances which he may not have suitable insurance to
risk.
That was the last
issue that we raised and that John patiently addressed.
5/2011
Meeting
The
evening of May 17, 2011, we met at Capital Lighting and Supply’s
training facility, thanks once again to Capital Vice President Ken
Cain. We had five Inspector and four Associate chapter members,
plus one guest. President Jim Wooten opened the meeting around
6:30. We ran long–close to two and a half hours, and all but
a few minutes of that devoted to education. There was lots of
give-and-take.
First
we handled chapter business. Karl Mirpanah has met with
Washington, D.C.’s Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs (DCRA) personnel regarding their new requirements for Third
Party Inspectors. After discussing the need for IAEI to support the
use of appropriate accreditation, he and David Shapiro concluded
that a letter from the chapter to DCRA would be appropriate.
Therefore, before turning the floor over to our speakers, David
checked whether we had a consensus in favor of Karl’s motion.
No one voiced disagreement. (Subsequent to the meeting, Jon Cadd of
the IO offered to provide data to use in the letter.)
With this out of the way, David introduced Steve Atkinson, P.E.,
manager of engineering for Pepco, and Steve introduced Cheiho Ko,
Pepco’s manager of special projects.
Steve’s
worked in power engineering for more than a quarter-century, and is
active in IEEE.
He began our
briefing by revealing that his utility’s parent company,
Pepco Holdings, Ltd, encompasses utilities in Delaware and in New
Jersey. They serve as resources for each other. When one has a
procedure that another lacks, the latter may copy it. When a bad
storm overloads one utility, a sister utility may lend it workers.
After Steve
provided this overview, Cheiho took over. Primarily, he described
the procedures for coordinating large commercial jobs, but he also
touched on smaller commercial and residential jobs. (We learned
that Pepco defines residential installations as commercial when
they exceed four units.)
Cheiho
emphasized that Pepco has worked to simplify procedures over the
last few years. For instance, to minimize having to review
switchgear designs for large jobs, they now list pre-approved 1200
amp and larger switchgear from quite a few manufacturers. See
<http://www.pepco.com/business>.
Pepco does need to work within the limits set by the authorities
under which they work, such as the District Department of
Transportation (DDOT). Pete Bowers commented, “DDOT is a
disaster.”
Pepco transformers
rely on natural convection cooling through manhole grates, but DDOT
may prohibit the use of grated manholes in public spaces between
the curb and the property line. This used to be true just in core
downtown areas, but the restriction has been expanded. Pepco is
meeting with DDOT over this issue as I write. The preferred
solution is to site manholes on private property. Public alleys
could technically qualify, but as Pete noted, the odds are very
much against this. Dry-type transformers sometimes can be located
in a suitable room inside the customer’s building. However,
Steve does not like this option, and for good reason: these
transformers have been involved in fires.
There was a lot of
discussion about how long it takes for jobs to be completed, and
members offered many an amusing/horror story about ineptitude and
delays. Pepco clearly defines the procedure for initiating jobs. To
start, contractors have to submit Class of Service applications.
They have been able to do so electronically for around three years,
at <https://webaps.Pepco.com/newservices/login/ns_login.cfm>.
One advantage of the online interaction is that contractors can
check the status of a project at any time. The application must
include
∙ Project
location;
∙ Contact
information;
∙ Conditioned
space and type of use, giving square feet, number of units, or
both;
∙ Service
Equipment type, size, and voltage;
∙ Connected
Load information, including largest motor load; and
∙ Dates
anticipated: in-service, construction start, and completion.
Beyond this, the
information required varies with the type of occupancy.
Pepco tries to
respond with a Class of Service determination in about three weeks.
Ironically, Cheiho said, some contractors leave their phone numbers
out of their applications, which means Pepco can’t call to
straighten out anything that needs to be clarified. That’s
not the worst of it. Pete mentioned that he’ll show up on a
(third party) inspection and discover that there’s no Class
of Service assigned, because the contractor didn’t even know
he had to send in the information. Pete now carries Class of
Service applications with him to his inspections.
The application has
to be accurate. If any information changes, a new application needs
to be submitted. The change can be as small as going from a 400 amp
meter socket to a 400 amp meter stack. Responding to one question,
Cheiho confirmed that Pepco designs their services in accordance
with the planned load as described in the application, not the size
of the Current Transformer cabinet or the main breaker. He also
confirmed that Pepco is mandated to install all services greater
than 400 amps underground. Small services can go either overhead or
underground.
The Proposed Class
of Service includes the following information:
∙ Service
type, such as 265/460V, 3 Ph, 4-wire, 60 Hz;
∙ Point
of service (location);
∙ Requirements
for customer-owned structural facilities;
∙ Service
cable to be provided and installed by Pepco; and
∙ Standards
and conditions to be per
<http://www.Pepco.com/business/services/new/res/>.
After you receive
the Class of Service for a large commercial project, Pepco
recommends a meeting with their design staff.
You need to submit
structural drawings for any customer-built service facilities built
on private property; plus site plans, utility plans, and building
plans (second basement through second floor).
Pepco will approve
the structural drawings in writing. They will provide contact
information for their structural inspector, and a list of stock
materials for sale by Pepco.
At the completion
of the Initiation phase, when Pepco approves customer drawings for
a large commercial job, they perform their preliminary engineering
and then send out an inspector for field investigation.
Pete complained
about these inspectors adding last-minute complications and
expense. For instance, the design engineer has approved plans and
issued a Class of Service, and then the inspector has come along
and informed the contractor that Pepco requires additional bollards
to protect their equipment. At this point, the contractor has to go
to the customer for approval of a change order. The customer may
not be very understanding, especially given that the contractor has
nothing in writing to back him up, and the customer just wants the
job finished.
Cheiho responded
that the contractor needs to contact Pepco engineering staff; they
will document the requirement.
Robert Welborne
asked, rhetorically, who prepares the drawings that Cheiho says are
needed before Pepco can design their end of the service. Cheiho
explained that they need to know, for example, where on the
property the electric room will be, so they can bring their service
to it. When the contractor brings a stub out to meet Pepco,
generally they specify its location geographically: from a
particular street intersection, it will come up so many feet south
of the one street, so many feet west of the intersecting street.
Submitted drawings electronically, he noted, makes coordination
easier.
After the field
investigation, Pepco proceeds with final engineering. For a service
larger than 1200 amps, the customer must submit plan and profile
views of the electric room for review and approval; even if he’s
using pre-approved switchgear, this too requires approval. Finally,
if a project has multiple service terminations, the contractor must
supply an estimate of the load breakdown at each termination. Pepco
will bring heavy-enough wiring to each termination to support its
load, but does not want to over-engineer (and have to charge
accordingly).
Once Pepco has all
this information, they will notify the customer of the Service
Connection Fee. The last two parts of the design phase is applying
for permits and final assembly of the construction package. The
typical duration of the design phase is four months.
Approval is not
solely up to Pepco. Returning to the complexity of coordination
between utility, contractor, and jurisdiction, DDOT now requires a
permit application and three days’ notice before Pepco works
underground in public space. Not so with pole work, and there’s
no such problem with Maryland jurisdictions.
The next phase
after design is pre-construction inspection. So that Pepco’s
crews can do their job safely and properly, Pepco’s inspector
verifies that . . .
∙ approved
switchgear, meter sockets, and meter panels are mounted securely.
∙ Structural
facilities such as customer-built manholes, transformer pads,
conduit and poles have been installed properly. These must be
approved before backfilling or concrete pouring. Otherwise, Pepco
will make the customer tear up the concealing material.
∙ Finally,
the job site must be cleared of debris and building material.
In D.C., Pepco
requires 48 hours’ notice to schedule an inspection; in
Maryland, a week’s notice.
Joey Panizari
commented that BG&E does not care about such inspection. He
also asked why cables blow. Cheiho explained that insulation breaks
down, this generates gas, and then when water gets in . . . . Joey
also asked whether all Pepco’s underground cables are copper.
No, aluminum is used where there are no manholes in the run. Buddy
Friedeman explained that aluminum means more heat at connections.
An early slide had
warned us that Pepco will not start designing the service
connection until they have received and approved the drawings they
require. Rick Panizari asked whether you really need to have your
permits complete before submitting drawings to Pepco. Cheiho said
technically yes, but he has taken gambles to expedite jobs . . .
and has gotten burned. If there’s any chance the customer
might change his mind altogether, forget it: the time Pepco’s
engineers put in needs to be charged to some job. If the job’s
certain, but it’s likely that some job specs may change by
the time permitting is done, having to revise their end of the plan
would set them back.
For service changes
to proceed, jurisdictional inspectors too have to do their piece:
until they send in a cut-in notice, the utility can’t change
out the service. Unfortunately, in D.C. Third Party Inspectors
(TPIs) such as Pete, David, and Karl don’t have the authority
to do this. TPIs report the results of their inspection to DCRA,
and the notice can’t go out until DCRA finishes with the
paperwork.
In addition to
waiting for permits and the cut-in notice, Pepco needs to have
received its service connection fee. Construction for a large
commercial facility typically takes 2-3 months, once everything’s
in order.
Now Rick chimed in
with a beef. He submitted a Class of Service application three
months before the meeting, and Pepco had just assigned an engineer
to the project. Pete asked whether there is some kind of hot line
for dealing with this kind of problem. Steve responded, “Call
Pepco’s main number and ask for the Design Engineering
supervisor.” Cheiho noted that if the job’s in D.C., it
will help if you know in which Ward the job lies. Steve promised to
provide us with a list of supervisors, the areas they cover, and
their contact information. When we receive it, the list will be
posted on the chapter’s web site.
After this, Steve
got up and talked about the impact of the Smart Grid. Pepco
Holdings was awarded one of the largest Department of Energy Smart
Grid grants. Pepco’s contractor, Scope Services, is in the
process of replacing all their standard meters with meters that
have much greater functionality, under the Advanced Metering
Infrastructure Initiative. The new meters report more details of
electricity usage and allow more control. For instance, internal
mechanisms enable Pepco to disconnect or reconnect them remotely.
Customers will be able to compare their levels of electricity usage
with those of comparable buildings. The meters will notify the
utility of tampering. Pepco has decoupled their earnings from
electricity usage. (If this were not the case, it would be
self-defeating for Pepco to help customers reduce usage.)
Another change is
that the smart meters all have locking rings, rather than crimped
wire seals. Buddy commented that these new meters must cost more
than $100, and the locking rings will discourage potential meter
theft. He also noted that he’s seen some of them secured not
just with locking rings but with brass padlocks. A number of
audience members expressed concern about gaining access for meter
removal, so we can disconnect power to do our work safely. Steve
reported that whether the Fire Department wants access or an
electrician needs it, the only way is to get Pepco in, unless
they’re prepared to take responsibility for destroying the
locking ring.
Returning to the
details of the changeover, Pepco’s contractor’s
vehicles and employees are distinctly identified. They contact each
customer to arrange a convenient time for the changeover, which
normally takes just a few minutes. They reschedule if they come at
a time that proves inconvenient to the customer. David asked about
how Pepco’s contractor is adding Smart Meters to those very
old services with metering systems that don’t have a meter to
unplug in order to disconnect line and load. Steve was not aware of
problems, but he commented that in some cases Pepco may require a
customer to perform some work.
Before leaving the
subject of meters, a member mentioned the “Generlink.”
This is a system that adds a ring between meter and meterbase, for
use with backup generators. When utility power is lost, the
Generlink disconnects the utility line from the house service, so
the generator can’t backfeed the utility. When utility power
is restored, the device disconnects the generator and reconnects
normal power.
When we were done
with meters, Steve talked about electric vehicles (EVs) and Plug-in
Hybrid-Electric Vehicles. Besides reviewing information that has
been widely available to us, for example through IAEI News,
he talked about some local concerns. Steve told us that DDOT wants
to establish charging stations alongside the road. Pete mused about
the loss of gasoline revenue from the Highway Trust Fund as EV use
grows. Steve speculated that electric utilities may be taxed to
compensate for reduced use of liquid fuels.
Larry Devore, a
guest, raised a new concern. While we might hope that home
recharging of EVs will constitute an off-peek load, there’s
another plausible scenario. He envisions the mass of commuters
plugging in their EVs as soon as they all get home from work. Steve
acknowledged that this is a concern, even though the utility’s
plans include not only discounts for customers who authorize
load-shedding as needed, but also time-of-day billing. If EVs
should create heavier loading in residential neighborhoods,
transformers may need to be upgraded.
David leapt on this
comment to ask how contractors can learn what the available fault
current is whatever the situation. Cheiho told us that, in addition
to using ther information on Class of Service forms, contractors
can request what they need from Pepco for Arc Fault and
interrupting rating determinations. Just type up the request on
your letterhead.
Another aspect of
the Smart Grid is that Pepco looks forward to customers being able
to monitor and control appliance and HVAC usage remotely. For now,
they offer smart thermostats, in Maryland only, remotely
controllable by both Pepco and the customer. The customer receives
a small monthly incentive discount. Larry commented that while
programmable thermostats seem to be okay for use with forced air
systems, a very experienced HVAC-R installer told him that energy
savings from letting a boiler cool down during the unoccupied part
of the day tend to be lost again when the boiler kicks on and needs
to reheat that cooled water. Steve responded that this is correct,
and that the same is true for hot water heaters. Pepco’s
benefit from these thermostats comes from moving usage to a
lower-demand time of day.
A major promise of
the smart system is that it will make it easier to serve plug-in
electric vehicles and to control smart appliances. The latter are
not ready, Steve acknowledged, but he speculates that they may
become available somewhere between 2013 and 2015.
As we wound down,
Steve mentioned that contractors may benefit from Pepco’s
undergrounding program, though it is very small. If the underground
line is to reach all the way to a building’s service, the
customer needs an electrician to install a new meter socket. There
was some discussion here (earlier, too) of the expenses of
tree-trimming, Pepco’s greatly increased efforts in that
direction, and the cost to reliability of having trees–often
on private land–positioned where they can bring down power
lines. Cheiho noted that to bring the lines underground in a
residential neighborhood costs about $11 million per mile. Finally,
Buddy talked about how squirrels like to sit on pole-top
transformers, and Steve mentioned that the new transformers have
animal guards. Both squirrels and rats like to chew through cable
insulation.
Next-Most Recent
Meeting
Our meeting the evening of March 15, 2011 at Capital Lighting and
Supply’s training facility was shorter than some we've had.
We were fortunate that Capital Vice President Ken Cain could
accommodate us, as he had not received a meeting notice! We had 3
Inspector and 4 Associate chapter members, 1 visiting Associate, 5
guests and a speaker. In the absence of President Jim Wooten (out
for the night with gout), Vice President Robert Welborne opened the
meeting at 6:30.
First, chapter
business. Robert mentioned that he has filled out an application
for CMP membership and intends to bring it in. David Shapiro noted
that our finances are not going to improve until we offer a
seminar, and mentioned Jim’s idea that we could use one that
covers both 2005 and 2008 changes, to help people working in
jurisdictions that skipped from the 2002 right to the 2008 NEC.
David polled members regarding the editions in force locally. Harry
Langway reported that Maryland’s Eastern Shore counties–Queen
Anne, Wicomico, et cetera, generally adopt new editions of the NEC
on January 1 of the eponymous year, so on January 1 of this year
they began enforcing the 2011 NEC, and Howard County has, too. Pete
Bowers, who was just out from back surgery, noted that Montgomery
and Prince George’s Counties are enforcing the 2008 NEC, and
DC and Northern Virginia, the 2005.
David described a
change to our chapter’s web site. We had reached a consensus
favoring the addition of health and safety information. This was
stimulated by an invitation to link our site to that of a privately
funded group publicizing information of mesothelioma, a disease
caused by asbestos exposure. While David was uneasy with the
results of investigating that site, he has begun downloading
information from NIOSH on job safety and health concerns. He’ll
continue uploading worthwhile new material to the site. Pete
mentioned that he used to work on jobs where asbestos came down on
him like snowflakes. Robert reminded us that non-loose asbestos
does not pose a hazard if its integrity is not disturbed.
Finally, David
repeated the gist of one paper recommended by CDC-NIOSH: if someone
receives a severe-enough shock that his heart stops, it is critical
that someone begin CPR within four (4) minutes. Pete shook his head
at the idea that more-advanced life support should be obtained
within eight minutes, and David emphasized that regardless of this,
it often is within our control to apply CPR within the four-minute
CPR window.
After this
discussion, we enjoyed a shorter-than-usual educational program,
consisting of show-and-tell (and question and kibitz). Jim
Eldringhoff, who works for manufacturer’s rep R. C. Colerick,
Inc., brought us some of the newest products of three companies:
Arlington Industries, Champion Fiberglass, and Light-Emitting
Designs. He talked about the Code requirements they can help us
solve, and the limits to their Listing–misapplications to
which we need to be alert.
Jim commented that
Arlington’s simpler plastic products tend to be manufactured
in the Scranton, PA area, and items with screws such as their
reconfigurable condulet are built overseas. Both Joe Panizari and
one of our guests mentioned finding the screws rusting out. Jim
noted that they are supposed to be stainless.
One of the first
questions came from Pete, who asked about Federal Specification
Numbers. Jim was not familiar with these, but Joey, I believe,
located some in the Arlington catalogs that Jim passed out.
The first item Jim
demonstrated was Arlington’s snap-in MC connector, which
comes in single- and two-gang versions, for ½" and for
3/4" kos. It accommodates MC, AC, and MCAP, the version that
does without an insulated grounding conductor. One of our nonmember
guests, possibly Chad, commented that he has found the two-gang
version too crowded, in that, in his experience, only one of the
cables would seat reliably in the connector.
The snap-in
connectors contain integral bushings. Arlington’s larger
sizes of MC connector, which use locknuts, do not. They are sold
with plastic bushings, and Arlington supplies a plastic template
with holes which which installers are to use to find out which size
connector is needed for a particular MC cable. Along each
connector’s hole is a marking to indicate whether the
connector’s listing requires the use of a plastic bushing.
Jim had no answer to the question of how an inspector is to
determine whether the Listing of an Arlington connector used with a
particular MC cable should have a bushing. The only possible out
lies in the fact that these bushings are required to keep the
cables from sliding through the connector when inserted.
David
mentioned the article in IAEI
News on the
importance of torqueing connections, and asked Jim whether a torque
number is specified for the screws found on the larger MC
connectors. No.
We moved on to
Arlington’s snap-together plastic sectional switch boxes,
which Jim commented carry a two-hour fire rating. Pete and David
talked some about the possibility of violating NEC Section 300.4,
Protection from Damage, because the 3 ½" deep boxes
have knockouts at the very back. In response to a question, Jim
gave the opinion that you probably can replace the mounting screws
with other drywall screws, say longer ones, if needed, without
violating the listing. The only violation he saw would be if an
installer simply ran a screw into a stud through the side of a box,
leaving the head exposed. We had a brief discussion of Marty
Schumacher’s warning against using drywall screws to seat
hard surfaces.
Moving along to
raceways, Jim mentioned that there are three manufacturers of
resin-reinforced fiberglass conduit: Champion, United, and FRE. He
represents Champion. The lightweight raceway, usually sold in 20'
lengths, offers an interference fit: seat the male end of one into
the female end of another, and pound the far end to jam the
connection tight. If you want the coupling to be concrete-tight,
first butter the junction with epoxy. They sell all kinds of
fittings, from condulets to seal-offs to RMC terminations to
kindorf supports. To field-bend the conduit, you heat it to 240 deg
F in PVC bender with its ends plugged or taped closed, and use a
one-shot type bender.
There are multiple
raceway variations within Champion’s offerings. Another resin
version takes higher heat. A 1/4" “thick wall”
version is listed for Class 1, Division 2 use. It’s useful
above ground in, say, rural areas, where Dick Cheney might take a
shot at it. It will deflect a .357 bullet. Moreover, Jim said a
faulted cable will not weld to it, but can simply be removed and a
replacement pulled in. Pulling friction doesn’t damage it,
but merely hones it smoother inside. He claims that the cost of
their basic fiberglass conduit for use in a duct bank is about the
same as that of Schedule 40 PVC.
The final products
Jim showed and talked about are LED replacement lamps. A version
that replaced MR-16 lamps was their first success, because there
were no CFLs to fill that need. LED replacements have been steadily
improving. Progress Lighting has already replaced one lamp designed
for use in recessed cans, because its heat sink was undersized.
Dimmability is much better than in the early days, but you still
need to consult the list of dimmers that are suitable for use with
a particular LED.
Sylvania and
Phillips are doing a little work with LEDs, Jim noted, and GE
basically none. For now, it is companies such as Light Emitting
Designs, which he represents, that are supplying the demand.
The light comes in
various colors, and because it is so directional you can’t
count on an LED’s light to look the same as what it replaces.
Jim recommends trying out one or two of the lights at the location
where they are being considered, in order to make a decision. Their
biggest selling point remains their extended lifespan’s
effect in reducing the frequency of relamping, particularly in
locations that make relamping difficult.
With this we closed
the meeting, but animated conversations continued for some little
while.
1/2011
Meeting
This is the report of our most meeting on 1/18/11, at Capital
Lighting and Supply in Forestville, MD, courtesy of Capital Vice
President Ken Cain (and hosted by Josh).
We had 10 members,
including 6 Inspector Members, counting our presenter, Marty
Schumacher. Because Marty’s a Chesapeake Chapter member, we
fell one inspector member shy of a quorum. We agreed to put matters
requiring formal, official decision out for mail balloting.
Our first business
matter was collecting volunteers to fill our offices. Subject to
member approval, the slate includes: Jim Wooten, President; Robert
Welborne, Vice President and Membership; Wayne Robinson, Past
President; David Shapiro, Secretary-treasurer; Programs, Vacant;
and Karl Mirpanah, At-large.
Our next business
was the matter of inconsistent plan review in Prince George’s
County, MD. Robert described some examples, and we had a good bit
of discussion. While the State requires an engineer to stamp a
drawing, Prince George’s County has no law requiring an
engineer-stamped drawing. The Chief Electrical Inspector is allowed
to accept non-engineers’ drawings, and when he filled that
role, Wayne used to let the electrician do his own drawing. Jim
suggests Robert go to Jim Fridell for plan approval. Wayne said he
felt like recusing himself from the discussion. David had talked
with the local NECA chapter to find out whether their members had
experienced similar problems, in which case we could act together.
He had not heard back.
We decided to send
a letter, as several members had proposed, and in it request a
meeting, in keeping with David Clements’s recommendation.
Wayne will supply David with chapter and verse of the statutes
involved; Robert will describe problems the current approach has
caused; Pete Bowers will follow up with his NECA and IEC contacts
for cooperation in making representations to the County. Once he’s
received all this information, David will draft the letter. Wayne
suggests the letter be addressed to Sam Wyncoop.
The last item of
business was Robert’s request to be sponsored as a CMP
candidate. There was no opposition to this; he will forward the
form to David, who will forward it on.
After some head-shaking
over reduced chapter membership and participation, we proceeded to
the evening’s program.
Marty started out
with a comment on our last item of discussion. He said a lot of
groups see membership problems, and encouraged us to keep at it. In
1988, when hired as an inspector, he was required to join IAEI, and
to attend meetings. In recent years, inspectors don’t even
receive comp time to let them attend such continuing education
activities.
Marty
Schumacher, a long-time Howard County electrical inspector, now has
a seminar business, trading as M.S. Electrical Training, LLC.,
Westminster, MD. He generously spent two hours reviewing 2011 NEC
changes for us, using a selection of Mike Holt’s slides, in a
program that allowed plenty of discussion.
Hartford and
Howard counties probably will adopt the 2011 NEC
in September, also Baltimore; Robert said he understands some
Eastern Shore Counties may adopt it in the Spring. I won’t
review the changes so much as focus on what Marty conveyed by way
of values. The essential question is what will provide a reasonable
degree of safety.
In his county, for
instance, inspectors do not insist on the use of suitably rated
(purple) cable ties in plenums. A non-rated tie is allowed–so
long as the excess is cut off and removed.
When a
multiwire circuit requires simultaneous circuit breaker
disconnection, he doesn’t require the use of multi-pole
breakers; the NEC
considers handle ties an acceptable alternative. What if no such
handle tie is available? A renovation required multiwire circuits,
fed by an old Gould Commercial panel. Marty accepted the use of a
nail as a handle tie. Jim Wooten does too, in similar situations.
Wayne asked
whether OEM handle ties are actually Listed products. David
promised to research this. Subsequent to the meeting, he called
Eaton Corporation. Their technical representative John said that
the ties are not listed to an external standard, just meeting the
company’s own specification. He also said they do not
recommend handle-tying three single-pole breakers together, because
a handle tie will make two trip together, but there is enough give
that this is not necessarily true for three. (The ties will enable
simultaneous manual disconnection, as required by the NEC.)
One challenge Marty
posed concerned the question of how to ground generators. Using two
ground rods makes sense if they generators are distant from a
building. What if they’re right next to it, or as Karl
suggested, on the roof? We agreed that bonding the generator to
building steel makes more sense in those cases.
Pete Bowers spoke
up about the requirement for two ground rods in order to achieve 25
ohms or less of impedance. Pete says the number goes back to a
1930s telephone requirement, and has no independent reason for
adoption. Wayne commented that opponents of the requirement almost
got it removed this year.
Looking at Section
210.52(A)(4), Marty talked about how receptacles intended to serve
as kitchen counter receptacles cannot do double duty and serve the
receptacle spacing requirement for wall spaces beyond the counter.
What about a two-foot floor space between a countertop and a door?
He granted that inspectors frequently don’t insist on a
receptacle being added to serve a space that a door opens into.
It’s an oversight that doesn’t get his boxers twisted
up.
His
perspective on GFCIs has shifted with the 2006 change in the UL
standard. Now that they are required to fail to un-energized mode,
he sees it as more important to exempt critical loads from GFCI
protection, despite the fact that modern appliances have very low
leakage current. This goes beyond the Code
permission to exempt patient care spaces near sinks. If a GFCI
behind a fridge opens because it’s reached end-of-life, he
doesn’t like the idea of a family losing its food. He
certainly doesn’t want a sump pump to fail because its
dedicated receptacle was protected by a GFCI that has died.
On to AFCIs and
Section 210.12(A). Some inspection agencies are requiring AFCI
protection of kitchen light circuits; he doesn’t know why.
He’s been told that on production-type wiring jobs it won’t
be cost-effective to use AFCI devices rather than circuit breakers.
For additions, for old panels, for some multiwire circuits, for
various other special needs, the permission to use device-type
AFCIs makes lot of sense.
When a fire alarm
is required in a multi-occupancy building with no lighting that is
not serving an individual tenant space, and therefore hasn’t
required a general-use panel, they may need to add a separate
service on the outside of the building to serve the fire pump.
Bring it inside, and you have the problem of two services on one
building, and not necessarily in accordance with one of the
exceptions.
Marty talked
about the permission to use receptacle assemblies Listed for the
purpose on kitchen counters, to accommodate people who don’t
like to see receptacles interrupting a backsplash. Pete mentioned
that in Washington, DC, where a homeowner who wants to avoid
receptacles being installed where required, such as at a kitchen
counter, the AHJ has required a notarized statement in which the
customer acknowledges responsibility for the variation. Marty’s
seen a stricter requirement, to handle the chance that the
homeowner who signed such a statement might unload the house on
someone who doesn’t realize that the legal, inspected
installation didn’t meet Code:
the exception has to be added to the deed.
Marty shared
a number of opinions about outdoor electrical jobs. It used to be
that a suitable receptacle had to be installed to serve a porch or
patio; now the size specifications are gone. As Signor Panizari
pointed out, there may be nothing more than a door opening out from
the second floor, and come holiday season the homeowner will set up
his extension ladder to install festive lights fed from the
required receptacle. Perhaps, some of us felt, not the most
essential amendment that’s been accepted into the Code.
A more-critical
point concerns the requirement to adequately protect service
entrance cable that could be subject to harm. As Marty put it, “No
way should SE cable be allowed for services, on a porch, without
protection.”
As we ran down past
9 PM, he mentioned a benefit to the new term, “Supply-side
bonding jumper.” Engineers’ software has been sizing
system bonding conductors in accordance with Section 250.122 rather
than to Section 250.66.
Finally, Marty
spoke against screw misuse. Tek screws do not tap two full threads
in the wall of an electrical cabinet, so their use is
unsuitable–illegal–for bonding. Another mismatch, in
his (match)book, is drywall screws being used in electrical work.
One issue is that the neck is designed for a soft stop, as it
buries itself in gypsum and paper, not for seating against metal.
We stopped at
9:13, having enjoyed two hours and a bit more of Code
discussion.
Our 1/2010 meeting took place on Nov 16, 2010--a
miserably rainy night-- at Capital Lighting and Supply. We had 4
inspector members, 2 associates, 3 students, & Gil Moniz, our
presenter.
Gil came early, and
provided a splendid two-hour program, despite being just over a
nasty illness. Who would have guessed that an overview of NEMA
could be so engaging? Of course, it wouldn’t have been,
except for the presenter–and to some degree the audience. The
most fun and educational parts were the examples Gil provided–from
his previous electrical careers as well as his years working on
behalf of NEMA--plus the give-and-take between him and the
audience. Between all the different currents, we kept on long
enough that we decided to postpone any business matters (other than
CEU distribution) till our annual meeting in January
At the very
beginning, a couple of us--Robert Welborne and David Shapiro--asked
Gil for help in scoping out a question: at what length does rigid
PVC outdoors on the side of a building in our area require
expansion couplings?
Gil usually sees
these installed once a straight run reaches 25 ft.; this is a very
rough rule of thumb. He noted that Section 352.44 requires one in
any straight run between securely-mounted items whose thermal
movement is expected to exceed 1/4". Then he pulled up Table
352.44. It shows that this means any more than a 60 deg F variation
in temperature calls for an expansion fitting in a 10 ft. length.
In the DC area, we see that much variation in temperatures many
years.
Subsequent to the
meeting, David consulted a local meteorologist. At the nearby
Climate Station of Abingdon, VA, the low temperature in 1985 was
-21 deg F. We had some 100 deg. F days during summer 2010, and the
meteorological records say there have been quite a few summers that
hot and hotter. Putting this together, if we take the full range of
temperatures over the last 25 years, and round it down, we have
maybe 120 deg. F. Based on the Table, this suggests we need to
halve that 10' limit. (Of course, it’s always up to the AHJ.)
NEMA
Representatives and their duties
Gil was easygoing
and very entertaining, and addressed the visiting VoTec students as
well as the inspectors and contractors. NEMA representatives have
good people skills, as well as Code expertise and field experience.
All of them have been inspectors, contractors. Each covers a
quarter of the country, the areas for which they're responsible
basically parallelling IAEI Sections.
One of their jobs,
Gil noted, is to track trends. Example: Multihats have been
performing inspections on the East coast for a while, but NEMA reps
are seeing more and more of them across the country. Trends often
start on one of the coasts, he observed. Another example: Sales of
CFLs tanked when the economy went sour. Another: wire-type cable
trays, while originally used for low voltage, now commonly used to
run power wiring, are being misapplied. Installers tend to cut and
shape this type of tray, despite the fact that doing so is only an
acceptable practice--meaning within the scope of the listing-–with
one brand. The practice is especially unfortunate given that the
tray needs good continuity, because it tends to serve as a
grounding conductor.
NEMA
representatives are responsible for interacting with legislators,
encouraging them to adopt current versions of the NEC,
helping them to word their electrical legislation so it means what
they intend. Without the reps’ helpful guidance (“lobbying”
is a term they prefer to avoid), legislators can end up passing
laws regarding, for example, carbon monoxide detectors, that
contain technically incorrect assumptions. This could be awkward
for the people who need to create and enforce rules based on those
laws.
One of their
successes has been in getting the NEC
adopted increasingly without local amendments removing AFCI
requirements. Jim Wooten complained that when AFCIs trip, they
trigger smoke alarms. Gil said the Connecticut code had exempted
circuits feeding smoke alarms from AFCI requirements, but this was
found unnecessary, and the exception was removed. When such claims
were investigated, no conflict was found. Manufacturers now note
explicitly that AFCIs and smoke alarms are compatible. Jim, he
suggested, might consider submitting reports of any such cases he
does observe. The site www.AFCI Safety.org both offers suggestions
for troubleshooting AFCI installations and provides a place for
installers to notify manufacturers when it does indeed seem that
AFCIs are unusable in contexts for which they are listed.
Manufacturers, he says, will respond. He’s gotten good
feedback on the site.
Gil commented that
the use of AFCIs has caused installers to improve their
workmanship. Pete Bowers seconded this. Pete said that where they
used to get away with leaving wires where they’d get pinched,
and not see a problem from the trace of faulting that resulted, now
they have to dress their wires. If they don’t do so when they
run them, they’ll have to do so as part of troubleshooting,
before the AFCIs will stay on.
Other
innovations have been less successful. Gill talked about the
Department of Energy pushing for more efficient motors and
transformers. NEMA came up with standard for Class E motors and TP1
transformers. As a result, the Class E designation was incorporated
into the NEC.
However, nobody built these (high-inrush current) high-efficiency
motors; Class B motors satisfied the market.
Consulting down
the Line and Smoothing Confrontations
A major function of
NEMA representatives is to serve people working with NEMA products.
When an inspector leans on a contractor about the suitable
installation of a product because the inspector happens to be
ignorant concerning the correct application, Gil said, the
contractor turns to his distributor, and he bucks the issue up to
the wholesaler. The wholesaler in turn will turn to the
manufacturer, and if the rule is clear, the manufacturer will ask
the NEMA representative to step in and explain the standard and the
intention. The contractor can go to Gil directly, too. Gil gets
calls at 7:30 AM, when these people’s days start–and
Gil also addresses groups some evenings, as in our session, which
let him go some time south of 8:30 PM. Moving on from NEMA’s
field representatives, Gil talked about the NEMA web site. It
offers free access to most of their standards, and to their
Engineering Bulletins. An example of the latter is a bulletin that
notes the full compatability of NM sheaths with expanding foam
thermal insulation. In response to a question, Gil said this holds
true of the THHN on the conductors inside, as well, so damaged
sheaths should not make you hesitate to add thermal insulation.
One of the frequent
questions he receives concerns ragged nylon outer insulation on
conductors that were subject to a difficult pull. He said that’s
fine, so long as the pulling is finished; the outer nylon’s
done its job of protecting the critical inner dielectric insulation
during the wire pull.
So much for the
bulletins. Technical standards from NEMA are for development and
manufacturing, not for testing, unlike UL standards. Even if a NEMA
standard includes a testing procedure, it doesn't necessarily
become an ANSI standard.
One standard
that Gil spent some time on is NEMA 250, electrical enclosures. He
compared its designations with those in UL 50 and in the NEC.
He also noted that the International Electrotechnical Commission’s
enclosure designations look only at their ability to prevent
contact with energized parts and their ability to keep out liquids.
Therefore, while UL/NEMA enclosure types can be translated into the
range of IEC types, the reverse is not true.
“Evaluating
Water-Damaged Electrical Equipment” is a standard that was
rewritten in 2008. NEMA had received feedback indicating that the
original format, which was phrased in terms of recommendations, was
not sufficiently useful for people seeking instructions.
How about equipment
that has been exposed to offgassing from corrosive drywall? David
nudged him over the fact that exposing THHN or oven older
electrical insulation to the sulfur compounds is not going to
injure it or the conductors it encloses. Why not tell people their
electricians should generally be able to cut back and restrip their
power conductors if the terminations are discolored? Gil responded
that there are confusing elements to the situation, and there are
too many variables for NEMA even to have considered putting
together a task group as yet.
This is just a
taste of what we heard that evening. Even when Gil replaced the
closing slide showing the NEMA logo with one that said, “Thank
you,” the questions took a little while to stop.
9/2010
Meeting
Our next 9/2010 meeting took place on September 14, 2010. Once
again, Ken Cain, VP Marketing for Capital Lighting and Supply,
welcomed us. We had 2 Inspector members, 1 associate, and 1
non-member at this hastily rescheduled, Election Day meeting.
We started out a
bit later than 6:30, and heard news of a number of members.
President Jim Wooten was attending his first chapter meeting
since having all his teeth pulled.
Board Member-at-Large
Charles Johnson stayed home because he was experiencing some
discomfort from a recent hip replacement.
Membership Officer
Robert Welborne had to teach a class that evening.
We might
have lost Ron Kimble to very serious illness, but two weeks in the
hospital put him almost in shape to join us for the meeting.
Pete
Bowers also sent his regrets, having poll-watching duty.
Ed Holt
sent his regrets and regards. His daughter Mandy, a K9 specialist,
has been promoted to Chief Petty Officer, and asked him to fly to
Guam to pin her anchors on. She’s made Sailor of the Year for
her command, her second time in three years; also Sailor of the
Year for her region.
Finally, Wayne Robinson was only able to
join us after he finished teaching a class downstairs. He reported
that, while he makes a satisfactory living teaching a few hours a
week, he is tempted by a job offer from another jurisdiction that
needs a chief electrical inspector; if he took got back in the
saddle, this would enable his wife to retire.
Notwithstanding our
low attendance–by far the lowest on record as far back as I
looked--we had quite a good meeting.
Alex Boesenberg, head of
NEMA’s lighting division, tooled over on his 1975 Super Glide
to fill us in on how lighting manufacturers have come together to
work on recommendations and standards--and on developments in
lighting design.
We had a lovely,
wide-ranging discussion, punctuated at several points by Jim
expressing his concern over premature lamp failures. Alex
emphasized that grousing to your buddies is less productive than
contacting the manufacturer’s complaint department: all the
reputable manufacturers maintain toll-free customer service
numbers, because they want to know if their designs or
manufacturing processes are defective. If they hear the same
complaint from quite a few end-users, they know the dud purchases
were not just flukes. One manufacturer of electronic ballasts sends
a field representative out to check each unit that fails.
If you see a
problem with more than one product line, contact Alex (outside of
lighting, his appropriate colleague will get your mail) by using
the form at www.nema.org/about/contact/feedback.cfm. You can also
use the form to submit questions.
NEMA has some
concern about the development of a public product-complaint forum,
if it is not appropriately moderated to ensure that it develops
accurate information. However, Congress did mandate that the
Consumer Product Safety Commission prepare such a forum. The CPSC
has already proposed a design for the site and received public
comments. See http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/sect212.html for
details.
When manufacturers
see a pattern of product failures, they may use the NEMA technical
committees, working groups whose function Alex facilitates, to find
out if other manufacturers are hearing the same thing. This can
result in revised guidelines or even updated standards.
Some very special
problems can come to light this way. Here's one example that Alex
gave. A high-bay factory used high-output T5 fixtures. The
manufacturing atmosphere contained significant amounts of metal
dust. The high-frequency fields at the lamps, combined with the
metal dust, caused the lamp’s glass envelope to become
permeable. This is not a problem that would have been easy to
foresee.
A major part of
Alex’s job is helping lighting manufacturers coordinate
intelligently without risk of violating anti-trust laws. He
documents what was discussed at each meeting, and mediates
disagreements so that the members can develop consensus documents.
The results of such NEMA efforts are available for download (not
necessarily free) at www.NEMA.org/standards. Those White Papers and
Standards in his area bear the prefix “LSD” for
Lighting Systems Division, and can be found at
http://www.nema.org/stds/lsd.cfm. Lighting is the NEMA division
with the second-highest budget, trailing only the semi-automonmous
division of Medical Imaging Device Manufacturers. All the LSD White
Papers can be downloaded free, but note that a number are due for
updating; check their dates. For example, Papers LSD 3, 5, and 9
mention problems that are basically resolved by now.
An interesting
aspect of his work is that half his committee members have
marketing backgrounds, not engineering degrees. However, Alex noted
the effect of experience: once they’ve been representing
manufacturing lines for some years, they accrue so much technical
knowledge that schooling differences fade into unimportance. Alex’s
own background includes U.S. Naval Academy training in applied
Systems Engineering, gained as he earned a B.S. in History.
One important
consequence of manufacturer’s coming together in NEMA is that
standards can create level playing fields, and reliable product
interchangeability. Before this can even take place, they are able
to support needed research. They funded studies of T8 fluorescent
dimming for over six years. Their support can also take the form of
data, of manpower, and of materials. In 2008-2009, they worked with
UL to examine the failure modes associated with the interaction of
dimmers and non-dimmable CFLs. The failures were found to be safe,
resulting in, at most, a moment's whiff of smoke.
None of this
necessarily applies, of course, to dimmers and CFLs that are not
manufactured in compliance with ANSI standards.
There are other
standards, respectable ones, but they may be of limited use in the
U.S. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is based
in Europe, with much of its energy from Germany. The IEC is working
on a standard, an open-source document enabling interchangeability,
for dimmable CFLs. As IEC standards are based on 50 Hz 220V
installations, their guidelines cannot be converted automatically
to apply to our equipment. Still, Canada has the policy of adopting
IEC standards. NEMA has been encouraging the many Central American
countries that use 120V to adopt NEMA standards, which will
buttress the market for NEMA members’ products. Meanwhile,
NEMA has published a guidance document for dimming CFLs, and is in
the process of developing it into a standard. The standard for
wall-box dimmers for CFLs has to take into account CFLs’ high
inrush current and non-linear draw.
Stepping back a
pace, Alex responded to various questions about CFL uses and
designs. He also touched on public concerns over the mercury used
in CFLs, in any fluorescents. In view of the mercury pollution
associated with hydrocarbon use and the quick fixing of mercury
into compounds that are not further reactive, he said, “There
is no scientific evidence that mercury from CFLs has an
environmental effect.” He mentioned a You-tube video in which
a CFL manufacturer makes this point rather archly.
The Federal Trade
Commission just recently required CFL manufacturers to print data
on their lamp packages in a uniform format. This way, purchasers
can compare kumquats to kumquats. Alex told us that none of this
may matter in the long term. Regardless of any present
controversies over CFLs, he said, most manufacturers see CFLs as a
stopgap, a lighting approach that will be supplanted once
Solid-State Lighting devices-–LEDs or OLEDs–become
cost-effective.
Right now, SSL
products are hand-made, so they are all in some sense prototypes.
Until better designs are developed and economies of scale come in,
SSL devices are not going to be competitive with other efficient
general-purpose lighting sources. A metal halide luminaire may last
10 years, offering good-quality, bright light.
An LED
substitute for a 4' troffer, he noted, can be purchased. However,
it will offer no advantage over a modern fluorescent luminaire in
efficiency or even longevity, and it might cost ten times as much!
LEDs are natural
for spotlighting, with a natural angle of 65 deg. Jewelers got gems
to sparkle just the way they wished by highlighting the gems with
LEDs of precisely specified chromaticity and no need for color
filtering. A little gold? A touch of green highlighting? Whatever.
Even
special-purpose LEDs have had problems. LED traffic lights benefit
from the same facts. However, as attractive as LEDs are for this
purpose, over a cold winter, some installations became useless; the
designers had not recognized the fact that waste heat from
incandescent traffic lamps prevented icing. To keep LED traffic
lights usable, the shrouds had to be modified to eliminate ice
buildup.
One reason that
Alex discourages adoption of LEDs for general lighting applications
is that disappointment in early units could lead to burnout. Then,
when reliable, cost-effective general-use SSL lighting becomes
available, the reputable manufacturers could have an uphill battle
to gain consumer acceptance. There are many less-responsible
manufacturers profiting from today’s “early-adopter”
market. One company, “Lights of America,” is being sued
by the government for making unsubstantiated product claims.
Other Topics for NEMA's LSD
In response to a question, Alex also told us about the
possibilities he sees for NEMA in daylighting. One problem is that
when, for example, big box stores install skylights–as they
can be mandated to do–the quality of the light, during the
brightest part of the day, may wash out lighting effects intended
to bring products to customers’ attention. He is slowly
bringing together a group interested in daylighting management,
whether through mechanically controllable louvers or through
installation of electrochromic glass, whose ability to transmit
light can be reduced and restored electrically. At present, there
are no standards to coordinate these technologies with dimming of
electric light.
Daylighting management is certainly not the only area of
electrical manufacturing that is not represented by a NEMA
division. Solar energy is another, perhaps considered too much of a
niche area for decades. Visiting E.E. Mike Wechsler brought us
up-to-date on the economics of residential solar. He reported that
in Washington, D.C., after rebates, a forthcoming single-family
solar installation required maybe $6000 out-of-pocket investment.
This means a payback period of merely a couple of years, followed
by a couple of decades of sheer profit.
One last gripe was raised, concerning upgraded luminaires, such
as solid-state-ballasted linear fluorescents that replace old
magnetic-ballasted units. First, they sometimes seem to be
short-lasting, an issue that Alex had addressed earlier (call the
manufacturer’s complaint line!). Second, they can cause
visual discomfort. Instead of talking about harsh color, glare, and
changes in light level, people mentioned flicker as a possible
cause. Alex commented on people’s variability in detecting
flicker, with 100-120 Hz the usual limit of perception.
"Tell your problems to the people who made the equipment"
is not where Alex left us, even with respect to the earlier
complaints about incandescents. In the days following our meeting,
Alex consulted manufacturers' experts. To get full service out of
incandescent lamps and to avoid their premature failure, they have
three recommendations. The first two, at least, will be familiar to
our members.
One, make sure the lamps are not subjected to
overvoltage. If necessary, install 130 volt or even 140V
traffic-type lamps in luminaires on any nominal 120V circuits whose
voltage reads high. (At our September 2008 meeting, Bill Poulin
told us that utilities commonly serve the middle of a run at
somewhat high voltage, so that anticipated voltage drop doesn’t
bring it down too far by the time the cable reaches customers at
the ends of the run.)
Two, make sure they are not subject
to environmental stress such as vibration unless designed for the
purpose, as are Rough Service lamps and oven lamps.
Three, to
avoid disappointment with any sort of lighting, buy reputable
brands. This does not necessarily mean lamps sold by the big three
(Sylvania, Phillips, and G.E.), but at least buy lamps whose
packaging indicates compliance with standards.
Our previous meeting took place on May 18, 2010. Reports
indicate that Michael Johnston and his associate put on an
excellent presentation regarding the NEIS program, for a very small
house: four inspector members, two associate members, and one
inspector nonmember. Both Jim Wooten and David Shapiro were unable
to make it, for health reasons. Harry Langway circulated an
attendance list, though, and CEU certificates are waiting for those
who attended.
Previous Meeting
This is the report of our meeting on the evening of the evening
of Tuesday, March 16, 2010. Once again, thanks to the generosity of
Ken Cain, VP Marketing for Capital Lighting and Supply, we met at
their training facility in Upper Marlboro, MD. We had three
inspector members, five associate members, an instructor nonmember
and at least four student nonmembers.
Nik Dubish of Kelly Generator &
Equipment, Inc., presented an interactive program of 1 ½
hours, talking about some of the issues that arise in specifying,
installing, consulting on, and inspecting Generators. Nik used to
work for Generac, and provides training as a regular part of his
job. This program was approved by IAEI’s International Office
for .2 CEUs (credited for 2 CE hours). Nik is certified as an
Electrical Generator Systems Technician by the Electrical Generator
Systems Association.
Nik, supported by Scott Norfolk in sales and Gary Fink, Kelly’s
master electrician and NEC go-to man, discussed an entertaining
series of slides taken in the field. Some showed well-done
installations, others violations or simply bad ideas.
Before the training proper began, Scott led in with an overview
of what their company offers. Yawn, right? Except that we did learn
a couple of useful nuggets, useful for the contractors among us,
and useful for the inspectors whom contractors sometimes turn to
for suggestions. One is that they provide a fair variety of rental
units, although not the very smallest. The other is their generator
parts inventory; it is wide enough that they often can dig up
obscure or obsolete parts. Scott talked very briefly–really--and
then Nik took over.
These are some of the points that came up. They seem worth
setting out separately in order to emphasize them individually.
· The rules for minimum
clearances from outdoor generators to buildings vary. A common one
is 5'. How to measure this is a matter in which inspectors differ:
Gary is conservative, and insists of 5' from any point on the
generator to any point on the building.
· There are cases, though
. . . In one instance, in a historic district of DC, there was a
Code requirement to install backup power. However, the property
could not be modified because of preservation requirements.
Therefore, the AHJ signed off on a generator being shoehorned in
with nearly no clearance. · Some customers prefer
visibility, others low visibility; some quiet operation, some the
ability to confirm by sound that the units are operating. All
these requirements can be accommodated reasonably well, but some
don’t know enough to do it legally.
· Many generators are not
designed to have their exhaust piped away. Modifying this, like
modifying any aspect of the design, eliminates Listing protection
and warranties. Nik showed us several examples of Generac units
that were installed so that the exhaust entered HVAC intake vents.
There were even more slides in which clearances were not
established or maintained for adequate access to controls and
battery compartments. Then there were some where combustibles came
in contact with the exhaust. One allowed paper trash to fall in
the vicinity of the generator, so it could be sucked up against
the intake grill, or slide underneath the enclosure so that it
could sit against the unit itself.
· Jim Wooten mentioned an
inspection he performed in Annapolis in which he found the
generator under a deck with the exhaust 9" from vinyl siding.
Nik noted that their exhaust gases exceed 800 degrees.
· The nameplate of a
generator lists the letter class of items such as the rotor. This
indicates how hot the wiring can get before its insulation may
fail. (The further along in the alphabet, the more robust.)
· In a shore area, Harry
reported, authorities now require that generators be located 2'
above mean high tide.
· Small creatures such as
snakes like to crawl in under generators where it’s warm.
Rodents like to chew on wires, at least those with pre-THHW/XHHW
insulation. He has heard that this is because older thermoplastic
insulations contain fish oil. John Marcio of the National
Association of Electrical and Medical Imaging Manufacturers (NEMA)
said [awaiting response]
· Within the generator
enclosure, from the stub-up on, the wiring does not need to be
enclosed within a raceway. Bushing to protect it are sufficient.
· When the power and
control wires all have insulation rated for the power voltage,
there still is a significant advantage to running them in separate
raceways. If control wiring is run right against it in a single
raceway and, in the course of the pull, a power conductor gets a
kink, power going through the kink could induce a spurious signal.
· Smaller units use four
control wires to start them, carrying binary signals. Larger units
use two wires, and if the positive one inadvertently grounds, this
can start the generator–or try to. If the motor is already
running at a good clip, and the starter tries to engage without
meshing, damage could result.
· Listing information
always is located with the nameplate, by the disconnect, either
inside or outside the enclosure. Jim piped up to mention that
Annapolis requires that this information always be available on
the outside.
· Diesel units have their
own problems.
· Modern, low-sulfur
diesel fuel breeds vermin in the water that’s part of the
fuel. This gives it a shelf life of 6-12 months. If left
untouched, it loses its bright clear red color and becomes
useless.
· In addition to causing
white smoke and clogging filters, they put out acidic waste
products, which damage the engines.
· The fuel can be
filtered and treated on site. The company has equipment to
perform this operation, and can arrange with specialists to do
the job when particularly large tanks need to be treated.
· Diesel is not light.
Sometimes there is no place for the unit but on a rooftop,
because of noise, exhaust, or just footprint. In such a case, the
size of the tank that can be accommodated may be limited both by
weight and by fire regulations. These can require pans to capture
lost diesel safely in the event of tank rupture. A day tank on
the roof with the main tank below pumping up to it is an option
in some cases. Nik mentioned one job where pumping dfiesel up
wasn’t acceptable, so they continued relying on a bizarre
alternative. (If you’re curious about the details, give him
a call.)
· There are legitimate,
Listed dual diesel-gas units. However, there also are diesel
units that have been improperly converted to gas operation. If it
looks like a diesel unit and has a power pack on the side, it’s
probably one of these, we were told. Enough on diesel.
· Scott confided that
the units some manufacturers sell that are rated over than 100
kW do not have EPA certification.
· Gary mentioned that before selecting transfer
equipment, he always requests a letter from the serving utility
supplying the available fault current.
Ed Bihlear noted afterward that an arc fault article by a
Bussman rep said that 65 kA commercial distribution may be safer
to deal with than residential, which can run as high at 83 kA due
to the serving utility’s transformers. (David attempted to
follow this up with PEPCO’s media office, but received no
response.)
Servicing backup power for a cellular phone tower is
particularly nerve-wracking. Ice can build up on the dish even
when there’s no ice below. A bit of a thaw can cause it to
start breaking up. Especially at night, the first inkling you may
have that it is falling is when you start being bombarded.
Jim reported that the BG&E utility no longer will service
any equipment, gas or electric, that is located on a roof.
There was more than this, of course, but . . . you had to be
there.
Business Meeting
We decided at our Annual Meeting in January that we would be
voting on changes to our chapter bylaws, changes that were
proposed back in 2008. These were attached to March’s
meeting notice. So members could be ready. Jim even prepared some
questions to guide the discussion. However, the inspector who
proposed that we schedule the vote did not attend, with the
result that we were one short of a quorum under the present
rules.
The meeting proper therefore broke up quite a bit earlier than
usual, to be followed, as usual, by the social and educational
after-meeting meeting.
Jim, Gary, and David all agreed that by signing a permit, a
master electrician takes personal responsibility for the work
performed on a job. If he doesn’t inspect it himself, he is
laying himself open. Ed Bihlear mentioned that equipment is
coming out from manufacturers with the new Arc Flash labels. The
instructions set the approach distance is 41', so Ed simply
insists that a draw-out circuit breaker be de-energized before he
arrives. Because the arc flash boundary is 100', instead of
inscribing a hazard category class, they write, “Seriously
dangerous.”
Special Note
http://www.energy.state.md.us/incentives/transportation/index.asp
will link you to guidelines for two government incentive programs
for those building Electric Vehicle-charging stations.
Previous Meeting
This is the report of our meeting on the evening of the
evening of Tuesday, January 19, 2010, at Capital Lighting and
Supply's training facility in Upper Marlboro, MD. We had five
inspector members, five associate members, and four student
nonmembers.
Proposed
2011 Code Changes
Because the changes discussed were based on the ROP, their
content is subject to further modification in the ROC and then
yet again at the Annual Meeting. Therefore, this report will
focus more on the sweet nuggets contained in presenter Wayne
Robinson’s–and the audience’s--asides. These
were based on field experience and on proposed changes’
substantiations as reported in the ROP. This element is part of
what leads these discussions to offer more of interest, in their
way, than very straightforward seminars that closely follow, for
example, the IAEI Powerpoint slides.
Here are some highlights:
Annexes are not part of the mandatory portion of the NEC;
however, when referenced directly by a chapter, they can be. This
may be underscored in the 2011 Code, but is true already.
“Power Panelboards” originally were panelboards
that lacked a neutral, before the 10%-of-circuits rule was
passed. The idea of pulling a neutral to every panelboard was
applauded by several members. . They reported that they have seen
neutral-less panels treated as though they did have neutrals all
too often–with their grounds substituted.
Pete Bowers chimed in that a great many builders and
homeowners buy jacuzzis without making sure the items they
purchase fit into the intended locations in a way that leaves
their motors and GFCIs/local disconnects accessible.
The original GFCI requirement in 1987 required this protection
within 6' of each sink, regardless of type; it looks as though we
will be returning to that concept.
It will be a wrench for some building owners if the panels
serving their or their supers’ units no longer will be
permitted to also serve as the house panels.
It appears that countertop receptacles will be forbidden to
count toward the receptacles required for wall spaces, but wall
receptacles will be permitted to count as the receptacles serving
contiguous peninsula counters.
Floor boxes came up in the context of the proposed requirement
that meeting spaces with movable partitions be served so that a
partition would not cut users off from ready access to
receptacles. David Shapiro polled those present regarding the
fate of floor receptacle closers. Harry Langway sees them
remaining intact, because the receptacles are never used. Pete
sees the style using flip-open lids generally having them broken
off within three months, and left off missing.
Wayne told a story about a call from a lawyer, who apparently
was seeking support for his client’s contention that a fire
had resulted from a certain type of negligence. Wayne eventually
cut off his interest by presenting his off-the-cuff opinion that
the fire was very likely to have been caused by three-prong
receptacles having been installed in outlets lacking any
grounding conductors (or, presumably, GFCI protection). He
asserted that when there’s a ground fault in such a case,
the yoke gets so hot carrying fault current over time that it
gets the box to the point where the receptacle yoke breaks in
half.
That is about as far as the NEC education went. We received
sad news about a relatively new–but valued-- chapter member
who will no longer be with us.
BUSINESS MEETING
Plans
We slid smoothly into our business meeting. Pete asked about a
vote on some bylaws changes that David had proposed many months
ago. We agreed that they would be addressed in our March meeting.
Alerts
Next, Pete mentioned a problem with inspection of fire alarm
systems. In less than 40 hours–whoops–the state fire
marshal would be meeting with those who probably should be
inspecting their wiring.
Pete explained his concern further after the meeting, as being
about: “. . . a new code section under 22-13, for fire
safety - building code: MCER 5-06AM, adopted November 28, 2006.
It establishes a requirement for issuance of a Fire Protection
Systems License. That license is required to install, repair,
test, modify or service any alarm system and/or equipment.
“The license is issued by the Fire Marshal's Office,
with specific Nicet (National Institute for Certification in
Engineering Technologies) documentation required as a
precondition to qualify. Permits for the work activity are then
issued by that department and inspection of the completed work is
conducted by the Fire Marshal's Office. At present, the
electrical inspection branch is not involved, leading to other
problems of compliance in law.
“The reason for the new level of government oversight
and control was that life safety systems have been installed and
modified, their maintenance ignored or allowed to fall into
inoperable condition--and the fire department had no control over
malfunctioning systems in the public domain. This was an attempt
to bring oversight into play at the major levels of system
operability.
“The downside is that the process put the holders of
Nicet documentation as the dominant player (which translates to
the manufacturers or their local service organizations) to the
exclusion of licensed electrical contractors. No requirement was
stated that a journeyman or master electrician license was
necessary for this work, in order to comply with other county
law. Electrical contractors have been responsible for
installation of system components forever, with final testing and
checkout usually the domain of the manufacturer's representative.
All that changed with this new regulation.”
No one spoke up to say they would be available on such short
notice to attend the meeting.
Some days later, Pete reported that the fire marshal told that
meeting's audience that he had had no one to help him prepare the
regulation so as to coordinate smoothly with other departments or
regulations.
Next, Wayne mentioned an upcoming meeting of the state
committee regarding third-party inspector licensing and
retesting.
Finally, we had our annual election, with
these results:
Jim Wooten, President. Jim noted that he is thinking about
relocating close to the Pennsylvania border, at which time a
replacement would be needed.
Wayne Robinson, Vice President.
David Shapiro, Secretary-treasurer.
Robert Welborne,
Membership.
Harry Langway, Programs, at least for a while.
There were no other volunteers for Executive Board positions,
nor any to serve on a budget committee.
Reports
Finances
David reported that we are still pretty much busted.
Follow-up: We have been enjoying the hospitality of Capitol
Lighting and Supply for some time. Steve Collins’s
excellent suggestion at the last meeting, which was supported by
a consensus, was that our leftover books pruchased for
2005-related seminars the be offered for Capitol’s use.
This offer was carried out before the evening’s meeting
convened.
Membership
Robert reported that he has changed over his membership
category to Inspector. In addition to continuing to function as a
contractor, and serving on Prince Georges Community College’s
faculty, he has taken on their job of Electrical Supervisor and
Plan Reviewer.
About 8:45, we adjourned.
After the meeting, of course, there continued to be some
informal discussion.
****
PREVIOUS MEETING
This is the report of our meeting on the evening of the
evening of Tuesday, November 17, 2009. Once again, thanks to the
generosity of Ken Cain, VP Marketing for Capital Lighting and
Supply, we met at their training facility in Upper Marlboro, MD.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM
Wayne, our Vice President and also our evening's presenter,
made a very prompt start to the meeting, jumping right in to a
good hour and a half of solid Code instruction--and dialogue. His
talk was thoroughly illustrated with slides he had prepared with
PowerPoint for one of the handbooks he prepared and uses (and
sells) in his presentations on the subjects. The give and take
with the audience led the evening’s education/entertainment
to be more freewheeling than a straight slide-driven
presentation. Here are some highlights:
Wayne started out with Auxiliary Gutters, with side excursions
to address rooftop installations, as well as other installations
that call for temperature-related derating.
Much of the wiring run across roofs, he noted, just sits on
pressure-treated wood rather than being secured to structural
members. One of these days, he commented, all of these sleepers
are going to blow off, with the right wind. Everything will land
in the street. Inspection? In Baltimore County, he understood,
inspectors no longer are permitted to go up on rooftops. The
electrician signs a form saying the wiring up there was done to
Code. CE-style self-inspection.
Moving back to ambient temperature derating, he brought up a
slide presenting an extreme example. Suppose wiring–however
long the run--normally would need to be 3 AWG, but the run ends
with at least 10 feet in a boiler room with an ambient of 140
degrees. In accordance with 310.15(A)(2), the Exception not
applying, the entire run might need to be upsized to 3/0. How, at
least one member asked, is he to legally attach a 3/0 conductor
to a 100 A circuit breaker designed for 3 AWG and 1 AWG for
aluminum?
This stimulated a healthy discussion, resulting in a vote to
seek an informal interpretation from NFPA, as a chapter. (The
letter has been sent.) Ironically, Pete Bowers, a chapter member,
has been the IEC’s alternate on CMP 6 for the last couple
of Code cycles. It is conceivable that, had he been at the
meeting, he might have been able to illuminate the discussion.
These were our questions:
· What does it take to break the requirement? Suppose
there’s a panel outside the boiler room, with one
overcurrent device. Could the wiring from there to the load be
3/0, and upstream 3AWG?
· If this would be inadequate,
the panel being considered to contain a mere supplementary
overcurrent device, how about upsizing both the upstream
conductor and the device ahead of it by one size: could the rest
of the run now be considered a feeder?
· Going in the
other direction, if this sort of sleight of hand is acceptable to
release the installer from having to comply with the requirement,
why wouldn’t a simple junction box be acceptable to break
the run?
Our question was not what an AHJ may decide based on
the printed wording, but rather the intent of the Code section.
From there, we went to motor conductor calculations. Wayne
mentioned duty rating as an example where the Code has found good
reason to give designers a break on conductor sizing. Ed Holt, a
former member and a welcome, frequent visitor, noted that the
motor controller must have physical limits that restrict possible
use of the motor, not merely settings. Furthermore, something as
simple as a time clock is insufficient–it could be reset,
or removed, or replaced.
Wayne brought our attention to overload requirements that are
new in the 2008 Code. It’s not a big deal to figure out
what’s permitted: The nameplate gives the class of motor,
and then Table 430.32(C) identifies the maximum overload device.
Here’s a matter of interpretation: Wayne said that based
on his reading of Stallcup, you can’t exceed the size
identified from the table, even if your calculations might
suggest otherwise.
We quickly moved on to transformer calculations. Here are some
points he made.
If more than one overcurrent/disconnect is used for
protection, the sum of their actual ratings can’t exceed
what the maximum rating would have been had there been only one
disconnect.
This next one raised some objection–from two
knowledgeable men. One was Ed Holt, who carries serious
inspection responsibilities indeed. Wayne commented that there
are “five million” transformers out there with 400
amp mains but 500 Kcmil mains. He noted that technically, the
wire isn’t protected by the overcurrent device, and
therefore the design is illegal.
Both Ed Holt and Rich Panizari piped up, saying that sizing
the conductors to the loads makes the practice legal. This
brought Wayne to taps. He reminded us that restricting the
primary length to 10' and the secondary to 15' keeps a tap no
longer than 25' and permits us size it to the load. His next
comment elicited some differing opinions from the audience. He
noted that it’s awfully easy to go overlength. One reason
is that runs never perfectly cross the space from where they
enter to where they are connected, but follow structure. An even
more easy-to-overlook one is that the tails inside the
transformer and inside the overcurrent device cabinet tend to be
overlooked in the count.
He added a final comment on allowances. He has never seen a
fuse oversized to 250%, as technically permitted when necessary.
However, he pointed out, it is necessary to keep the permission
in mind when facing test questions.
Another snare he warned us of (as did Chuck Mello in the
December issue of IAEI News) is that whatever the permitted sizes
for separately derived systems’ individual grounding
electrodes, once they are connected to a common grounding
electrode it must be sized a minimum of 250 aluminum or 3/0
copper.
He focusing on feeder taps for his final segment. Wayne
commented that when the conductors are sized at the full
calculated rating on both sides of a splice, there’s no
tap. Once even a single undersized conductor leaves a splice, it
becomes a tap, and its length is limited accordingly.
Rich, Ed Holt, and Wayne engaged in some fun discussion about
field options to allow the use of the 1/3 rating. Wayne pointed
out that if we downsize the primary-side overcurrent device, it
may trip. Ed suggested that this would tend to be due to inrush
current, so you could adjust the trip setting. Wayne argued that
this would require engineering calculations, for coordination.
After a bit over an hour and a half, we took a break,
returning for the business/executive meeting.
BUSINESS MEETING
Programs
The first order of business was for Charles Johnson, our new
Programs Officer, to seek input as to how to solicit presenters
for future meetings.
He did get a lot of the input he asked for.
· At the end of Wayne's talk, he mentioned that he has
a 2011 Code Change book or books in the works, and would be
willing to spend an evening in January—that's the meeting
on January 19—giving us another good hour-and-a-half.
·
Steve Collins mentioned that his father was a fire commissioner
for ten years. He and others speculated that the state fire
marshal's office is concerned about electrical safety across the
state. They might have comments for us on the current situation
in Prince George's County. He will ask his father to contact the
office for us, to find out whether we can get a program
consisting of one of their representatives addressing us on the
interface between the fire marshal and localities. Steve also
came up with several ideas regarding a publicity campaign.
·
However, Nigel Nisbeth, a brand-new member, had even more ideas,
including a program where we invite members of the press to
attend a discussion of how the current reduction in professional
oversight of electrical inspections might be seen as affecting
safety. At David's suggestion, Nigel agreed to try out the job of
Publicity and Public Affairs chair, seeing to not only these
contacts but also publicity for future events such as seminars.
He will be coordinating with IAEI's International Office, to make
sure that what we do is in keeping with their policies.
Finances
David reported that we are somewhat in the hole at the moment,
the result of expenses incurred sending representation to the
Section meeting. This will diminish with the annual Winter IO
disbursement, though David will front the money to pay for our
audit in January. Fortunately, most of our members receive our
mailings via email, and we have enough postage to handle the
remainder for some time.
Our 2010 fundraising will have to do a little better.
Otherwise, we may have to rethink our representation on the
Section Executive Committee, and with it the annual Secretaries,'
Treasurers,' and Membership meetings.
We do have one small asset that has been sitting unused: a set
of 2005 NECs, plus one 2005 NEC Changes book. While the list
values total $400 or so, we are highly unlikely to use them in
actually teaching a 2005 NEC seminar at this point. There were
proposals to dispense of them by offering them online, and we
were about to vote on this when Steve Collins came up with
something better.
We have been enjoying the hospitality of Capitol Lighting and
Supply for some time. Steve Collins’s excellent suggestion,
which was supported by a consensus, was that the books be offered
for Capitol’s use. This offer was conveyed when the meeting
ended; Ken Cain graciously accepted.
Robert reported that he has continued to invite people to try
us out, and some ask him for membership applications. Four
current students accepted his invitation to attend the evening's
program, and one, Justin Bagley, who just converted his Limited
Master to a Full Master license after having taken Robert's
refresher course.
About 9:30 we broke up and formally adjourned, not necessarily
precisely in that order. At least two attendees, Ed Holt and Ed
Bihlear, had to get up at 4 AM to handle their considerable
responsibilities.
After the meeting, of course, there continued to be some
informal discussion, including some war stories, so to speak, in
the parking lot. Fascinating stuff.
This is the report of our meeting
on the evening of Tuesday,
September 15, 2009.
Attending: three Inspector members, four Associate members, and
one prospective member. Once again, thanks to the generosity of
Ken Cain, VP Marketing for Capital Lighting and Supply, the
meeting took take place around 6:30 p.m., at their training
facility in Upper Marlboro, MD.
Not dark; not in fact night; but
it certainly was stormy, and a challenging drive for some
attendees. Furthermore, Jim, our President, had been called out
of town; Charles, our At Large board member, was home
recuperating from hip surgery; and even David, our
Secretary-treasurer, was a few minutes late. Happily, those who
did make it spent our time schmoozing comfortably. Once David
arrived, Wayne, our Vice President, called the meeting to order
officially.
Educational Program
Our meeting's speaker and
topic were not been nailed down beforehand, for whatever reason;
subsequently our new Education Coordinator, Pete, decided it
would be best to give up the job and focus on his other
commitments. As both David, our chapter secretary, and Harry, our
former Education Coordinator, had understood that speakers had
been scheduled, we waited patiently for them, as afternoon slid
into night (and the storm temporarily abated).
Wayne mentioned that he always
has PowerPoint presentations on Code topics available. Teaching
with them may not be his bread and butter, but it certainly is a
significant sideline.
He talked at some length about
the hoops he has jumped through successfully in order to have his
seminars accredited for CEUs in all sorts of jurisdictions. (He
also talked about the woeful situation of inspection in parts of
our area.) David mentioned an opportunity resulting from his
having completed the editing of W. Creighton Schwan's final book,
Behind the Code,
except for some fiddly details. One of those details is that he
recently received permission from NFPA to reproduce copies of the
fronts of any NECs
as illustrations. He will be inserting a great many of them,
going back to at least the 1911 edition. Just as Oran P. Post
entertains the Ohio Chapter with an assortment of old NECs,
David could have brought in the images he has available.
We did make a firm determination that the next meeting will
have a program, whoever needs to handle the duty.
Robert, our Membership Coordinator, brought up an enforcement
question and got his answers. Nathan, an engineer now with a
consulting firm but formerly an Orange County, CA IAEI member and
a NRTL employee, introduced himself. David and several others
complained about the lack of enforcement, which encourages
illegal work.
Membership
Eventually Robert interrupted
some grousing and discussion about low participation, about
cumbersome new processes resulting in the need for non-employee
"permit runners," and about new licensing requirements
to give his report. Robert has gotten the impression that a fair
number of people he talked to were interested in IAEI. Thirty
showed enough interest to ask for membership applications. But
nothing came out of his efforts, to our knowledge, except for
member Steve Collins showing up. Robert has not let this stop
him.
An Unusual Bit of History
Steve spoke at length about
his work; he has quite a special specialty. For decades he has
worked on data centers. When their equipment is put together, it
must be well over 99.% reliable: at least six nines. This is a
challenge for the product manufacturers who want to remain
competitive.
He talked about the early days of
400 Hz work. They knew nothing about harmonics or skin effect
initially. He'd be called in the middle of the night to reset a
breaker that had tripped despite being loaded well within its
capacity. The next day he'd strip it out and find . . . nothing.
They learned that excess heat was
the culprit, although they didn't know why it should be present.
They responded empirically, with fans and eventually with
different setups entirely, ones that allowed far better heat
dissipation from a breaker.
Steve spoke a bit about the progression of data center cooling
designs--air-cooled to water to air again; fans to tents to their
more-efficient successors. Still, an important part of the remedy
was modified electrical designs. Paralleled
conductors? What's he or she saying? (I guess back then it was
pretty certainly "he.")
The NEC
offered little guidance. Steve and
his colleagues found that part of what was needed, in fact,
violated NEC
rules. Always, though, they kept
safety in mind, and eventually the practices that they had found
necessary to follow became incorporated the NEC.
Inspection of these data centers was no simple thing, anyway.
He'd get a call from the jurisdictional inspector telling him to
meet the guy downstairs at such and such a time, though, and
shepherd him through the security gauntlet.
Steve was a fun "presenter." Eventually, the meeting
broke up at about 8. We'd been going for something over an hour
and a half, and generally having a pretty good--and useful--time.
Most Recent Meeting Including an Educational
Program
Our meeting
took place on the evening of Tuesday, May 19, 2009. Once again,
it was hosted by Capital Lighting and Supply, thanks to the
generosity of Ken Cain, their Vice President for Marketing.
Attending were 4 inspector members, 6 associate members, and 6
nonmembers, plus our two speakers.
Business
Having a quorum, we held our annual election. The same
officers were re-elected, with one exception. We have a new
Education Coordinator. After working well and hard to serve the
chapter, Harry Langway–a member of the Chesapeake Chapter
who lives on Maryland’s Eastern Shore–found a
volunteer, Pete Bowers, to take over finding meeting speakers.
Harry provided, and will continue to provide, guidance to help
Pete get started with candidates for our Fall programs. Besides
some familiar, and very good, speakers, we may have enjoyable
teasers, such as a brief introduction to ANCE, a testing
laboratory that is in the process of obtaining NRTL
certification.
Secretary-Treasurer David Shapiro circulated a CPSC notice
concerning a recall of some Fluke clamp-on meters. Download site:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09222.html. Before
the evening was out, members picked up previously undistributed
CEU certificates acknowledging their attendance at the
educational talks enriching meetings before March’s. We
hope to get dual-signatory March CEU certificates to September’s
meeting, along with those for attendance at the educational
portion of May’s meeting.
Finally, Pete brought up some news about Eaton/Cutler-Hammer.
First, Tony Crimi, their representative who used to attend our
chapter meetings, has retired, and it was not clear who is
replacing him. Second, they have developed extranet programs to
enable both distributors and contractors to obtain price and
availability information about their products. Pete noted that
this could be especially handy for contractors who try pricing
jobs evenings and weekends. One glitch is that even their
distributors seem unaware of the program. Another is that to be
able to participate in the program, you need to fill out an
application that includes the name of your local rep–that’s
the person through whom they supply you with your access ID. Pete
had not yet been successful in getting answers. David contacted
them in the name of the chapter. Apparently no one is going to be
quite a local as Tony for now. They told us that the contact
person, both for their extranet and for any chapter support from
Eaton, now is Alesia Davis, in the Baltimore area. For
information about the contractors’ extranet program, you
can go to
http://www.eaton.com/EatonCom/Markets/Electrical/BusinessPartners/Contractors/98067397
Educational Program
Pre-program
A number of members, and non-members, showed up early for some
additional free training, courtesy of Southwire. Southwire’s
representatives may be back–perhaps next year–to
address one of our meetings; this is up to our new Education
Coordinator. However, this report is not about the pre-program
but about what took place at our meeting on May 19.
The Night’s Talk
Harry Langway had lined up another fine presentation:
Meters
and Electrical Measurements.
Besides giving us a hell of
a show, and providing solid information, attending this yielded
paid-up IAEI members another full two hours of CEUs, as
authorized by the IO.
Question: When we need to rely on meters to keep ourselves
safe and make sure that installations are functioning properly,
who do we want go to to get the lowdown about meters--someone
who's had a course or two, and otherwise figured things out by
the seat of his pants, or someone who knows meters inside out?
Brian Blanchette is not only a technically astute head who
thinks things through, does his own research, and is not overly
shy about sharing the results. He also is accessible and
personable, and a more-than-competent writer and teacher. Ideal’s
Tests and Measurements Manager, the man designed some of
the meters on the market today. It is very hard to find somebody
with his experience.
Brian discussed the correct way to use various digital meters,
but started his talk in such a way as to accommodate even
walk-ins who might not have the background of people who’ve
studied, been in the trade. He began with basic electrical
theory, and quickly went on to the implications of voltage drop.
He thinks of impedance more in terms of available fault current
than of VD, because that is key to protective equipment being
enabled to function. He moved on to line-to-neutral voltages, and
a damned sight more–including some big surprises, pearls
dropped along the way. Even members of the audience who might
have felt lukewarm toward hearing a spiel focusing around one
particular manufacturer’s line of meters had plenty to
gain.
Ron Greenfield from O.T. Hall accompanied Brian. In
addition to his day job as a sales representative, he is an
instructor with the I.E.C. We heard an amusing dialogue between
him and Pete, who has bought several meters from him. Brian,
Pete, and of course Ron spoke with one voice on the need for
inspectors and contractors to buy the various meters, and
adequately sophisticated versions of them, to be able to scope
out their jobs adequately.
Time to provide some details. Brian mentioned combination-type
AFCIs early on, talking about how the first two brands
available–Cutler-Hammer and Square D had very different
designs from the later introductions, manufactured by Siemens.
The latter also include those they manufactured but branded as
G.E. and Murray.
Whatever their design, AFCIs, like any other protective
devices, require enough current to flow to cause them to operate
within the critical time frame, however the latter is specified.
This is where the critical nature of available short-circuit
current comes in. This factor brings us to the main approaches to
minimizing impedance: reducing the number of series connections,
each of which is going to be characterized by a certain amount of
impedance; and sizing conductors appropriately for length of run.
Furthermore, in performing distance calculations, he reminded us
of the need to consider the full round-trip length of a each
circuit, not just the one-way distance.
While the present generation of testers require the presence
of voltage to get an adequate picture of circuit condition, Brian
noted that the IEEE standard is phrased in different terms:
recommending that we keep the total impedance over the length of
any one conductor–that’s conductor, not round-trip
circuit–to a quarter of an ohm. Ron chimed in to point out
that some prefer to keep conductor impedance within a
more-generous limit: one ohm.
This does not need to be left
so abstract. For one example, consideer this: 14 AWG copper runs
2-2 ½ ohms per 1000 feet.
Now consider an older or at least cheaper single-family
residence. Suppose there is no central air conditioning. Suppose
also that one 15 amp circuit wired in 14 AWG cable takes care of
the receptacles daisy-chained all over the house. Unfortunately,
this is not uncommon. If there’s no central air, it’s
very likely that if there’s any money at all there’s
a window air conditioner in a bedroom. Quite commonly, that
bedroom will be located at or near the tail end of the circuit.
Now we have a relatively high-impedance circuit with a compressor
trying to draw up to six times its normal current each time it
starts. What happens if we retrofit the house with AFCIs? They
may be almost useless.
Brian also expressed dissatisfaction with the tests presently
in ANSI/UL standard 1699. Rich Berman, P.E., our U.L. Regulatory
Engineer, said this when he viewed the comment after the meeting:
“. . . it is correct that the proper way to test an AFCI
device is to push the AFCI TEST button. AFCI indicators can be a
convenient way to determine if an AFCI is on a circuit, but some
AFCIs may not trip when subjected to the pulses from an AFCI
indicator. [Ideal Industries’s tool for checking AFCIs
technically is “an indicator,” not “a tester”;
as Brian noted, the only official way to test an AFCI is to push
its TEST button] If the AFCI stays energized when used with an
AFCI indicator, it does not mean that the AFCI is bad and should
be replaced. UL 1699 does not require the AFCI to trip when
subjected to the pulses of an AFCI indicator.
An AFCI is not an overcurrent protective device [this is not
to deny that an AFCI circuit breaker is an OC device], and is
designed to recognized unwanted arcing faults. One of the tests
includes a razor cut on an insulated conductor (called the point
contact arc test; technically, the "razor" cut blade is
specified in the standard as 0.05 in. (1.27 mm) thick which is
not a razor. Sharpening to an razor edge is optional if agreeable
to all concerned.), but there are several tests for operation
inhibition and unwanted tripping, including inrush current,
normal operation arcing, non-sinusoidal waveforms, multiple
loads, lamp burnout, and immunity (EMC, RF, etc.).”
Let's get back to Brian's warning about the limited value of
AFCI protection on a long multi-outlet branch circuit that
ultimately feeds a window air conditioner. One of the assumptions
intrinsic in the design of all AFCIs, he warned us, is the
availability of at least 300-400 amps of short-circuit current.
Later in the evening, he commented that a decent residential
short-circuit current availability figure is 300-600 amps. One
You-tube.com site, he commented, used to show a homemade, 120
volt arc furnace fed by non-defective AFCIs that fails to show
any inclination to trip. To forestall disbelief in the
possibility of such a project, he commented that for jollies he
himself created a arc furnace connected to a household circuit as
a kid, using carbons from a D cell (shaped as needed) wrapped
with copper wire, a dish of saline solution, and not a whole lot
else.
Brian was not saying that AFCIs are useless, or a bad idea. He
put it this way, after the meeting was over: “. . .it is
very difficult to reliably filter out nuisance trips without
filtering out real events. . . I am pretty sure the things can be
effective. The commercialization of the product was not
necessarily kind to the technology, but then, it rarely is. . .
Nothing is perfect, and the Combination Arc Fault Circuit
Interrupter breaker does detect arcs that other breakers cannot.”
The question of how you know whether an AFCI is defective he
answered easily: push the TEST button. If it trips, it’s
good. This is a much more reliable test of whether it is defunct
than trying to trip it with an external arc, because of issues of
circuit impedance. To the greater surprise of many in the
audience, he noted later that he has found consistently that
AFCIs are good for about 75 trips– the number must include
those caused by pushing the TEST button. After this, they won’t
trip when you push the TEST button, and are due for replacement.
How effective they will be in responding to a particular arc
fault is another matter, depending on design of AFCI and circuit.
Moving back to his main subject, he acknowledged the
challenges in testing circuits fed by them. As he described the
elements to branch-circuit testing, he–and Pete--discussed
the use of testers to tease out various aspects of these
questions. Brian mentioned, and showed bits of, a White Paper
that he wrote, titled, “The Electrician’s Guide for
Testing Branch Circuits with Combination AFCI Circuit Breakers."
It contains a decision tree, focusing on the use of his company’s
test instruments. It was a relief to read that when the AFCI
trips only in response to simulated problems in the outlets
closest to the panel (or only in some outlets generally, but not
all), the problem is most likely caused by loose wires or
connections–or by tests made at faulty (high-impedance)
wiring devices. Another interesting comment, at least for people
who have not discussed design with representatives of various
manufacturers, was that he has found different AFCI circuit
breakers respond differently at low current levels. One point he
emphasized was his reason in naming it “The Electrician’s
Guide. . . “ rather than the inspector’s: most
testing has to fall on the installer, not the inspector. Pete had
talked of coming in, red-tagging jobs for violations, and
leaving, repeatedly, until contractors finally reached the point
where they tested their own work adequately before calling for
inspection.
On a more-general note, Brian commented that most of the
testers we are likely to be carrying are rated as Category 3 or
higher–and they need to be. This rating means that they
have been certified as safe up to 600 volts, good for testing
anything normally found indoors. Category 2, on the other hand,
is suitable only for use at a branch circuit outlet itself, and
not upstream.
He went over the elements in testing branch circuits in some
detail. To summarize, you review:
1) The physical structure of
the circuit, which includes confirming correct polarity at
outlets;
2) The quality of the voltage supplied;
3)
Neutral-to-ground voltage, which varies depending on load and
circuit impedance–the latter hinging in part on distance
along the wiring from the common bounding jumper;
4) Voltage
drop; and
5) Possibly actual impedance.
He also urged the use of thermal imagers to answer certain
questions, noting that the price of at least some new units has
plummeted. The discussion of thermal imaging–in some but
not all cases related to the sorely-uneven balancing of loads,
especially loads characterized by triplan harmonics, across
phases--led to a comment about three-phase neutrals. He
emphasized that these often are inappropriately downsized, even
though doing so may follow the rules for derating that is
permissible when they are not considered to be carrying
significant current. In fact, though, they should be increased,
to compensate for carrying sizable additive current from more
than one phase.
The only standards addressing Total Harmonic Distortion set
standards for maximum voltage, even though voltage distortion
exists as a response to current distortion–to loads. In
very large systems, up to 8% THD may be acceptable; almost
everywhere else, 5%. In hospitals and airports, though, 3% is the
maximum. The solution to these problems in three-phase systems is
twofold: don’t put all of the distorting loads on one
phase; and oversize the neutral.
The examples were quite entertaining. On one job Pete’s
meter reported a false ground. Rather than check for bad
connections at one place and another and another, searching
slowly upstream, he was able to go to the panel, where the
neutral conductor’s termination was loose. On another site
that turned out to be suffering from just this problem, Brian
used imaging to determine that it was what caused a panel
overheat badly. With each turn to the inadequately secure
screw–and it took several--the readings returned closer to
normal. “Don’t retorque, because you’ll extrude
the wire”? This case was an exception.
Switchgear normally is rated for installation in maximum 40
deg C ambient environments, and loads are permitted to add up to
30 deg C additional. When a conductor is glowing, what do you do?
One bank’s system did just this, and if they had shut it
down, the data in their computer system would have been lost.
While they hastily downloaded it, the bank’s carbon dioxide
fire extinguishers were paraded to the panel by a bucket brigade
of employees, moderating the temperature just enough until they
could close it down.
Backing off from the horrible examples, Brian talked in more
general terms. Fortunately, he noted, most problems are the
result of gross mistakes, such as neutral-ground bonds downstream
of the Main Bonding Jumper. This is worse, he noted, when it
occurs in single-phase wiring utilizing the neutral, because with
three-phase at least there is the possibility of some return
current flowing through the other phases. Perhaps another
corollary of the concept that the causes of most problems are
gross is that meters don’t have to slice the second too
fine in their sampling. That yielded this aphorism: “No
instantaneous readings carry quality information.”
In discussing what sort of readings can be useful, he touched
on the difference between normal meters and those testers that
can report peak current. This led him to an aside on the history
of electricity generation and the dispute between Edison and
Tesla, with Westinghouse as Tesla’s sponsor. Edison proved
that AC could be dangerous, claiming that there was no measuring
AC, and setting limits. An excellent showman, he demonstrated
this not with a dog-and-pony show but with rather more of a
circus. He electrocuted an elephant using AC, and later donating
an AC electric chair to the State for executions.
Tesla responded by developing a system to measure AC. It
couldn’t be simple averaging, because if you average a
quantity that alternates evenly between the same level above and
below zero, you get zero. Instead, he conceived of RMS
(Root-Mean-Square) figures, and figured out how to measure them.
Oh, there was lots more, but . . . you had to be there. The
meeting ran past 9 PM, though not quite as long as some.
Our remaining meetings this year will take place on Tuesday,
September 15 and Tuesday, November 17.
5/2010 Meeting
This is the report of the meeting March 17, 2009.
Attending: around 20 people, including at least 5 Inspector
members, 5 Associate members, and 8 or 9 nonmembers, apprentices
who showed up for part of the evening, at the urging of their
instructor, Membership Chair Robert Welborne. Unfortunately, the
roster disappeared in the course of fax transmission from Past
President Wayne Robinson, who stood in for Secretary-treasurer
David Shapiro, who was sidelined by vertigo due to an inner-ear
malfunction. A number of long-time members who don’t often
attend made it in, and several reported afterwards on how
valuable they found the mini-seminar.
Training
The group enjoyed a fine two-component presentation by Michael
Johnston, former IAEI Director of Codes and Standards, who now
holds a similar senior position with NECA. The first part
reviewed grounding and bonding of separately derived systems. The
second element looked ahead--extensively--at Proposals for
Article 250 of the 2011 NEC that seem likely to be accepted.
Other News
Financials and Seminars
We are operating without an
updated Board of Directors. In accordance with our bylaws, this
means our present Board remains in place. While out books
continue to pass the annual audits, we also do not yet have an
approved budget overseen by a budget committee. The information
submitted by David Shapiro previously in the draft budget remains
relatively accurate at this point, although we are better off by
what we netted from Wayne Robinson’s first Code Update
seminar.
Unfortunately, the Grounding and Bonding Seminar he
offered in April was not sufficiently subscribed, and had to be
cancelled. Checks were returned, with thanks.
At present, we
are searching for a new bank account, as our long-term account
has instituted a maintenance fee that we could easily incur each
month for falling below the minimum balance. While at first GMAC
Bank seemed very promising, David, as chapter treasurer, has been
forced to consider it the least safe bank he has ever dealt with,
only in part because their representatives repeatedly failed to
keep agreements. As of late April, David is still in the process
of determining whether either of two other banks, with local
branches, can serve our needs.
1/2009
This
is the report of the George Washington Chapter meeting January 20
at 8511 Pepco Place, Capital Lighting and Supply’s
warehouse and training center, courtesy of Capital’s VP
Marketing, Ken Cain.
Attending:
6 Associate members;
2 Inspector members;
Plus our presenters–3
visiting nonmembers
We got started around 6:30,
after a pleasant half-hour or so of informal
conversation–following on a very homey period, for a few
early arrivals, of even more informal conversation in the lobby
with Ken Cain, who has
extensive experience in this industry. Ken, incidentally, had
left a number of flyers in the meeting room, inviting us to join
a free half-day product training session to take place at their
facility.
Without
any delay at all, Harry Langway, our Program chair, welcomed Mark
Phipps of manufacturers’ representative Electrical Sales
Associates, Inc., and his colleague Tom Kidwell introduced our
speaker, Dave McBain of Littelfuse, who had flown in the
day before to avoid the Inauguration traffic.
Training
The
first item we concentrated on was arc flash and arc blast–the
big reasons to reduce available energy at points of access to an
electrical system. Dave displayed one slide showing daunting
numbers: good fuel for those of us who want to make a point to
scoffers about the importance of doing things right.
More
than 1000 annual deaths due to electrical accidents;
More
than 2000 workers sent to burn centers each year with severe
burns due to arc flash/blast;
Among
qualified workers, 80% of injuries and fatalities due to arc
flash/blast; and
Annual
costs to employers and the nation.
We
proceeded to learn all sorts of things about fuses, and
overcurrent/life safety protection generally, including but
certainly not limited to series-rated systems, and to
current-limitation generally.
He started out with some very
brief film clips showing arcs. One was a 30-second video caught
on a meatpacking plant’s security camera over the weekend
of 5-6-03. We saw three untrained, unprotected men--wearing nylon
on their heads to keep stray hairs out of foodstuffs. It showed
the flash, it showed the men staggering afterwards, confused,
with the nylon melted to them. One didn’t even realize that
his shirt was aflame.
Electrical workplace safety
requirements associated with arc flash/blast come out of NEC
110.16, requiring labeling; the OSH Act, CFR 29 1910; and
NFPA70E. 70E tells how to calculate arc flash.
IEEE 1584 is an optional
guideline, an alternate means that can be used to calculate some
arc flash calculations. Most programs of protection are offered
at work sites, by employers. Dave mentioned that Proctor &
Gamble has an internalized program re training for protection
against arc flash/blast; makes it one of the better places to
work.
Current-limitation
Current-limiting means letting
at most ½ of a cycle’s energy through before
interruption is completed.
Non-current-limiting means
letting at most 6 cycles through.
This is, of course, with AC
loads. He went to the trouble for us afterwards to confirm that
they are similarly, though not equally, effective with DC loads.
In the words of Kenneth Cybart, Littelfuse’s Senior
Technical Engineer, “DC circuits are harder to extinguish
than AC circuits. How quickly a fuse reacts to DC short circuits
or DC arc flashes depends on the X/R ratio of the DC circuit. We
would have to test our fuses at different X/R ratios and DC
voltages to see how quickly they can extinguish the current, and
minimize the energy. But, in general, AC current limiting fuses
react faster in DC circuits than non current-limiting fuses. The
IEEE and NFPA are now working together to come up with
mathematical formulas to determine how much incident energy a
worker may be exposed to under DC conditions, but the results may
not be known for a while.”
Ken also pointed out that generic arc flash warning labels,
while still meeting the requirement in NEC 110.16, are inadequate
for compliance with the 2009 edition of NFPA 70E. The latter
calls for warning labels field marked with
incident energy available or required level of PPE.
Even with AC, protective
devices offer differing levels of current-limitation. Their RK1
fuse, for example, lets through less than their RK5 (though it
fits the same fuseholder).
Most of today’s fuses are
tested for up to 200kAIC. Some old ones are manufactured to a
different standard: 5 or 10kAIC. Dave asserted that CBs let
through more energy the bigger the fault, fuses less.
Utilities, of course, give you
the starting point for any AIC calculations. Harry Langway noted
that PEPCO will give you fault current, but he has not been
successful at pulling similar information out of BG&E.
Resources
Dave mentioned two helps for
people in the field. 1-800-tecfuse is Littelfuse’s
technical help line, which ring you through directly to a person
who will field your fuse-related question, whether you are
dealing with their fuses or not.
He also mentioned a service his
company offers, performing fault-current analyses at facilities.
Handouts
He
also distributed a few handouts, theoretically focused solely on
fuses, but some in fact applicable more generally. For instance,
the Littelfuse brochure (Form PF992) “Using
Current-limiting fuses to increase short circuit current ratings
of industrial control panels” has a great sketch on P. 4
(which we were shown as a slide) showing graphically how a
current-limiting device reduces let-through energy.
He
also plugged their elevator (shunt trip) panels, and their
(Selective) “coordination panels,” which include
breakers (yes, really!–single pole C-H
Quiklags) containing integral series fuse protection, designed
for use to help comply with requirements for certain Special
Occupancies, Conditions, or Equipment. In the 2008 edition, these
are: Healthcare
Essential Electrical Systems (NEC 517.17(C)), Elevators (NEC
620.62), Emergency Systems (NEC 700.27), Legally Required Standby
Systems (NEC 701.18) and Critical Operation Power Systems (NEC
708.54); also for use in orderly shutdown, as an option for
Electrical System Coordination NEC (240.12(1).
There
was a product selection guide . . . all the sorts of things that
you would expect from a manufacturer given the opportunity to
address an audience.
Finally,
he handed out a few sets of “collector cards,”
plastic-laminated forms, a little like unbound Codechek (TM)s.
These of course are thoroughly oriented around Littelfuse
products, where applicable, but the coverage extends beyond
those, with a few pages, for example, devoted to PPI.
Other
Activities
With
so many absent due to the inauguration, we addressed no
business–neither nominations and election, nor review of
new and clarified requirements from the International Office, nor
consequent selection of a budget committee, nor discussion of
possible bylaws changes, nor publicity activities for the
seminars that are planned. The required Treasurer’s Report
was made available in writing, but only Jim looked it over. One
member took home a scholarship application, promising to bring
additional copies to our next meeting. Our March meeting,
presumably, will serve as our Annual Meeting. If we lack a quorum
probably it will make sense to handle the necessary votes by
mail.
Code
Puzzlers
Here
are the next couple of Code questions and answers, as
promised.
1)
Ampacity Exception A 200 amp MBR service panel
serves a single-family dwelling. A generator also serves it, but
not as a separately derived system. It’s only a 3-wire
transfer switch; the neutral remains isolated from ground, as the
cable used is 2 AWG aluminum SER. The switch feeds a 125 amp
panel for which we need to select a main. The load fed via the
transfer switch is 80 amps or less. Can we apply 310.15(B)(6) and
use a 100 amp main?
No--this
is not the entire load.
2)
That Sense of
Isolation Section
210.8(B)(5) Exceptions 1-5 permits removal of GFCI protection, to
avoid greater hazards. Are isolated power systems required here?
Are such systems defined?
No:
permitted, certainly, but not required. Isolated
power systems’s specs are only explicitly discussed, in
considerable detail, in one location.
George Washington Chapter Budget
Historical Background
IO Distribution:
In 2008 (overlapping with the end of
2007) we received $669 from the IO. (In 2007, overlapping etc.,
$734)
In 2008 we expended $90 for bookkeeping, thanks to the
generosity of Pam Panizari. Ditto previous years.
In 2008 we
expended ~$90 on copying and mailing. (2007, $266.)
In 2008,
like 2007, we expended $17.45 to renew our domain registration
and forwarding service. (I donated the actual hosting, with a
page on my web site.)
In 2008 year we paid $89.46 toward a
partial “I am Safety Smart” kit from the IO, with
Peter Bowers and David Shapiro promising to cover the rest of its
cost. (In 2007 we contributed $100 toward the Leukemia &
Lymphoma Society as a memorial for Art Hesse.)
In 2008 we paid
$1263 to send me (& wife) to the Eastern Section Annual
Meeting, where I provided our representation on the Board of
Directors. Lodging, including deposit: $9; registration, $300;
one-way gas $27; One meal $28. In 2007 I ate the costs, because
the chapter was rocky financially.
In 2007 we also paid $70
for groceries, for meeting refreshments. This experiment was not
deemed worth repeating. In some previous years, Dick Bissell, who
has since retired from the industry and dropped out from IAEI,
periodically donated trays of meatballs.
Proposed Budget
Realistically, I don’t know what we might take in to
balance the books.
Here’s what I can say, rather dourly, based on what I do
know:
Income:
So: IO Disbursement, $700.
Pete Bowers offered to kick in
a third of the cost of the “I am Safety Smart” kit,
which amounts to . . . $89-odd.
Expenses:
Judiciously, $50 for copying and mailing, IFF we don’t
have to mail paper ballots to our inspector members to get a
critical vote, and don’t do a mass paper mailing of a
meeting flyer, but just send out paper meeting notices five times
a year to those few members who don’t use the web.
$18
again for domain registration.
$1500+? for representation at
the Board meeting. Our rules say its normally the responsibility
of our secretary to represent us there, and our tradition has
been to cover the full cost of attendance for secretary and
spouse. 2007's meeting was a lot closer to us geographically than
2009's will be, and I see the associated expenses other than
travel rising, not staying level. I have asked the Green Mountain
Chapter for any information they can provide, but have heard
nothing so far. I know that I may not be comfortable personally
covering the costs of representing us.
$100 Surprises. I
suggest this as a minimum cushion to cover unanticipated
miscellany.
Total Expenses anticipated ~$1700.
Income anticipated ~$ 790. at best plus future seminars' net.
Net: - ~$900 shortfall
(Whoops.)
The December 2008 IO distribution turned out to be $289.-
Present status:
Petty cash ~$0
Checking ~ $1005.-
So we seem to have liquidity. Round it down to $900 to cover
miscellany, including the annual auditing fee. However, this
figure still is somewhat illusory. . .
We owe: $525- for prepaid seminar registrations by Charles
Johnson, Pete Bowers, and Jim Yeoman. True, none of them is
insisting on repayment, and at least some have generously invited
us to treat the registration fees as contributions. Still, we do
owe them, at the least, the ability to apply the money toward
future seminars–figures to be subtracted from our
anticipated gross income.
Preliminary Status Evaluation: Cash flow deficit anticipated:
~$0. minus any future seminars' net.
Theoretical cash flow deficit:$525. minus any future seminars'
net.
~$500
.
We own a small box of 2005 Code books and one 2005 Code change
book (changes from the 2002 NEC, of course). Value maybe $400.
Net status if we liquidate that resource at valuation as well:
$500-$400= ~$100 deficit -February seminar net.
Potential Additional Sources of income:
Pete generously
offered to teach a master exam prep class co-sponsored by the
local IEC chapter and us; this could bring in money–easily
enough to cover the potential deficit. This did not happen.
Wayne
very generously offered to co-sponsor a number of seminars,
publicized by notices to his many former students, and split the
income with the chapter–potentially thousands. As a result
of the one that took place, we are not facing a serious deficit.
Still, as of early March, 2009, while many have expressed
interest, this is not yet true of sign-ups.
Further successful seminars could put us handily ahead, back
where we were some years ago.
Hence the budget I offer must consider a theoretical deficit
on the order of $500, minus future seminars' net, if we don’t
generate additional income as we have in the past.
There are two simple ways I see of resolving this and
balancing the numbers, in the event that the theoretical should
turn into the actual. One is to rely on the good grace of those
who registered for seminars that had to be canceled–all
loyal members--and just not concern ourselves about that $500.
The other is to set Eastern Section participation on hold. If we
indeed bring in more income, fine; proceed as planned, or even
get behind more educational and charitable activities. If not,
either I see whether I personally can eat the cost of going
there, as I did last year; or a substantial part of it. Either
would be harder this year. Another is that we find someone from
this area who plans to go anyhow and then we figure out a way
that will allow him or her take my place; or we simply don’t
take our place at the meeting.
There might be ways I can shave the cost, too. This year, for
example, some hotel slight-of-hand enabled me to save us over
$100 in room costs. It was perfectly legal and ethical, and
fortunately, minimally inconvenient. Conference hotel:
$255/night; hotel next door, $143/night for the night before the
conference, when I had to be in town in order to make the
morning’s board meeting.
I not only represent our chapter but chair the section’s
bylaws committee, and provide secretarial assistance to the
American Council on Electrical Safety (ACES), which is IAEI's
guest. However, the Bylaws committee has two other members, and
even with respect to the committee, my participation is not
essential. (After all, if we should request a change in our
chapter’s bylaws, we have to be recused from participation
in that particular decision by the committee.) As for my support
of ACES, it is not a chapter matter, and is provided only as
available.
If we subtract what was paid toward canceled seminars, we come
very close to even, assuming that IO disbursements don’t
drop.
If we subtract the entire figure budgeted for Section
participation, we do come out ahead for the year.
I do believe this covers us against reasonable contingencies.
Submitted February 2009.
LOCATION
Directions to the Capital Lighting &
Supply Central Distribution Center/Headquarters
8511 Pepco
Place | Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
Phone: 301-909-6500
Leave the Capitol Beltway at Exit 11A onto Route 4,
Pennsylvania Avenue South/East.
Now go about a tenth of
a mile and then turn Left at the first light, Westphalia
Road.
Next, take an almost immediate Right (just before
the Citgo gas station) onto Pennsylvania Avenue’s Service
Road.
Just as a location pointer, Sunbelt Rentals is located
at 8400 Pennsylvania Ave.
Drive directly by Sunbelt Rentals
and take the next Left, onto Pepco Place.
Travel to the
end of Pepco Place - Past the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of
Carpenters, about 1/10th of a mile, and drive into our host’s
parking lot. Parking is immediately in front of their building,
on either side.
Next Most Recent Meeting
George
Washington Chapter meeting November 18 at our new location, 8511
Pepco Place, Capital Lighting and Supply’s warehouse and
training center, courtesy of Capital’s Jordan Laycook.
Attending:
6 Associate members;
3 Nonmembers;
3
Inspector members;
Plus our presenters--2 visiting Inspector
members
We got started around 6:30, with a brief facility tour. After
this, Chapter President Jim Wooten prayed, and then decided to
put off the scheduled business meeting in order to proceed with
the evening’s featured speakers.
Educational Program:
Code Making Panel (CMP) 7 Member John Cangemi, from UL, and
CMP 1 Chairman Gil Moniz, from the National Electrical
Manufacturers’ Association (NEMA), kept us glued to our
seats. They talked with us for the better part of three hours
about not only the 2008 NEC but the evolution of the rules, going
back multiple Code cycles; and also about product standards,
listing, CE marks, and products that need to be installed and
inspected despite the lack of explicit Code coverage or Listing.
Some rules, they noted, have requirements that flipped back
and forth form one Code edition to the next. Swimming pool power
is one example, with GFCI protection required or not depending on
the use of hard-wiring versus twist-lock receptacles in
progression from 1999 through 2008.
Gil’s first challenge of the evening came when he
casually mentioned that New York State enforces different
electrical codes depending on whether a job is residential or
commercial. David Shapiro asked how this contrasts with the
situation in Ohio, which received rather bad press in IAEI News.
Gil explained that historically in Ohio, a review committee had
examined and then recommended acceptance of each NEC revision, as
representing the best doctrine available. This time, however,
politics had intervened after the fact, causing them to
backpedal. In New York State, on the other hand, the legislature
has accepted the International Code Council’s documents,
the International Construction Code (ICC) and International
Residential Code (IRC). The IRC defers to the 2002 NEC where
issues are not addressed in the IRC, while the ICC has been
updated explicitly to reference the 2005 NEC.
Jim commented that this would be a horror for an inspector;
Gil agreed. Furthermore, he added, all license tests are based on
the 2008 NEC, which isn’t applied at all to inspections.
Gil followed this with an example where complying with the NEC
will leave a job in violation of the Code in force. The ICC’s
Existing Building Code relaxes the electrical requirement for
locating receptacles. On the other hand, to address service it
defers to the IRC proper. Here comes the problem. Consider a
building with a stone foundation, and a service at the bottom
level. The NEC relaxes the requirement for headroom at 200 amp or
smaller services in existing buildings. However, if you are
replacing service equipment under the IRC, there’s no such
exception.
Another example he pointed out where some irregularity is
found is Philadelphia. Pennsylvania adopted the ICC for
electrical work, but Philadelphia enforces the NEC. One little
step they happened to omit is to apply to the Department of Labor
and Industry for an exception to the statewide rule.
In Maryland, Gil noted, electrical inspection is generally in
good shape in terms of its basic reference document: at least the
NEC is the accepted standard. This is thanks to the office of the
State Fire Marshal. Wayne Robinson noted that there is a lot of
pressure on the Fire Marshal to budge, though.
Here is where Gil and others started to discuss the politics
of safety. One meeting in Rochester, he noted, was packed with
firefighters in uniform seeking to have a sprinkler requirement
added to the IRC. Even the building officials who might have
supported the requirement voted against it because they felt
uncomfortable with the pressure from this group. The next time,
in Minneapolis, even more firefighters attended the meeting, but
not a uniform was to be seen. This time the sprinkler proposal
passed, and so the 2009 IRC finally incorporates this
requirement.
Pete Bowers noted how politics screws up safety efforts in DC
similarly. For 15 years advisory committees have looked at ways
to improve the situation, and he’s sat on most of them.
He’s seen how those with power resist giving up authority,
even when they don’t have the expertise to make the best
decisions.
Now Gil moved on to an issue that has come up as the result of
utility policies around the country. Increasingly, utilities
shift substations from their own ownership and responsibility to
that of their larger customers. In consequence, jurisdictional
inspectors become responsible for passing on these installations.
Formerly, the work was guided by the National Electrical Safety
Code, the NESC. Most jurisdictions, though, do not specifically
adopt the NESC into law. While Section 90.2 used to have a fine
print note suggesting that we look to the NESC for guidance, even
this is gone. What’s an inspector to do?
One answer we were offered is to ask the owner what ANSI
standard the equipment was built under. Ultimately, where the NEC
is mum, we need to evaluate whether its installation complies
with that standard. If the manufacturer is known and reputable, a
call to them will supply lots of handy information. The
manufacturer will be able to identify the project name, and
locate the drawings and the engineer responsible for them.
John pointed out that going to the AHJ for initial concept
review helps a lot. None of the inspectors present, though,
offered that service. Wayne noted that regardless of which side
of the service point high-voltage equipment is located on, he
lays responsibility for such equipment installed in Prince
George’s County on the serving utility. Tony Crimi said
this is what Eaton generally sees.
Continuing to look at Article 90, Gil talked about the changes
from the 1993 NEC forward in the description of what
installations are not covered. Is there a laundry list plus an
fpn, no fpn, does it add locations covered by whatever agreements
putting them under utility control, or, in accordance with a
proposal by Wayne accepted in the 2008 code, remove the term “or
other agreements” so that any lighting installation that a
utility wants exempted from NEC coverage and AHJ inspection at
least has to be covered by an easement registered with the
County. Gil noted that there are quite a few proposals to change
it again.
Wayne expressed concern over agreements regulated solely by a
Public Utility Commission (PUC), because PUC appointments are
political, members being selected by the governor.
Gil moved forward now to Article 100. “Clothes Closet”
now is defined, under the 2008 NEC. However, to Gil it is clear
that this definition can be applied to inform the judgment of
inspectors working under earlier versions of the NEC, because it
is a definition, not a new rule.
David broke in here, asking where else this approach makes
sense: is it limited to Article 100 definitions? We agreed that
it is not. Wayne mentioned that NFPA 20 rules for fire pump
controllers now are written more clearly than they had been.
Because this is clarification, not revision, he feels comfortable
applying the later version of this as well.
We went down a side path here for a few minutes. David’s
original counter-example to Gil’s point about new
definitions informing earlier versions of the Code was the rule
requiring circuit labeling that is specific enough to be useful
and reliable. Gil said that as a contractor, he used to spread
out all equipment instructions on the kitchen counter, and make
notes for a circuit directory on the cardboard box that the
loadcenter came in. At night, he’d take this home and type
up a directory. (Tony came in for some chiding from the floor
over the inadequate space manufacturers provide for circuit
identification.)
Pete interrupted, saying that this was the practice of an
older generation. Nowadays, the cardboard would be ripped up, and
installation instructions trashed. Gil countered that in his
experience sitting on the board of the local vocational school
over the last three years the kids have been topnotch, engaged.
What a difference. This is true in all three classes (years).
Previously he found only two or three interested kids to a class,
with the rest of the students very disappointing to a committed
instructor. Pete commented that this latter, frustrating case has
represented his experience in various teaching contexts. Gil
noted that he knows of one large contractor who keeps a
behavioral scientist on retainer to get employees socialized to
act the way they should be expected to.
Someone made a crack about circuit directories in foreign
languages. Gil responded that the New York City code explicitly
states that they must be in English–not that there’s
anything wrong with adding information in additional languages.
Bonding and grounding came next, with a reminded of the
difference between the two, and a note about the new definition
of “neutral.” Pete asked the reason for the
resistance to adopting into Code a standard color code for
ungrounded conductors. Gil said that such a standard was removed
quite a while back--from the 1964 Code--because there were
somewhat differing systems in actual use at the time. Also, it
doesn’t account for larger conductors that commonly are
sold simply in black. Besides coloring, tagging with numbers or
letters is a reasonable option. However, whatever the system, it
needs to be posted at each panelboard.
Wayne saw every benefit to requiring a consistent system of
identifying all conductors by system and phase not only in
feeders, as now required by Section 212.15(C), but also in branch
circuits. Gil pointed out a disadvantage: should this become
Code, if you discover that the loads are imbalanced, and want to
swap some circuits between phases, you would have to change the
conductor colors.
We next talked about grounding electrodes and grounding
electrode conductors. Wayne, like many of us, never has seen an
actual installation using a chemical electrode. Pete has
installed some of these for data centers that specified ground
resistance of less than one ohm, but has never been asked to come
back to replenish the electrodes’ depleted chemicals. Wayne
knows of some that have monitors which will notify you as the
electrodes’ resistance rises. Gil mentioned that cellular
phone towers include such maintenance as part of their standard
operating procedure.
John took over now, to talk about the UL White Book and
product standards. He pointed out Flexible Lighting Products,
which are found on Page 160 of the 2008 volume. It says that they
are not intended to be relamped, field-modified, or permanently
mounted. An important distinction needs to be made between these
and decorative lighting strings, the holiday lights intended for
temporary use--not to exceed 90 days.
The idea of not being designed for permanent mounting means
that you are not supposed to take Flexible Lighting Products
apart to screw them in place, similar to Relocatable Power Taps
(which actually were discussed a bit later). The latter used to
be known as “Temporary” but “Relocatable”
was a preferred term–to clarify that they are not suitable
for use on construction sites along with other temporary power
uses. Their keyhole openings mean that they remain capable of
being lifted and moved. Incidentally, while they might contain
surge arrestors, unless they are labeled as transient voltage
surge suppressors and specify the protection they offer in terms
of the voltage level, they have not been investigated for any
protection of this sort. What one of these is investigated for is
having the size of conductors and other components corresponding
to the rating of the receptacles it contains, so that a Listed
Relocatable Power Tap won’t be dangerously overloaded by
equipment designed with plugs fitting its receptacles. Wayne
noted that this type of product used to ignite when its Metal
Oxide Varistor(s) died. John agreed, and mentioned that
solid-state equipment tends to suffer “avalanche
breakdown.” He noted that nowadays they meet one new
requirement, to withstand a certain number of surges; and
another, to have a safe end-of-life mode.
John noted that he had some trouble recalling the category
applying to “flexible lighting products.” He pointed
out that if you access it online, you find one improvement over
using the index to the printed White Book: word-search
capability. The 2008 White Book is cross-referenced to both the
2008 and the 2005 versions of the NEC.
The issue of tamper-resistant receptacles came up as we were
given the opportunity to examine some unusual receptacle covers.
These were designed to give a standard duplex receptacle an
appearance closer to a decora receptacle, in part by sitting in
front of its two faces. The problem with this is that attachment
plugs need to fit into a receptacle far enough to make adequate
contact, and this restricts covers from blocking more than 1 mm.
of their length from entering. Part of the history of this, it
turns out, has to do with the holes traditionally found toward
the ends of flat plug blades. These used to mate with dimples
inside the corresponding spring metal blades inside receptacles,
to ensure positive contact. Metallurgical developments made these
unnecessary, so the requirement for inserting full blade length
to match them up has been supplanted by functional tests.
Nonetheless, UL was uncomfortable with listing such covers.
Similarly, to date no covers (as opposed to receptacles) have
been brought to UL that satisfied all the requirements for
tamper-resistance.
The question of tamper-resistant IG and clock receptacles was
raised; our presenters were not aware of any being available. Gil
noted that there are listed poke-through floor fittings whose
covers block the receptacles’ fronts to protect them. The
reason these carry the UL label is that each of these is
investigated as a unit–box, receptacle, and cover.
Next Wayne brought up a concern about listed equipment whose
installation, to his mind, clearly violates the NEC. He takes
issue with panelboards that contain breakers for both normal
sources and standby or emergency sources, with no separation. In
case of fire, he fears, connection to both is likely to be lost.
Richard Panizari has come up against this concern of Wayne’s–and
Wayne’s the man who gets to say yea or nay. Gil kept
arguing that the breakers in these units, at least those that
serve the alternate sources, are not disconnects but isolating
switches, and therefore exempt from the requirement for
separation.
We moved on to a discussion of bonds, grounds, and neutrals.
We agreed that bonding conductors, like grounding electrode
conductors, can be bare–or covered with insulation of any
color. Gil reminded us that grounded conductors of
corner-grounded systems are not neutrals.
Gil helped confirm an interesting point for Wayne:
supplementary overcurrent devices do not have to be considered in
selective coordination. His perspective is that essentially they
are part of the equipment.
During the course of the evening Wayne, notably, identified a
number of violations in the IAEI Archives pictures used to
illustrate the talk: violations that were not at all what the
pictures were intended to illustrate. Our presenters acknowledged
that this happens often.
We moved on to Section 240.86(A), where Gil noted that one
aspect often is overlooked: using series-rated protective systems
whose combinations are selected under engineering supervision,
rather than by the manufacturer, is permitted only in existing
installations.
On we went to the unfolding of another set of rules from 1999
forward: the need for two entrances, and for panic hardware, in
electric rooms. Pete commented that at one point, “sharpies”
would install 800 amp and 1200 amp equipment side by side, so as
not to have 1200 amp equipment and trigger the rule. Wayne noted
that panic hardware is cheap, so what’s the big deal? Gil
responded that the problem is door swing. Replacing a door is not
so simple, when it opens into a corridor needed for evacuation,
one that doesn’t have room to accommodate the door’s
swing out.
We had a comment on Labor being the source for a couple of
rules. Some rumbling was heard in response, but Gil said they had
documented “bodies”; the CMP examined the cases and
found them legitimate. One is the internal all-conductor
disconnects for two-ended fluorescents. Here Wayne, surprisingly,
chimed in with support. He’s not known as a softie, but in
this case he agreed: it’s worth the trouble to kill all
power. He spent time in a coronary care unit, he said, due to
getting hung up between some badly cut BX and a ground; he
commented with a smile that hitting the concrete may be what
restarted his heart.
We were coming to the end of John and Gil’s slides now,
and the patient audience was getting a bit restive. A question
came up about wiring channels, now that Lighting and Appliance
panels are no more. Tony said that in going from 40 to 60 circuit
loadcenters, the wireway widths are extending from 20" to
28. Wayne gave Tony another nudge by commenting that jobs tend to
sit on hold for some time waiting for engineers to come up with
selective coordination designs, and they tend to end up with
fuses.
With the last slide, we applauded our presenters, and Jim made
some noises about a business meeting. However, most of us were
getting up to leave.
That was it for the evening, which wrapped up very shortly
before 10 PM. Fortunately, the IO-required treasurer’s
report was handled by a list printed as part of the distributed
agenda. Jim made noises about calling a special meeting of the
executive board to address other business items.
NEW FEATURE!
NEW FEATURE! Boy, we learn a lot at the annual Code Workshops
put on by IAEI’s Sections! At the Eastern Section, one
benefit everyone who shows up on time gets is chewing over a
half-dozen or so Codes and Standards questions each morning over
breakfast. What I think is, why should you miss out on this fun
and learning? Here are a first few questions for you to ponder.
Look for more in future mailings. At each meeting, I’ll
pass out (my understanding of) the answers that the group of
mavens came up with at the Code breakfasts. For those questions
whose answers may differ depending on which jurisdiction you’re
working in, I’ll talk about at least the 2005 as well as
the 2008 NEC. The answers also go on our web site, eventually, in
the meeting’s minutes. For some Code questions, just as for
some that come up in the field, you may need to go online, or
look in your White Book, as well as into your NEC.
These
first few are chosen with our host-and our November
presenters--in mind.
1) GFPE: Articles 426 and 427 talk of providing not
GFCI but GFPE for protection of snow/ice/pipeline/vessel heating
equipment. Suppose the customer has an oddball panel, and they’re
watching their pennies. They don’t want to replace the
panel-preferably not even install a subpanel. You go to the
distributor: can one find CBs manufactured nowadays offering GFPE
that are legitimately Classified for use in other manufacturers’
panels?
Answer: Yes, potentially. Many have been submitted for
such classification and failed their tests. All major
manufacturers’ web sites will tell you where their CB s are
Classified.
2) AFCIs: Installing AFCIs on lots of
circuits may add a whole lot of unnecessarily long leads running
from them to the neutral bar or, contrarily, having to bring
circuits’ return conductors a lot further into a panel than
you have needed to in the past. Given this, is there any issue
with shortening or splicing extensions on to the neutral leads of
AFCI or GFCI or switched-neutral CBs? Also, AFCIs run a little
warm; is this panelboard going to overheat?
5) If properly
installed, they may run warmer than standard CBs, but they and it
and the wiring will stay well within design parameters. What's
more, it's perfectly legal for you to trim any excess wire from
those leads.
3) Too Clever? Underground Schedule 80,
NMRC, is damaged. The electrician wants to pull back the wires
and, rather than glue on a regular coupling to add the extension,
glue on an expansion coupling (to be buried when the floor is
patched); he believes this fitting will make the repair easier.
If he buys this instead, will he end up p’ed off because
the inspector has to reject the work, or is this use in keeping
with the Listing of an expansion fitting?
No violation. The
Listing of expansion fittings says nothing to restrict this use.
Next Most Recent Meeting
This is the report of the meeting of the George Washington
Chapter on Tuesday, September 16, 2008. Attendees included six
associate members, six inspector members, one visiting
contractor, and three allied professionals--our presenter and two
associates.
At 6:38, Jim called the meeting to order and prayed. Then we
got to business.
Business
Location, location
Wayne Robinson has arranged for the hospitality of Prince
George's County for quite some time now, and has faced rather a
struggle to do so. Tonight, despite his having reserved the
meeting room for us with plenty of notice, he had to evict a
different group's meeting in order to accommodate ours. He is
giving up this battle.
As of this writing, we're homeless. However, Ed Holt
volunteered to contact PEPCO, in the hope that we can secure the
use of their meeting facility in Forestville. (N.B. See
"Next Local Meeting," above, for the actual new
location.)
Seminars
Since it was announced, a total of eight people showed
commitment to Wayne's rescheduled "2008 NEC Changes"
seminar. Thud. Wayne was philosophical about this, commenting on
the number of such seminars already offered by various
organizations.
The one other seminar that has been talked about seriously was
the Master's Exam preparation which Pete Bowers volunteered to
teach, sponsored in conjunction with the IEC, at their location.
No formal financial report was requested or presented, but
David mentioned that our kitty is in bad shape. Hope flowers,
though. In the past, seminars served as the primary source of
money for our budget. The few dollars needed to put out mailings
are more than covered by the International Office's distribution
to the chapter from member dues. Besides, nowadays the cost of
member notifications generally is very modest, thanks to most
members' agreeing to accept email notification. However, the IO
disbursement dollars are nothing like what is needed to pay for
representation at Section meetings. The chapter's tradition is to
cover the out-of-pocket expenses: registration, lodging (which
category includes meals), and where far away, travel. Presenting
any seminar, at least without importing paid speakers, carries
the likelihood that we will be able to partly restore the bank
account.
Community Service
The last main item of business addressed before the technical
presentation was an update on the Safety Smart children's
program. It has taken a long time to get to this part of IAEI's
purpose. The kit was ordered the day after the meeting. It
arrived quickly, and as soon as training can be completed, Pete
and David will look to start teaching Middle Schoolers. Because
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. no longer is underwriting part of
the cost, the kit is rather more expensive than expected, but
Pete and David will kick in the shortfall beyond what was
authorized. Once we've taught a number of classes--90
children--supplies also will need to be replenished. Wayne
volunteered to cover the next supply order out of his pocket.
In one other matter, Shirley asked the status of D.C.'s
electrical inspectors. David reported, based on what he had read,
that the general housing inspectors had been fired for not
passing the ICC tests. Pete added the information Shirley sought
(which David had not known, despite sharing Pete's distinction of
being a DCRA-approved third-party inspector): Pete reported that
all but two of the District's electrical inspectors are gone as
well.
Photovoltaics: Code and Safety
Issues
Educational Program
The line-up
Kerinia Cusick. M.E. (Senior Executive, Huthwaite PR),
representing the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) in our
area, promised us a mini-seminar on inspecting photovoltaic
installations. While a talk outline was promised, and a biography
of the presenter, the well-known expert who had planned to teach
us was called out of the country on urgent family business, so it
was just as well that no such materials had been posted on our
web site. Regardless of this, Kerinia had assured us of a
valuable presentation, and this most certainly is what we
received.
Bill Poulin, Director of Products and Services for BP
Solar--yes, the entire shebang--has been with BP Solar and their
predecessor for 29 years. He came down all the way from
Frederick, Maryland to spend the evening with us. And we kept him
a good, long time. What's more, Peter Lowenthal, Executive
Director of the local SEIA group, who has been part of it for 20
years, joined us for the evening, and offered his knowledge as
appropriate.
Extras from Peter Lowenthal
Even before Bill began enriching our technical education,
Peter dangled additional training opportunities before us--"us"
meaning any members who so choose. As details become available
they will be posted at http://www.mdv-seia.org/events.html .
Since Bill's talk was oriented largely around BP's product and
the NEC, Peter offered some additional perspective on what
is available locally. Sun Edison is also active in our area,
selling not PV equipment or even installations, but rather the
power derived from PV equipment. They negotiate this in contracts
with a property-owner, when they find a commercial customer with
enough roof footage to make it worth their while. They install
the equipment on customers' buildings, charging nothing for the
installation, retaining ownership of it, and merely selling its
output. An intriguing concept, concerning which it would have
been fun to learn a great deal more.
Peter also talked about the support that Maryland's present
governor provides for alternate energy programs. Sun Edison's
rooftops program hinges on the tax credits to make it
economically rewarding. Bill added that not just anybody can
apply for Maryland's state energy incentive grants: the signature
of a licensed electrician is needed for the grant to be
processed.
Later in the evening, to continue on the theme of
practical economics, we were assured that the price of modules is
likely to resume its pattern of dropping over time, after having
leveled out due to a temporary shortage of the refined silicon
material needed for the crystalline-type diodes.
Installation Basics, Code Issues, and Safety,
Safety, Safety
Standards and their effects
Bill started his technical presentation by emphasizing that PV
panels, if not the rest of the systems, are expected to last 25
years and longer. That's 25 years of supplying up to 600 Volts
DC, with much of the equipment and wiring system continually
exposed to the outdoors. Moreover, Article 690 is dealing with an
item that is putting out voltage all the time when sunlight hits
it. He reported that his company has a contract with the Home
Depot chain, and they have fired more dealers, for reasons such
as safety violations, than they have retained.
(Despite this,
Wayne still reported that he has observed pretty bad systems
coming out of PV installers working out of Home Depots.)
Bill
contrasted ANSI/UL 1703, the U.S. standard covering solar panels,
and IEC standards 61215 and 61730, the International
Electrotechnical Commission standards. UL 1703 covers safety. It
may test a panel to destruction, and if throughout this the panel
(or other component) doesn't pose a hazard, it can pass. It is
not required to function by the end of the testing. The IEC
standards, in contrast, add in performance requirements. At this
point David expressed concern about the validity of the
certification process when the IEC standards are employed. Bill
clarified the difference between two European markings,those
associated with IEC and CE standards. Furthermore, he took this
opportunity to inform us that while the European CE standards
used to allow manufacturers to self-certify compliance, he
believes that at some point in 2008 a requirement for third-party
certification was added. Subsequently, at the meeting of the
American Council on Electrical Safety (ACES) hosted this year at
the IAEI Southern Section's Annual Meeting, this appears to have
been contradicted. In fact, the European Commission has
requested--in an agreement signed on our end by George W. Bush in
April 2007, that OSHA accept a manufacturer's statement, a
Supplier Declaration of Conformity (SDoC), represented by the CE
mark, as a substitute for testing by a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory. Further information is available at the
site where OSHA published the request that the public supply
evidence-supported arguments favoring or opposing this move. The
site gives ample background too, discussing the present status of
the European model, as of late October, 2008. The Comment
Period will close on Tuesday, January 20.
Now Bill moved on to inverters. The standard applicable to
them is UL 1741. One critical requirement is provision of an
anti-islanding feature, which guaranteesthat they will not
backfeed into a utility system that is down. All inverter units
manufactured by the reputable companies are designed to handily
exceed all utility requirements in this regard. When the
inverters' circuits are restored after having been have been
disconnected for whatever reason, they will self-start, taking a
period of four or five minutes. It takes them this long to synch
tightly to the utility frequency and voltage--within the tight
limits to which they are designed to hold. An inverter, whether
single- or three-phase, actually is designed to put out slightly
higher voltage than it senses from the utility, so as to be able
to feed power into the utility system and run the customer's
meter backwards, as intended.
Bill shared a deep, dark secret: utilities
have been known to provide overvoltage to customers in the
middle of a run that tends to be subject to heavy draws, so that
by the time their lines reach the end of the run, the effect of
voltage drop has not reduced the normally available utility
voltage to brownout level.
This can have an unfortunate
effect on a PV system. When the inverter tries to match this
utility input, it may hit the ceiling of its design voltage
output. When this happens, it drops out. This shutdown may
appear to the customer as a failure of the inverter, when it
actually represents proper operation of a safety feature.
Another common reason for an array to appear
to have failed is that an overcurrent device has operated. An
inverter has a fuse for each string of modules feeding it;
fortunately, there are indicating features to let you know when
a fuse has blown.
Because the modules in a string are in
series, if one module should develop an open connection, the
string will stop delivering power to the inverter. It will of
course still be producing voltage up on the roof so long as
light is hitting it, on either side of the open, amounting to
the sum of the open circuit voltage of whatever modules remain
in series. Large, commercial systems will have means of locating
a problem to a particular module.
Last, if the array gets too
hot, say around noon, it will shut down till it cools.
Other design elements
In addition to these features, inverters
adjust their impedance so as to draw whatever ratio of current
versus voltage will yield the maximum power available at any
moment from the PV arrays, given the radiation hitting them,
their temperature, and any other relevant factors.
Temperature is quite an important factor:
the cooler the diodes that make up PV arrays, the more
efficiently they function. For this reason, if aesthetic
considerations permit, the arrays will be raised off the roof so
as to allow air to circulated underneath. The wiring can be
given some degree of protection by securing it to the underside
of the arrays. While concentrators will focus much, much more
light onto an array than mere exposure under the sun, they also
put much more heat on the arrays, reducing efficiency from
perhaps 15% to maybe 5%--thus considerably reducing the benefit
of the brighter light.
Batteries
Batteries were not a serious element of the
evening's talk. Wayne mentioned seeing quite a few installations
that incorporated battery backup, and mentioned the fact that
Article 517 allows a PV system with battery storage to serve as
as an emergency power source. Still, Bill was not talking about
buildings with the stand-alone systems favored by what you may
have heard affectionately termed "solar hippies," or
even about systems where batteries serve as optional backup. At
least 95% of the systems he sees are battery-less, because, he
commented, diesel generators are a cheaper way to get the
security of a backup power source.
Further technical details
One of the first questions an installer
needs to address, for practical reasons, is where and how to
install modules. Roof-mounting can be far less expensive than
ground-mounting, because of the need in the latter case to build
a structure, from foundation up, that will last. On the other
hand, not every roof is suitable. A roof with less than 15 or 20
years of life left to it needs to be replaced before being
utilized for a solar array. While a PV array shields a roof, and
thereby keeps it alive longer than it would if directly exposed
to the sun and weather, replacing it once a PC array has been
installed is quite a production. Of necessity this involves the
temporary removal of the array and its supporting structure
before the roof can be worked on.
The next question is where
on a roof to mount the array. Locating arrays where the
supporting structure could collapse under their weight, or where
the roof might be peeled off by the lift of wind hitting them,
is illegal. This latter issue can depend on many factors,
including the lay of the land nearby, the roof's pitch, the
array's position, the house's location, wind speed, snow load,
and likely live load of people walking on the roof. When in
doubt, consult a structural engineer. For $500., or up to $1000
if the situation is particularly complicated, the location can
be fully assessed as to its adequacy for the purpose of
supporting a specific array. Generally, the supporting
structures holding the arrays--using stainless steel hardware,
and carefully bonded for lightning protection, are bolted right
through to roof joists. The UL standard specifies that modules
themselves be designed with a minimum ability to withstand 45
pounds per square foot of lift. Some illegal designs have
included arrays cantilevered over the edges of roofs-- generally
they need to be kept back from the edge at least three percent
of the width of the roof.
Generally the supporting structures that are
sold for PV arrays are overdesigned. This cannot be said for
home-designed and -manufactured, catch-as-catch-can inventions.
Wood, even pressure-treated wood, hasn't a chance of lasting as
long as the array--some has rotted through within 10 years--and
even angle iron bolted together in haphazard arrangements, can
fail.
There's nothing illegal about setting arrays
where they are shadowed by structural elements, or trees, or the
lay of the land. However, while getting some kind of full sun
means they will generate their rated voltage, they will be a lot
further from earning back their cost of installation if mounted
where the light hitting them is weaker, or where full sun hits
them for fewer hours each day.
Bill passed around a non-functioning module
to get us familiar with its looks and connectors. He commented
on the requirement for locking connectors, and the way some
connectors only approximate this. He also showed us some basic
graphs. and formulas, to get us familiar with thinking about PV.
These included a discussion of the diodes' function and a
description of the terms used. V [sub] mp is the voltage
produced under standard test conditions, which include 1 kW of
incident energy per square meter; this is familiarly known as
"One Sun," and no, it certainly is not the maximum
sunlight that may hit an array. However, when more sunlight can
reasonably be anticipated, just as when more extreme
temperatures can be anticipated, the designer needs to
recalculate the voltage. The AHJ, Bill emphasized, has the right
to request those calculations and the manufacturer's
instructions.
Maintenance
Maintenance involves elements such as
checking the wiring and connections, making sure mechanical
connectors such as bolts are secure, and simple soap-and-water
cleaning. How often modules need to be cleaned depends on the
area in which you are working, but dust can reduce output by as
much as 10%. This allows calculation of the return on investment
from cleaning on various schedules, depending on how fast output
goes down.
Environmental effects, he agreed in response
to questions, can be more critical than merely a sprinkling of
dust. If one spot is--splat--blocked by a dead critter, or some
other opaque matter, the diodes at that point maintain high
impedance. As a result, they get awfully hot as the voltage
built up by the rest of the string tries to force current
through them. Also, there is the possibility of animals
attacking wiring. While this is not a Code nor a manufacturer's
requirement, he does recommend protecting the wire, even the
integral wire en route to the junction box where it connects to
the wiring heading inside to the inverter. Incidentally, he
noted that the conductors from each string generally will show
less than 1% voltage drop so long as they are 14 AWG or larger.
If the home run is enclosed in rigid metal conduit, the
requirement for a disconnect in sight of the array (whose value
he had trouble seeing) is eliminated, thanks to a new exception.
Critical calculations
Getting back to basic calculations, the
inverters used with most residential arrays can only accept
250-300 volts, but at least one accepts 550. The NEC
limits output to 600 volts, and this can be exceeded easily. The
number of modules in a string, all of them in series, makes a
big difference in cost of wiring and inverters, so there can be
a tendency to push the limit. In New York and New Jersey, for
example, 10 to 12 modules can be enough to reach or exceed this
limit, not to mention the ratings of the wiring and the
inverter. Once the sun has risen fully--it not need reach
anything like high noon--you get maximum output from each of the
modules, provided that they are clean and the day is as cold as
it is going to get. This is something that needs to be checked
carefully. Some charts will give you the coldest day, but in
doing this they refer to the middle of the night, not a time
when sunlight is available. The formulas for taking into account
the combination of sunlight and temperature include a factor
provided by each manufacturer.
The designer is reponsible for
obtaining the Listing information and performing the
calculations, and to be prepared to show these to the AHJ.
Competence
The presentation was not encouragement for
the contractors who were present, or who read this report, to
jump right in and present themselves as PV installers. In
addition to the comments about the considerable number of
would-be installers working out of Home Depot, there was Wayne's
note about having to send some plans back twice to the engineers
who had signed off on them. Unfortunately, at present in
Maryland, any Professional Engineer can sign off on any plans
for our work, regardless of having had or not had any related
training or education, so long as he or she claims to be
comfortable working in the applicable discipline, Electrical
Engineering.
Next there was the discussion of
certification. About the best certification available, he
advised us, is that provided by NAPSEP. To sit for the test that
results in full certification, you have to have participated in
at least two installations--and then pass the grueling five-hour
test. Only half of those who sit for this test pass it, at least
the first time around. Once certified by NAPSEP, you have to
keep up with developments, to fulfill continuing education
requirements.
Additional Resources
We have been fortunate enough to read
inspector guidelines for PV systems provided in each issue of
IAEI News, and to have John Wiles's offer of his manual
for free downloading. Bill suggested additional resources,
starting with This also provides worthwhile suggestions for
inspectors, free, he advised us, courtesty of another generous
expert. Another resource he mentioned is a well-designed text
(with accompanying CD) that the NJATC published this summer,
based in large part on materials from the Solar Energy Industry
Association. Finally, he referred us to a very active web
discussion on roof coverage versus access by Los Angeles
firefighters, with reference to the ability of firefighters to
break into the roof in order to disperse smoke if necessary.
The meeting broke up around 9:15, though we
didn't let Bill go till past 9:30. Members attending the meeting
earned a very solid 2 1/2 hours of widely accepted and
Maryland-certified Continuing Education credit.
Third Most Recent Meeting
Extensive
Deliberation Over Future Training
This is the report of our meeting on
Tuesday, May 20, 2008. Attendees included twelve associate
members, three inspector members, and one visiting mechanical
engineer.
Show-and-tell
The plan was, "Bring em in and show
them off"- your old tools, that is. Peter Bowers brought in
a slew of old testers and several other gems. Who knew that
anyone was manufacturing circuit tracers that far back? Ed Holt
brought in his pristine red eggbeater and a few other items. We
gathered around and handled them, and talked about their uses.
The term, "tools," incidentally, included some antique
connectors, including the big old springs that were the
precursors to wirenuts: Pete brought in a mostly unused box of
those. David Shapiro had promised to show his Kett drill, but
reneged--the tool has gone missing. All this happened before the
meeting got formally underway at 6:40 after Jim Wooten arrived
and signed last meeting's CEU certificates. Pete amused us with
a demonstration of 12 AWG water witching, and Jim said his
prayer. Then we got to business.
Business
Our very first and most extensive order of
business was to figure out what we are going to do as a training
organization. It was a hell of a shame that our most recent
seminar had to be canceled. A lot of members have shown their
generosity. Charles Johnson, Ron Kimble, James Yeoman and Pete
Bowers all told us to cash their seminar payments and let them
sit until we have another seminar to offer. Still, the question
on the table became, "What seminars are needed that we can
offer, and how can we offer them?"
Pete talked a fair bit about the need for
master exam preparation courses. He expressed concern about
unscrupulous masters renting the use of their licenses to
journeymen wanting to pull permits. There was much grousing and
helpless moaning about the apparent indifference of most
jurisdictions to illegal and incompetent work, even when
formally reported. True, after Pete wrote a letter of complaint,
DC stopped issuing permits for applications over Wilbur White's
signature--five or more years after White's death. Wayne said
that as of June 1 every electrical contractor in Maryland must
have a license. Theoretically, in areas such as Garrett and
Allegheny Counties, where the Middle Department Inspection
Agency, Inc. runs things, the office of the State Fire Marshal
has the power to remove MDIA's license as an inspection agency
if someone presents a formal letter of complaint regarding
MDIA's issuing permits to unlicensed contractors.
Master Electrician?
Pete believes that if journeymen had the
opportunity to bone up on whatever Code version is applicable in
the jurisdictions in which they want to pull permits, they will
be happy to take and pass the test and undercut the unscrupulous
license-renters. Ed pointed out that the College of Southern
Maryland fills classes twice a year when they offer master's
preparation courses. This confirms the existence of a need.
Ron Kimble, who has tutored many people for
the test, commented that he is selective in accepting students
for his tutelage: if someone's been doing things the wrong way
for 17 years, Ron does not expect success in knocking a clear
understanding of the actual Code rules into his head. Invited to
teach for us, he demurred. Wayne commented that he would spend
82 hours in a master exam preparation class, and emphasized that
you need a knowledgeable instructor who can answer questions,
not just someone who reads prepared material.
So it's worth doing; what about a space?
Pete will contact the Workforce Development Group downtown to
find out whether they could make a space available for our
seminar, a four-Saturday, all-day class. Instructor? David
agreed to contact IAEI to find out whether their instructors
would be available to teach such a class as a cooperative
venture; in case the IO idea falls through, Pete agreed to
teach.
2008 changes
Master's prep is far from the only training
possibility. Wayne Robinson offered us the benefit of his
knowledge three different ways. First, he agreed to re-offer his
class in 2008 Code changes in late Fall. No one had been
enforcing the 2008 locally, but Harford County Chief Inspector
Milford Badders has confirmed that his jurisdiction adopted
the 2008 NEC as of July (originally May) 14, 2008. Their
local amendments can be found at . It seems very likely that
other jurisdictions as well will adopt it before the end of the
year. A four month lead-up should give us plenty of time to get
the word out. However, the class will take place only if we can
get adequate sign-ups, with a fairly early cutoff.
You who
are reading this, take heed: if you would like to earn 10 CEUs
and sharpen your understanding of the 2008 for a very modest fee
this October, say, register your interest now by
contacting the chapter secretary.
NFPA 72
Finally, a number of senior members agreed
that contractors can get into trouble by installing fire alarm
systems in response to electrical customers' invitations. An
introduction to NFPA 72 would be valuable, even if not a
full-scale course that would qualify attendees for fire alarm
certification. No one present felt qualified to teach such a
course, but Wayne agreed to sound out a candidate he respects:
Keith Lippincott, a Fire Protection Engineer now with the
University of Maryland.
Unaccepted Changes?
Finally, David proposed offering a short
class this summer on the problems that could result from
applying a later version of the Code than the local jurisdiction
has adopted, and inadvertently violating the law. There was some
mild interest, but not enough to suggest going forward.
Kids
Now we moved to the last two business items.
David again brought up the issue of sponsoring the "I am
Safety Smart" program. The Chapter will purchase a kit for
teaching younger children, and Pete and David will start out
teaching it.
Honor
Finally, David suggested that we consider
voting Wayne an Honorary Chapter Member. Wayne immediately said
he is not interested in the honor; he can afford the annual
dues, and furthermore, although it would not be evident from his
support of our chapter, he has some issues with the
organization, which he's been a member of since October 1989.
While Wayne's extensive Code teaching is accepted by the ICC as
satisfying its CE requirements, when he sought to renew his IAEI
plan review credentials, the was told that teaching doesn't
count and he needs more Continuing Education. He was given to
understand that Executive Director Jim Carpenter would contact
him to discuss his protest, but as of our meeting, he had not
heard from the man.
Introductions
After this, we finally got around to saying
hello to some fresh faces. Our newest member, Tony Crimi, came
down from Columbia. He is well known to, and highly respected
by, a number of old-time members. Tony is a long-time sales
representative for Eaton/Cutler-Hammer, and the consensus is
that he is among the most responsive manufacturer's reps around.
Of course, introducing himself as a rep for a distribution
equipment manufacturer, he faced some questions.
David started off by asking the assembled
inspectors and installers how many honor/enforce the NEC 250.12
"Clean Surfaces" requirement, found in the following
form in the almost-identical 250.96, Bonding other enclosures,
general: "Any nonconductive, paint, enamel, or similar
coating shall be removed at threads, contact points, or contact
surfaces, or be connected by means of fittings designed so as to
make such removal unnecessary."
No one said, "Why
yes, of course." David then challenged Tony about the
possibility of using a conductive paint on panel cabinets, so
that the rule about nonconductive paint wouldn't apply.
Tony
noted that paint is only found on residential loadcenters, and
in fact ordering a commercial cabinet painted rather than
galvanized costs a premium. Someone suggested that scraping the
paint clear would result in corrosion right quickly in some
environments. David chimed in that you are expected to restore
any necessary protection. To this Tony commented that if you
want to use touch-up paint, it has to be specially packaged
nowadays; it can't be shipped as easily as it used to be.
To the surprise and consternation of the
multitude, David recounted a closely related conversation with
UL's Rich Berman on the subject of enclosure bonding. First,
locknuts are Listed for use in grounding. Duh. Second, stamped
"donut" bushings, while not Listed for outdoors use,
are indeed Listed for use in grounding. Both types of product,
provided that they are installed appropriately--concavities
facing in, suitable tightening, the obvious--will pull their
weight in carrying fault current back to trip breakers or blow
fuses. What may not be so obvious is that the rule in NEC
Section 250.12 requiring that we scrape away nonconductive
finishes is not set aside when locknuts are tightened. Even if a
manufacturer intends their locknuts to scrape away paint, they
haven't submitted this characteristic to a test at the Listing
agency and so UL, for one, has not specifically evaluated them
for this purpose. If inspectors accept real tight installations
as resulting in 'fittings designed so as to make such removal
unnecessary'--as is their right--they're not basing it on the
product standard.
While on the subject of manufacturers and
UL, Wayne pointed out that until UL 67 is updated, 60-space
residential panels such as Square D's do not comply with its
rules.
So Tony's a welcome addition not only as a
friendly, participating member but as a resource, and his
presence generated a nice bit of Code discussion. Next, we
welcomed another resource, our very patient visitor of the
evening. Kerinia Cusick is a Senior Executive with Huthwaite PR.
Kerinia, a mechanical engineer as well as a public relations
executive, came up to invite us to develop a training
partnership by co-sponsoring, helping to publicize, and issuing
CEUs for completion of workshops put on by local members of the
Solar Energy Industry Association.
This summer, Kerinia pointed out, Maryland
will be offering healthy tax breaks for solar installations.
This means, we generally agreed, that they will be more
attractive financially, and it is likely that less-experienced
installers will be installing them and inspectors who've never
had anything to do with one will have to oversee their safety.
Wayne is acutely aware of this. In Prince George's County, Wayne
requires all PV applications to be accompanied by stamped,
detailed engineer's plans. This way, the inspector knows what to
look for--both electrically and in terms of an acceptable
increase to a building's structural load.
Kerinia is talking about offering classes to
help inspectors in particular know what to look for. Wayne is
familiar with the trainers that the association has in mind, and
recognizes Jason Fisher, for one, as very knowledgeable. Jason
does workshops at Hudson Valley Community College and is a
Master Electrician. Isaac Opalinski, the other, regularly looks
through IAEI News. Kerinia wanted to know whether we
would be interested in co-sponsoring such training.
The
consensus was clearly "Yes!"
Should we charge attendees, and if so how
much?
How can we attract the inspectors to attend?
These
questions led to rather more discussion. The general sense was
that while the vast majority of inspectors won't pay (well,
okay, perhaps a few bucks toward lunch), if there's enough
detailed material for installers to learn what inspectors are
likely to look for, they will attend, and will be more than
willing to pay a reasonable fee.
Wayne recommended that Kerinia go directly
to the jurisdictions, to see whether individual jurisdictions
will sponsor trainings and assign their inspectors to attend.
The workshops can't be very lengthy, though. Inspection
departments keep a close eye on how many of their paid hours
inspectors spend away from the field. Even better, go to the
State. If they will sign on to the concept and pay the costs,
municipalities will be more likely to pick it up.
David suggested that while CEUs are required
for master electricians who want to keep up their licenses, and
for IAEI-certified inspectors, in the ordinary course of things
municipal inspectors don't need CEUs to keep on working. Wayne
noted, though, that both PG and Montgomery Counties offer a
modest pay premium to those inspectors who maintain ICC
licensure; other jurisdictions may do similarly.
Most unusually, we never got to the
evening's planned educational component. We took a break around
8 PM; when we reconvened, the conversations were going so hot
and heavy that we decided to postpone the presentation on
Article 680 that Wayne had generously stepped in to offer after
our previously scheduled performer bailed.
The only other
item of business was Jim's complaint that we are not listed as
CE providers for PG County. Wayne gave David the name and
mailing information to send a request to be added to the list.
(The application has been mailed; the application to be
recognized by Virginia as a CE provider had been mailed earlier.
Neither has elicited a response as of this writing.)
Next Most Recent Meeting
This
is the report of our meeting on Tuesday, March 18, 2008. We had
six associate members, four inspector members, and five
non-member apprentices.
Dimmers and Other Lighting Controls
Two representatives of One Source Associates, Inc., Mark Koehler
and Vince Pearl, discussed Lutron dimmers, dimmer boards, dimmer
panels and dimmers in general, touching on daylight harvesting.
Early
on, they made the point that dimming incandescents so as to give
up 10% of the light will save 10% of the energy, but will double
lamp life. The standard level of 40% dimming will extend lamp
life 13 times; 50% dimming extends lamp life 20 times.
We
learned that the man who founded Lutron invented the modern
dimmer, in the 1960s. We also learned that all Lutron products
are designed to be backwards-compatible. (No, if you install a
dimmer with the switch facing backwards, into the box, besides
not protecting the wires this is not compatible with operating
the handle, chum.)
They
showed and talked about a number of innovations. They offer a
device containing a stacked pair of dimmers, or a dimmer and a
timer, or a dimmer and a photosensor-operated night light, on a
single yoke. They also offer a dimmer that is mated with a
uniquely-shaped receptacle that matches a uniquely-shaped plug
to be used to replace the plug on a floor lamp. This averts the
risk of dimming a receptacle and, for example, plugging a
motorized appliance into it, with unhappy consequences for
appliance and dimmer. One system will dim from up to 9
locations, unlike standard 3-way switching, will only will
permit dimming from one location. They own the frequency used in
their radio-frequency control system, and it automatically sets
the particular signal it uses, to eliminate the risk of
interference by other units used by neighbors.
What
no one has, at present, is a dimmer that can be used to do a
reasonable job of full-range dimming for standard compact
fluorescents, or for fluorescents generally, across the board. A
specific dimming ballast must be matched with a specific dimmer.
However, every dimmer Lutron manufactures is available in a
version designed to control 3-wire dimming fluorescent ballasts.
But
will the dimmers die on you if somethng shorts? All Lutron
dimmers are rated to withstand the IEEE/ANSI test of 6000 volts
and 200 amps. Dimming panel based equipment is rated at 6000
volts and 3000 amps.
Goodies They
discussed and distributed Pass & Seymour plugtail
receptacles and tamper-resistant GFCIs. The latter earned them a
thorough razzing from contractor and Third Party Inspector–until
recently, sole inspector for the Town of Laurel once Art Hesse
retired and then died--Pete Bowers, who complained that one in
ten of the P&S GFCIs that installers purchase from Maurice
Electric fail when he tests them with an external tester,
sometimes smoking.
Mark
took over from Vince at this point, and talked about commercial
dimming. Nodding to ASHRAE 90.1 adoption in Maryland with energy
use restrictions, he talked abut how the performance of Lutron’s
daylight-harvesting dimming system easily exceeds the code
requirements. Generally, the two rows of lights closest to the
windows are the ones that will show most energy saving as a
result of daylighting, unless th windows are unusually large.
First
he discussed motion sensors. A small office can rely on a
relatively inexpensive passive-infrared unit, often simply
replacing the light switch (with manual override), so long as no
furniture blocks its view, as it were, of the entire space.
Safer, but more expensive, is a ceiling sensor. An ultrasonic
sensor is more expensive, can sense around obstacles, but can be
falsely operated by the noise emerging from some HVAC registers.
Also, he notes that at one installation some lawyers,
religiously hunched over their computers for long periods in
disrespect of standard ergonomic recommendations, would find the
lights flicking off, and had to learn to move occasionally. The
most expensive system is the dual-technology design, turning on
in response either to passive-infrared recognition or to
ultrasonic response to movement, but turning off only when both
sensors give the okay.
Now
he moved on to new digital ballasts, which he firmly believes
will replace standard dimming ballasts. At perhaps $90-100 list
per ballast, the same for controls such as daylight or occupancy
sensors, they offer the feature of topology-independent control.
So long as each receives power and a 2-wire UTP low-voltage
control bus wire–additional 14 or 12 AWG 600 V wires also
can be used for this–they will sort out their own
addresses so that a palm-pilot type processor unit can direct
them to operate in various changeable groupings, dimming or
otherwise controlling them down to the fixture level. The system
even keeps track of their hours of use, and can provide email
alerts when lamps or ballasts reach a specified number of
operating hours.
A
fair amount of concern was expressed over the need to run the
additional low-voltage cables. Mark assured us that installers
had found listed UTP cable whose diameter made it compatible
with listed connectors that fit ½" trade size
knockouts. Chapter VP, PG County Chief Inspector, and Code
instructor Wayne Robinson pointed out that once the 2008 code is
adopted, installing Class 2 wiring inside NM power cable will be
legal. Ed Holt, Jr., electrical inspector with the U.S.
Architect of the Capital, had the impression that it would be
legal anyway, so long as all conductors were insulated at the
maximum voltage range.
Another
topic Mark broached was architectural lighting boards. He asked
inspectors how they felt about the use of theater controls for
general lighting control, emphatically pointing out that they
contain magnetic-only circuit breakers, and heat up enough that
the breakers may be listed for maximum three-hour use by
qualified persons. The general response was that if an
installation violates NEC Section 110.3(B), it’s
out. David Shapiro pointed out, with seconding by Ed Holt, that
a listed device may have different characteristics and limits
when it is utilized as a component; so long as the NRTL
investigates and lists the equipment containing it, and the
equipment is used within the restrictions of that listing, it
may be fine. There was a general consensus that it is not the
job of the AHJ to pull apart listed equipment.
After
we sent off Mark and Vince with applause, we took a break and
then reconvened to handle business and some Code questions.
Secretary-Treasurer David Shapiro brought up the need expressed
by the IO for us to appoint an audit committee. A consensus
agreed on our continuing to use Pam Panizari’s
professional assistance to perform this function.
David
then showed the group a couple of pictures showing installations
that made him uncomfortable. The issue on the first was that
plumbers’ metal strapping was used to support NM cable.
Pete didn’t like the fact that this meant it did not
follow the building surface as closely as it would have had it
been stapled or secured with electricians’ straps. Wayne,
like David, did not like the fact that the straps’ metal
edges might damage the sheath and conductors.
Pete’s
concern led to further discussion. Wayne noted that he had long
used, and accepted the use of, metal tie wire to support BX and
ty-raps (TM) to support NM. Authorities in Ann Arundel County,
though, reject the use of tie wire in ceilings, according to his
students. AFC reps had told him that only in DC and New York do
people buy BX; elsewhere it’s all MC.
Pete
noted that some installers tie a cable to a rod, then use the
same tie to tie the next cable down, and the next. He makes them
break the tie and use an independent tie for each cable.
Raised
a concern about how people interpret the concept, “closely
follow the structure.” Several inspectors agreed that
there is no consensus on how to interpret this, especially above
suspended ceilings. He discussed the need to provide support
rods, painted to differentiate them from ceiling supports, but
secured at their lower ends for rigidity.
David
brought in a couple of other items. One, the concern that
plug-in Glade Air Fresheners have started fires, was challenged
by Ed Holt, who has seen this labeled as false on the site for
checking urban legends, WWW.Snopes.com, based on an argument
that it is not proven. Investigators
have
seen burnouts and cases of overheating, but the last report
David received said a failure mechanism has not yet been
identified. He has been advised that further data can be
obtained by requesting the CPSC’s record of field reports.
David
also reported that Twister Al/Cu wire connectors have shown
troubling failures both in tests performed for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission and in the field. Ed Holt asked
whether these failures tended to occur in wet locations. No;
certainly not under the Article 100 Definition. Alumiconn (R)
connectors seem to be proving themselves in CPSC-sponsored
research, even if their use is not exactly the “best
possible repair” that Copalum(R) represents.
We
closed with discussion of antique connectors, and then antique
tools. Our May meeting will include a showing of some members’
heirlooms.
Other
Goodies Shirley
Clay and Karl Mirpanah adopted the last two White Books that
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. was kind enough to donate to our
chapter.
Communication
Glitch My internet server was having difficulty around the
time of our last meeting. This seems to have been fully
resolved, so the chapter’s edress and URL are functioning
properly.
As
it stands, this year we meet on 5/20, 9/19 and 11/18/08–in
addition to offering seminars, the next one taking place April
19 and 26 at Prince George’s Community College: a review
of 2008 NEC changes, earning 10 hours of Continuing
Education credit. For details look above under Seminars.
Next
Most Recent Meeting
Some
meetings simply are good from the git-go, whether or not they
boast a razzmatazz set of presenters. We had a fine program the
evening of January 20, 2008, thanks to the silent presence of
Alan H. Nadon, Chief Electrical Inspector of Elkhart, Indiana.
His contribution was augmented by the spit-'em-out Code
references supplied by Wayne Robinson, and very active
discussion, including many of the 18 participants.
The
meeting was popping long before President Jim Wooten called us
to order, with some difficulty, at 6:30. (We'll have to get him
a noisemaker!) I regret that the issues discussed in the
half-hour and more of floating talk before the formal meeting
didn't get discussed by the group as a whole, which would enable
them to fit smoothly into these minutes. Some of the matters
raised concerned a basic IAEI principle: consistent enforcement
of the NEC. A particularly unhappy element is "oral law,"
local requirements extending beyond the document that the
legislature originally adopted (the NEC version with any local
amendments); requirements that have not been broadcast widely.
Jim
decided to start the evening's business with the program. It was
followed, after close to two hours, with an overdue break, our
election, and discussion of future plans. We broke up before 9
pm.
Program
Is
it just a laugh? Is it a serious Code violation? An oversight?
Sheer ignorance? Bloody-minded "They'll never catch me"
indifference? Thanks to the generosity of Alan Nadon, who
provided the slides, and of Wayne Robinson, who again lent the
use of his projection equipment as well as his expertise, we had
loads and loads of pictures, many of them omigawds, to enjoy,
analyze and discuss.
(In
addition to Alan's original wealth, it is possible that the
striking pictures inadvertently included some shot by Joe
Tedesco or others.)
We
referred to Code books ranging from the 2002 to 2008. Our
chapter serves jurisdictions that have adopted editions ranging
from the 1996 NEC to the 2005-and an adjacent one, served by the
Chesapeake Chapter, may be considering adoption of the 2008.
Wayne
had a lot to say about changes forthcoming with the 2008 Code,
starting with elimination of cable wiring under buildings.
However, no one anticipated the 2008 being adopted anywhere
nearby any time soon. No local supply house is known to the
folks at our meeting to be stocking residential child-resistant
or moisture-hardened receptacles.
After
considering several slides of very damp locations, David Shapiro
noted, to general agreement, that equipment designed for wet
locations only maintains its rating so long as its finish
survives the environment. Ed Bihlear pointed out that rust
generally travels out from the center of a hole, where the
finish is compromised. Asked whether the tool-wielders restore
finish after cutting holes or tightening locknuts, or the
inspectors demand its restoration, only one person-prospective
member Glenn Nelson-raised his hand.
Heads
shook over a picture showing steel conduit entering a hole cut
in the bottom of an enclosure, overlapping a couple of knockouts
and not allowing a locknut to seat and create continuity even if
one had been tightened adequately. However, Wayne pointed out
that if a bonding bushing were installed, he'd be satisfied with
the connection.
Shown
a picture of a fused disconnect with one fuse damaged, Wayne
recommended that the conductor attached to it be either replaced
or meggered.
On
the other hand, he is quite concerned over the acceptance of
single-conductor pool bonding into the Code. His complaint is
that the Code change was not substantiated by documented
research, but by the less-satisfactory claim of field
experience. Because cattle's milk production is reduced by the
lack of an equipotential grid, this tastes to him like favoring
animals over people, ultimately because a copper pool grid can
cost the installer $500. He asks that people contact him if they
hear of tingle voltages in swimming pools. In Prince George's
County, Maryland, Section 680.26(c) has been adopted from the
2005 NEC, despite the fact that the County remains under the
2002-and he reports that a group of builders oppose adoption of
the 2005.
A
couple of additional notes. First, Ed pointed out that in
24-volt control wiring, a green wire is used as the positive.
This way, users avoid being misled by finding no voltage on it
at one point and assuming it's a grounding conductor.
Second,
while he hasn't arranged for its pre-adoption, Wayne certainly
favors the forthcoming rule restricting wiring under the
corrugations of a metal roof.
Third,
attendees knew of one, count 'em one supply house in the area
that carries tamper-resistant receptacles, such as would comply
with the 2008 requirement. However, these are expensive,
hospital-grade devices, not the residential-grade items that we
would expect to be stocked once someone somewhere starts
enforcing the 2008.
People
at the meeting also had a few laughs thanks to classic gag
photos; saw eight of Ed's color photos of the Convention Center
in process; heard what the application of Budweiser over time
(via a dumpster overhead) did to an underground switchboard in
College Park, MD; found out what happened when an ungrounded
service fed grounded equipment (hint: hot stuff); and know why
an Indiana motor made people think of Philadelphia's SEPTA.
Election
Because
we fell shy of a quorum in our meetings last year (and the year
before!), those volunteers who made themselves available to
remain in office continued to run our group. Our by-laws
authorize this.
This
time, ballots with SASEs were sent to all Inspector Members (the
only ones eligible to vote). They were asked to mail in their
ballots ahead of time, unless they were sure they would be at
this meeting. Dud plan. One and only one ballot was returned by
mail--the day after the meeting.
Fortunately,
we squeaked out a quorum. Our 2008 officers are:
President:
Jim Wooten
Vice President: Wayne Robinson
Past President:
Wayne Robinson
Secretary-Treasurer and Section
representative: David Shapiro
Education/Seminars: Harry
Langway
Membership: Robert Welborne
At-Large: Charles
Johnson, Sr.
Second Vice President: Vacant
Continuing
Education Credits
At
this meeting, C.E. certificates were provided for the 10 paid-up
members showing up who had attended November's meeting, plus
Karl Mirpanah, who had expended considerable effort to attend
it, and had followed through on becoming a member after the
meeting. (Actually, Wayne's certificate is in the mail.)
As
always, those members in good standing who were present for the
full program earned Continuing Education credits. These will be
documented by certificates that can be picked up at the March 18
meeting. A good attendance roster, following on the consistent
good work we're seeing from Robert Welborne, our Membership
coordinator and enthusiast.
But
what are these CE certificates good for? Many of our members
carry Virginia licenses. Our informal education committee,
consisting of Education Director Harry Langway, Vice- and Past
President and chief volunteer instructor Wayne Robinson, and
Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro, have been in touch over the
possibility of our being certified by Virginia DPOR. as a course
provider. This will enable some of our activities to fulfill the
Continuing Education requirement for Virginia licensure. We
anticipate applying by Va DPOR's March deadline, in order to
qualify for certification at their Board's April meeting.
White
Books
Here's
a puzzler: Wayne asked folks whether STOOW cable is
sunlight-resistant. Its marking indicates that it is protected
against moisture and oil, but neither the marking nor the Code
talk about its sun-resistance. For that information you need
some kind of glimpse at the Standard, which says yes, it is
sunlight-resistant. Thanks to the generosity of Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., we had three or four free copies of the
White Book. Three members requested them, and one member-to-be.
One member request didn't come through due to email problems,
but two were distributed at the meeting; the other two will be
at our March meeting.
Future
Meeting Dates
If
we hear from a large-enough contingent that they can't come to
our present meetings due to a schedule conflict, but they would
for-sure expect to attend if we met on a different evening, we
have the option of changing days once again. We're here to serve
our members, and what makes sense is to do whatever accommodates
the greatest number. As it stands presently, this year we will
meet on 3/18, 5/20, 9/19 and 11/18/08-in addition to offering
seminars.
Seminar
Our
next seminar, reviewing changes in the 2008 NEC, will be taught
by Wayne Robinson on April 19 and 26, for five hours each day.
It will earned 10 hours of Continuing Education credit.
Location, price, and so on will be posted at www.gwiaei.org, and
notices (mostly email) will be sent out and flyers distributed.
Previous
Meeting
This
report covers, first, our executive board/open business meeting,
November 20, 2007, 5:30-6:30 pm. That is followed by a summary
of our educational program, which took place from about
6:30-8:30 PM.
Members
and Attendance
We
had 22 attendees, counting our speaker: 8 associate members, 3
inspector members, and 11 guests. Or possibly 7, 3, and 12, if
we classify a member of another chapter merely as a guest even
when he attends our meetings regularly. Despite being a member
of the Chesapeake Chapter, Harry Langway is a key, hard-working
(albeit non-voting) part of our executive board. Most unusually,
he arrived after the evening’s business meeting, despite
his best effort.
Similarly–and
here future quorums may be affected–not only was Karl
Mirpanah not yet an Inspector Member of the George Washington
chapter, he drove in from Ashburn, in the Southern Section, for
our meeting. He was a good hour late for this meeting, having
spent two and a half hours on the road, instead of his usual one
hour. And he still asked questions that yielded him, and the
rest of us, useful information.
Our
program was well-attended in good part thanks to Robert
Welborne's work encouraging nonmembers to check us out. His
efforts brought in five new faces for the evening. Another
reason is that Harry Langway found us a winning presenter,
described under Program.
Business
Secretary-treasurer
David Shapiro described our meager present finances. He
mentioned the expectation that we will be co-sponsoring a PV
seminar by John Wiles in cooperation with Montgomery County in
January. This will, however, be designed solely as service
rather than as a money-maker.
Our
primary money-earner used to be our multi-day Code
seminars. We discussed what sort of seminars in this vein the
chapter should put on now. A number of us thought that, while
the 2008 Code represents the latest and best consensus, there
might be more interest in earlier versions because the 2008 will
not be adopted locally for quite some time.
In
keeping with others’ cynicism about jurisdictional
adoption of the new version, Wayne Robinson mentioned the rumor
that Alabama building officials will reject the 2008 NEC due to
its new, far-broader AFCI requirements. Because he sees no move
on the part of the Prince Georges County legislature to adopt to
2005 NEC, he proposes to put the 2008 before them in the
forthcoming session. However, he sees builders’ interests
as killing it in order to save pennies.
According
to Jim Wooten, Code Official Ken Pratt told him Annapolis will
shortly adopt the 2005, not the 2008. David mentioned the fact
that Pennsylvania is not supporting the 2008 as yet, and will
not even support inspectors who presently pass the occasional
job that meets 2008 requirements but not 2005. (Some time back,
a Pennsylvania inspector had gotten in trouble for accepting a
mall structure lacking a firewall between tenants that was
required under the version of the International Commercial Code
then in force, but not in the latest, not-yet-adopted
version.)Wayne suggested, offering a contrary perspective, that
jurisdictions take on liability if someone gets hurt due to
passing work installed to less than latest code standards.
Unfortunately, a number of us agreed, a public jurisdiction may
be less likely than a private person to worry about being sued
as a result of such injuries and damage.
Jim
said he’s rather more interested in a 2005
grounding/bonding seminar. David proposed that if DC does manage
to adopt the 2005 NEC early in the new year, as is hoped, there
will be a need for an unusual, 1996-to-2006, Code changes
seminar.
So
much for options A and B. Wayne understands that Baltimore
County will go ahead and adopt the 2008, though. Furthermore, he
had presented seven local seminars in the last few weeks before
our meeting, and the participants told him they were tired of
learning the 2005. They were asking for the fresh material
represented by the 2008: option C.
The
conclusion of our roundtable, Option C, was based on the fact
that Wayne generously volunteers his seminar-presenting services
and even his slides and projection equipment to the chapter (and
we’re not far from broke).
Wayne
wants to see a seminar serving at least 50 people, each paying
at least $150.– He can get 2008 Code Change books for $35
apiece in relatively small quantity through another
organization, perhaps the IEC. He will pick the dates for a
seminar spanning two Saturdays in March. He'll email David, who
will check with the rest of the executive board. David will wait
a week, and if this time passes without his hearing any dispute,
David will assume consensus. He then will put the announcement
on our web site, www.gwiaei.org, with a flyer–perhaps a
link to the pdf of a flyer--that can be downloaded and printed
by anyone willing to distribute it.
In
another matter, we came close to having a quorum, which would
allow us to carry out our long-delayed election. Our next
meeting will take place January 15, 2008. This is to be our
official annual meeting, when elections are supposed to take
place. Especially given that our hard-copy mailing list has been
so greatly reduced by the forthcoming switch to email and to
dropping no-longer-current recipients, it will be no great
hardship to hard-mail ballots and SASEs to our inspector members
in advance of that meeting. This seems certain to enable us to
achieve a quorum and thus carry out a valid election.
As
we stand, a number of members have expressed interest in our two
vacancies: Vice President (must be an Inspector Member) and
At-Large. However, none has committed to volunteer for either
post as yet. (All posts require regular attendance at chapter
meetings, which may cause hesitation among certain members, who
therefore might be better off volunteering to assist rather than
to take on formal posts.)
These
are the present positions and incumbents: President: Jim
Wooten
Past President: Wayne Robinson
Secretary-treasurer
and Section Representative: David Shapiro
Education:
Harry Langway
Program
The
presentation by Jeff Slayton, regional Business Development
Manager for Generac Power Systems, Inc. lasted almost two hours,
a fair bit longer than anticipated. This was due to audience
interest that kept generating questions, which our presenter
answered patiently and knowledgeably. Even better, he took down
each question for which he did not have a ready, certain answer,
along with the questioner’s contact information.
Three
Points regarding Generators, in order of decreasing importance
and generality
~Maintenance.
Generators start 98% of the time, on average, thanks to
improvements in the prime movers and in the controls. Despite
this, if you don’t test a generator, you don’t know
that it will work when you hope to rely on it. If you don’t
exercise it regularly, the chances that it will fail are highly
likely to increase.
Most
savvy customers pick a day of the week and time of day and run
their generator for half an hour. Unfortunately, it is
exceedingly common to run it without electric loads drawing on
the alternator. Tests should carry the greatest possible
building load.
If
the prime mover relies on liquid fuel, and you simply leave it
sit indefinitely, the fuel may be the source of failure: it has
a finite life span. The applicable code says that diesel can
last every two years. It can be used up over that period to
operate the generator, or else drained and replaced, or treated
to confirm BTU content. Firms will come in to do the latter for
$3 a gallon, if you don't want to handle it yourself. Diesel
will gel and deposit wax more quickly in colder climates, but
fuel used in this area certainly is not immune. Water from
condensation can be a major problem. Furthermore, heat is a
factor causing any stored fuel to lose the lighter volatile
components more quickly.
p>
~Modularization.
There are many advantages to designs that
utilize advances over the last 20-some years that enable
moderate-sized units to be paralleled relatively easily and
efficiently. Less-critical operations historically have shunned
paralleling due to the expense and complexity of custom
switchgear found in hospitals, which long have required the
redundancy of paralleled generators.
~Dual-fuel.
In recent years bi-fuel, diesel/gas systems have gained
popularity. The actuator technology and computers couldn't do
this 20 years ago. These have considerable advantages, although
they don’t yet offer quite everything one might hope for.
Such a generator will start operation with straight diesel
propulsion and, once the alternator is spinning enough to carry
the required load, shift operation to a mix, adding up to 70%
natural gas to the diesel fuel. One advantage is less-polluting
operation. Another is conserving diesel, hence being able to
reduce the amount of diesel stored on the site. This both takes
less space and reduces fire concerns. Thus a 3-400 gallon tank
can run a large facility’s generator for days, augmented
by utility natural gas which is piped in continuously.
All-diesel operation remains available as an automatic backup
mode, in the event that the supply of gas is interrupted. This
backup mode will mean operating for a shorter length of time
than when the intended combination of both fuels is available,
but still a considerable duration of backup operation. Another
bi-fuel characteristic is that if the loading suddenly
increases, the ratio of diesel to gas increases, up to 90%
diesel, due to the better torque characteristic of diesel
compared to gas combustion. It backs off the natural gas to
prevent pinging.
The
only missing option in bi-fuel units’ design is all-gas
operation. This would be handy to keep operation yet cleaner
during periods of lighter loading when less torque is required.
Note, though, that in California and Massachusetts gas-operated
generators require catalytic converters, because these put out
more carbon monoxide than do diesel units! A switch to all gas
also would further put off using up the diesel supply, during
extended outages, and keep the generators going when the diesel
is all gone–and also could pick up in the case of
contamination of the diesel supply. However, as compression
engines, lacking spark plugs, the prime movers not only rely on
the diesel explosion to get going, but at this point in their
development would misfire if the fuel intake were fully
converted to gas.
All-gas
generators are fine, but they are dependent on a single source–a
gas line or propane tank. They cannot be fed secondarily from
backup tanks of diesel.
Tradeoffs
among generator sets
Quite
naturally, as the representative of a particular manufacturer,
Jeff shared more information emphasizing his own company’s
products than about other’s gensets. Since the late 1950s,
his employer has manufactured just generators and transfer
switches. All the components originate and are assembled in
their own Wisconsin and Iowa plants. Standby units are a small
part of their sales. In certain lines, they private-label the
exact same products they sell under their own name for Trane,
Bryant, Siemens, Guardian, and possibly others. There has been
other overlap between genset names. They have built products
known under the Caterpillar and the Briggs and Stratton labels,
too. We’ll go through some of the particularly
parochial-sounding material, but briefly.
The
paralleled modular units presently are a Generac product, at
least in the U.S. Sized up to 300 kW gas and 600 kW diesel
modules, they are easily gangable up to 15 units. Koehler has
been doing much the same thing in France for 20 years, and
Caterpillar and Cummins are developing the same concept in their
lines.
One
advantage to modularization is enabling installations to utilize
smaller spaces: Generac’s gensets can be paralleled under
a single overall set of controls when set far as 1000 feet from
each other. Systems do not need to be oversized, but rather can
expand as needed. They have smaller sumps, using less oil even
in aggregate than equivalent larger units–and the
individual small units are easier to maintain without down time,
in matters such as oil changes. Other matters being equal, Jeff
acknowledged, installing the big Caterpillar sets might make
more sense than modularizing small units when installations use
more than two or three modules, and especially when the standard
single generator is real big.
Another
type of Generac offering that Jeff touted is their especially
quiet units. While normal gensets produce around 72-78 decibels,
adjusted for human hearing sensitivity (dBA) Generac is selling
new commercial gas gensets, with the entire unit including
mufflers hidden in a box, that when exercised, slow down to 1000
RPM. This brings their racket down to 61 dBA. When producing
full power, these units do rev up to produce the normal,
interfering, level of noise. For reference, when produced hour
after hour 85 dBA is the level of sound that bring the OSHA
warning, “Any louder than this, and everybody’s
hearing needs to be effectively protected or you’ll be
deafening them.”
Questions
and Challenges
All
sorts of questions came up from IAEI members who install and who
use generators, who consult to customers concerned about
generators, who inspect generators, and who teach others the
Code issues that apply to generators.
Backfeeds
A
very retired, well-known former chapter member said he
understood that modern generator design prevents the backfeeds
that utility workers are worried about. Jeff said yes: except
for portable generators, the transfer switch is intrinsic to the
generator unit.
Jeff
described the types of transfer switch. One safe option for use
when exercising a generator, which means that utility power is
present on the other side of the switch, is the open-transition
switch. This pauses at OFF before transfer, so power from two
sources out-of-phase with each other cannot reach loads
simultaneously. Closed transition switches transfer power when
the sources are in sync, and used to be greatly expensive. A
closed transition switch now adds only $300 to the thousands of
dollars paid for a generator.
As
an aside, Jeff acknowledged that portable generators can be
scary. They can indeed be connected so as to backfeed into
utility wiring and potentially hurt someone working on restoring
power.
Permits
Another question concerned the responsibility for permits
and inspection when a gas-fed generator is installed. Jeff’s
impression was that generally the electrical contractor pulls an
electrical permit to cover the generator and wiring, and subs to
a mechanical contractor who pulls a permit for the gas fitting
and has that inspected. To reduce the cost of installation,
which can double the cost of a genset, they have been
incorporating a distribution breaker in the transfer switch.
This may, unfortunately, have the side effect of encouraging
nonprofessionals to get involved in the installations and
dismiss the idea of permits and inspection–if these occur
to them at all. Kelly Generator in Calvert County is the local
industrial distributor handling Generac. However, when Suburban
Propane in Calvert brings gas to generators, a loyal member told
us, in his experience they don’t pull permits. Different
members at the meeting, working in different jurisdictions with
different plumber/pipefitters, had varying experiences with
regard to the gas permit issue.
Waveforms
Wayne asked whether generators bother AFCIs, particularly
the new combination branch circuit/outlet or parallel/series
version meeting the 2008 standard; also whether controls such as
those used to parallel modularized generators require
particularly stable power.
Jeff
responded that generators are solid on 60 Hz but their controls
have trouble with transients such as those created by
fluorescent lighting loads using solid-state ballasts and
multiwire circuits. He was uncertain about AFCIs.
Uninterruptible
Power Supplies and Generator Sizing
Karl asked Jeff to
explain UPS load calculations.
Jeff
admitted that he used to find this demand crazy-making for
several reasons. In the past, generators required a very clean
load. The voltage regulator would see a zero-crossing point from
non-linear loads, and cause the generator to speed up, creating
a surge. Consequently, the UPS would abandon generator input and
go to battery power because power was dirty. This would exhaust
the battery. Consequently, at the least you needed significant
oversizing Voltage regulators now are more rugged than before,
less vulnerable to being confused. UPS devices use Insulated
Gate Bipolar Transistors for rectification. Furthermore, they
don't demand full battery recharging by the generator when it is
being called on actively by the load, just maintenance of a 25%
recharge. Nowadays with UPS filtering, a generator sized at
100-150%, at most 200% of the calculated or measured load will
be sufficient. The issue gets worse with smaller UPS systems,
smaller being defined as less than 50 kW, and single-phase
loads. In these cases Jeff advises that you size the generator
up to 250% of load rating. Unfiltered UPS systems, though, still
call for 300% oversizing.
Small
Residential Units
Jim mentioned a woman who wanted her
gas generator removed. When it operated, he tells us she
complained, “it sucked the natural gas out of her house”
Other members’ comments were that she needed to get a
bigger gas meter and higher-flow gas line (or gas regulator).
He
also asked about his own pull-start 5 kW unit, which is labeled
as a Generac. It won't start in cold weather. He wants to get
electric start, but Home Depot said they stopped making them.
Jeff suggested that Jim get a propane 8W automatic-start, with
its little transfer switch. Jeff uses one, and it’s more
than enough for all his needs, including pumping water from a
several-hundred-foot well. Jeff explained that Geenrac sold off
the unit making those little generators. Briggs and Stratton
apparently kept the Generac name on gasoline-operated engine.
Jeff was kind enough to offer to put Jim in touch with people he
knows at the factory making the Briggs and Stratton product.
They might well steer him to the part he wants to buy.
Odds
and Ends
There are just a few more notes that readers
might wish to follow up on if intrigued; I won’t flesh
them out.
~~~In 2007, emissions requirements got much
tighter. Generator manufacturers had to change their engines.
~~~ Siemens is making a split-bus panel to allow part of a
loadcenter to run emergency circuits and another part of the
same panel non-emergency circuits.
~~~~In discussing the
long feeder pigtails provided with some gensets, Wayne mentioned
that they're going to have to run separate neutrals in their
feeders under the 2008 NEC. Wayne also offered the opinion that
California may create trouble with their special rules, but at
least they follow NFPA 5000, not the IBC. Finally, he noted that
he observed a new Guardian genset unit that didn't have a key
switch. However universal they are in actuality, key switches at
least nominally restrict public access. Robert said that he's
seen new ones with the key switches.
Next
most Recent Meeting
There
is scant information available on our September 18 meeting. We
had two presenters. One, a Wattstopper (R) rep, explained the
energy codes affecting commercial buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, IECC,
and California's Title 24,and described some ways to satisfy
their requirements. Our other presenter, Mr. Ross Kotarski of
Leviton, gave a mini-seminar of Category 5 wiring and control
devices.
Attendance was light: 2 inspectors and 7 others.
This information on the meeting is available thanks to
Former President Wayne Robinson, as David Shapiro (our
Secretary-Treasurer) had to attend to another commitment.
Losses
Since
our last meeting, our godfather, Art Hesse, died and our
one-time secretary, Brooke Stauffer, is presumed dead. A short
biography of Art appears in September’s IAEI News; a much
longer one is posted at www.GWIAEI.org/#Art. The details of
Brooke’s disappearance are available at
http://karenandbrooke.blogspot.com <>, which also has
information about the (non-religious and religous) memorial
services for Brooke and his fiancé Karen. The
non-religious one took place in September; the date of the
religious one is Saturday, November 10.
Previous
Meetings
Our
previous meeting took place May 18, 2007. This meeting was
devoted to a preview of likely 2008 NEC developments. We
were again fortunate to enjoy the terrific team of John Cangemi
from UL and Gil Moniz from NEMA. We got right down to it at
6:30, or a few minutes earlier. No quorum available for
elections, once again, and no other new business.
Changing
the NEC
They
started with a quick reminder of the NFPA Code process:
Proposals may be reviewed on the floor at the June
meeting.
Then changes require approval by the Standards
Council
. Our presenters know of intentions to make several
floor motions. Wayne Robinson suggested 75; we were told that
Mark Earley mentioned 30 a few weeks ago, but they were
groupable to a total of maybe eight.
The
White Book and Product Categories
Next
they walked us briefly through the 2006 edition of the UL White
Book. Ample copies were generously provided for attendees,
and in fact enough for us to take extras for colleagues. They
noted that it includes marking guides, starting on Page 390.
On
Page 311, the index is correlated to the 2005 NEC. John
revealed that the 4-digit codes originated as initialisms, short
for long strings of words describing product categories. This is
because in the early days of computers, it was easier to deal
with short strings. The Codes created in more recent years are
just meaningless strings of letters, not initialisms or
acronyms.
Likely Changes
First
off (though out of the order of the evening’s
presentation) the site www.NFPA.org has the Report of
Proposals and the Report on Comments, and you also
can obtain hard copies, free, upon request. Gil also passed out
his handout of significant changes.
Moving
on to anticipated 2008 changes, the first one they covered was
the creation of Article 355, dealing with Type RTRC fiberglas
conduit. It is considered different enough from other NM
raceways that it was time to separate this from PVC.
Why not
do similarly with enclosures? Fiberglas boxes are a different
material than fiberglas conduit.
Article
522 has been created because the technical experts from Disney
World wanted their requirements separated from those for
temporary amusement fairs covered in Article 525.
Article
708, Critical Operations Power Systems, hardened against
disaster, might end up as an independent standard, perhaps
referenced in the NEC; it might end up as a mere annex, as Wayne
suggested; but Gil thinks it will indeed be a new article. The
committee that put it together was developing it as Hurricane
Katrina was bearing down on New Orleans. It applies to wiring
only if an area is designated as mission-critical by a
government agency. It doesn’t have to apply to an entire
building; for example, it can specify a section of a hospital.
Article
626, for truck stops, we’ve read about elsewhere.
Article
780 Smart House (Closed Loop) wiring, will be deleted.
Also,NMS cable is gone. The system just never took off.
The
tables describing NEMA enclosure types that had been
located in 430.91 will move to 110.20; enclosure are not used
just for motor controls. John pointed out the note saying that
each provides just a specified degree of protection, not blanket
security.
Section
110.22 Series ratings under Engineering supervision.
These will be field-marked whether existing or newly engineered,
with a specified text.
Section
110.26(C)(2) regarding large equipment now will include again
the 6' width to make two doors necessary. Equipment
rating referenced here is equipment manufactured capacity, not
just equipment capacity as determined by the installed
overcurrent device or its setting.
Equipment
size is not, however, going to be part of the criteria for
requiring personnel doors with panic hardware opening
out. All doors within 25 feet now will have to meet that
criterion. There were various comments on the proposal,
suggesting different distances that workers, perhaps injured,
would need to travel unhindered when escaping malfunction. The
25 foot choice was a compromise.
Section
210.4 on multiwire circuits will require that all
conductors of a circuit start from same piece of equipment, and
all must be capable of simultaneous disconnection at that
equipment. Whatever the occupancy, whether two or more legs feed
devices on the same yoke or no is to be irrelevant–mention
of yoke is being removed from 210.7.
This led into a bit of
discussion. The capability of being simultaneously disconnected
is not the same as automatic simultaneous disconnection. Hence
multipole breakers will be only one option. Common fused
pullouts will be another, and handle ties, a third. All
understood this clearly. Ed Holt and David Shapiro saw how the
requirement for simultaneous disconnection at the point of
origin of a multiwire circuit could be read in a way that our
presenters indicated was not the CMP’s intent. If the
panelboard from which a multiwire circuit contains a main
disconnect, this would simultaneously disconnect all conductors
of the multiwire circuit–while disconnecting the rest of
the circuits as well. This, we were told, would not be
sufficient to satisfy the intent of this rule.
Section
210.5(C) will require installers to identify conductors
by phase and system at termination, connection, and splice
points. This does not necessarily require color coding; the
requirement could be satisfied by or labeling or tagging.
Moving
on to residential GFCI requirements both exceptions 1 and
2, for receptacles that are not readily accessible in garages,
basements, and sheds, and for dedicated appliances, all will be
deleted. Now all receptacles in these areas must be protected!
If equipment trips a GFCI, it si defective. Fire and alarm
systems in basements still retain their exception.
We
learned a bit more about the calibration of a Class A GFCI. It
trips in response to 4 and 6 mA of current, in accordance with
an inverse-time curve 6-264 mA . At 264 mA it should require no
more than half a cycle.
Pete Bowers complained that his
Ideal tester found about one in ten of new, brand-name GFCI
receptacles fail their trip test. Our presenters challenged
this, but he stuck by his guns.
Section
210.8(B)(4), the Outdoor receptacle requirement for GFCI
protection lost its limitation to public places. Vending
machines now are covered. Receptacles within 6' from ALL sinks
now are covered.
Section
210.12 (B), the expanded AFCI protection requirement is a
little less radical than anticipated. Yes, most dwelling unit
outlets will require this protection. However, it will not be
required for circuits solely serving outlets in a kitchen, bath,
garage, attic, or storage room.
Members
of NFPA 72 were going to exempt smoke detectors, but the
TCC said to check with the NEC CMP, as it was more in their
bailiwick. The conclusion was that it’s safe to not exempt
them.
Section
210.12(B) Exc. 2 offers a welcome relief, potentially.
Receptacle-type AFCIs can be made available now–they
have been listed for a long time, but no company has found it
cost-effective to manufacture them--because the 6' distance is
removed--just install them at the first outlet beyond the
panelboard, and use BX or metal conduit to that point.
Section
210.52 will have a useful twist, though one that is going to
demand a bit more of both installers and inspectors. Switched
receptacles can’t serve as Code-required receptacles
per 210.52, unless they are only half-switched.
The
countertop receptacle requirement now will not be just
for kitchen counters.
Outside
receptacles now will be required on balconies, decks, and
porches, unless the usable area is less than 20 square feet.
Section
240.24(F) wll forbid the installation of overcurrent devices
over stairway steps.
Section
300.4(E) will demand that raceways and cables under roof
decking stay 1 ½" away from roof–not 1
1/4" as is the case when the threat comes from drywall
screws and picture nails..
Section
310.15(B)(2)(c) was explained by Pete Bowers, who sits on the
CMP. After the last Code cycle, when all we got was this lousy
T-shirt, I mean a Fine Print Note, this time we have enforceable
language. The people who were concerned about the sun’s
heat damaging insulation performed the additional research
that was demanded of them. This section now requires the use of,
and provides, a table for temperature adjustment of insulation
in conduit in direct sunlight, over a roof (or similar asphalt
surface). It is uniformly applicable across the country. You
still need to factor in your local maximum ambient temperature,
and of course raceway fill and other conductor loading factors.
Section
314.16 finally takes the difficult step of differentiating the
box capacity requirement for devices based on their size.
It does not bow to the proposals of about 20 years ago and
directly consider their actual volume, nor their depth. However,
if a device has so much as a flange or yoke extension that
extends wider than 2 inches, it requires as many multiples of
the normal volume requirement (based on the box’s
conductors) as its number of gangs, calculated at 2" (or
excess fraction) per gang.
Section
334.80 requires cable going through wood framing,
horizontally, vertically, or any which way, that is firestopped,
be derated as though it were bundled, even if it’s BX.
They noted that “Bundled” nearly made it into
Article 100. However, when it was pointed out that the term is
used differently in each Article –310, and the 700, and
800 articles–the proposed definition was yanked.
Section
334.80 will require that when two or more NM cables go
through thermal insulation without spacing, they will
require derating.
Sections
406.8(A) and (B) (1) requiring the use of weather-resistant
receptacles–the devices themselves, in addition to
their enclosure requirements--was proposed to become effective
in 2011, but its effective date was moved up to 2008.
Manufacturers have such devices listed now, although they may
not be available for purchase. They promise to be kind in their
pricing
Section
406.11 will require the use of tamper-resistant receptacles
in all 210.52 areas including those where GFCI protection might
be required. To this change there will be a floor challenge at
the NFPA annual meeting.
This new requirement was based on
solid substantiation. One study reported about 29 000 electrical
burns were suffered by children over maybe 10 years. These often
were the result of from stick objects into receptacles. Similar
results were found in Canada. The actual figure is much, much
greater than reported.
Plug closers were available (though
they’re not Listed), but this many burns were reported
despite their availability. There are shuttered receptacle
covers on the market, but they interfere with retention. UL once
listed them, does so but no more. Another NRTL still does.
Pressure to initiate shutter action is about 20% more than
regular insertion force, so the elderly are not going to be
hindered much more than they are by the effort of inserting
plugs into new standard receptacles. These are not going to be
manufactured to the current hospital grade pediatric standard.
Many European devices are shuttered, and thus tamper-resistant..
Section
408.36 42: the 42 circuit limitation is gone. Harry
Langway, among others, expressed concern over crowding of
cabinets when panelboard are Listed with 50, 60 (as in Canada)
or more circuits. Even now, panelboards have been crowded with
42 circuits (or more) by the insertion of tandem breakers when
or where not authorized by their schematics. Canadian tandems
have been imported without the rejection feature that would
restrict them to those sections of panelboards designed to hold
them.
Section
410.8(B)(3) and (D)(2): a proposal would have classified LEDs
in clothes closets were with fluorescents , but the CMP
rejected this because some of the LED systems may get too hot.
They will be grouped with incandescents. However, 410.8(B)(3)
acknowledges a new, Listed LED that is incorporated into a
clothes rod, and is permitted in that clothes storage space.
Section
422.52 Electric drinking fountains now need GFCI
protection, even though they’re not fountains. There were
comments from the peanut gallery about the impossibility of
resetting the GFCIs if receptacles are used, placed right under
them where they will be splashed.
Section
680.26 Equipotential bonding around pools. Wayne
complained that the language mixes conductive with nonconductive
pool structures. Gil did not see this. As proposed, a single 8
AWG copper conductor can bond a nonconductive pool 6" deep.
Wayne talked about the Florida chapter having discussed their
impression that #10 steel wire bonds just as well. Wayne
believes some sort of grid is much safer than a single
conductor. Gil noted that very few people use encapsulated rebar
to build pools, it’s so expensive.
Section
680.26(C) We now will be required to provide equipotential
bonding of pool water as well as of metal bits. (No
clamps have been Listed for bonding water–it’s too
slippery.) If you wish you may accomplish this by use of
equipment that has to be bonded anyway, such as a wet niche
fixture or ladder. Otherwise, set a 9 x 2" plate somewhere
in the water.
Section
680.31 plug connected filter pumps must have integral
GFCIs regardless of GFCI protection in the receptacles to which
they are connected.
Hydromassage
tubs will need dedicated GFCI circuits.
800.156
At least one communication outlet will be required in
each dwelling unit. The cable must run to a service provider
demarcation point.
After
the presentation, Pete Bowers talked about a conflict between
some gas utilities and NEC requirements and, more important,
thinking. Benfield gas manifolds use soft stainless steel
tubing with plastic jacket. Consequent on a lawsuit, their
brochure recommends that it be bonded back to the electrical
panelboard equal with a conductor sized to the service grounding
electrode. This, we agreed, should not be relying on the
electrical system for lightning protection. Wayne told Benfield
rely on 250.104–bonding needs are adequately served by the
grounding conductor in the circuit serving the equipment.
Gil
reported that it’s an issue around the country. Lightning
strikes has caused this thin-wall yellow material melt down.
John noted that their bulletins have said that CSA/Canada
-Listed (not U.S.) are available. Our ground clamps are listed
for rod and pipe, not tubing unless so marked, same with rebar.
Gil has more information available on this.
Wayne
chirped up with a complaint: the main bonding jumper in a
panelboard is listed for only 30 amps. No comment.
Future
programs
Harry
got John to agree to potentially offer us one of their fine
presentations once a year. Wayne will be giving us a
mini-seminar in March 2008 on Code Changes, based on what
actually makes it into the new Code.
We
broke up around 9:10. At our September meeting, we will have two
presentations, one of them discussing the requirements in the
new energy code. We also will have CEU certificates for those
who attended this May meeting.
This
is the report of our chapter meeting March 20, 2007, 6:30-8:45
PM . Attending were seven? associate members, three inspector
members, and five guests, not counting our speakers. We met in
the basement lounge of 9201 Basil Court. I apologize for listing
the address as #7901 Basil Court in the mailing, and I dearly
hope that no one who tried to come gave up because of the
misdirection.
Business
Nothing
deferred from our last meeting got resolved except, arguably,
for the matter of eats. Last time, we decided it would make
sense to bring a gigundo sandwich, to cut in sections to feed
members who came straight from work. However, nobody called or
emailed to let David Shapiro know they were interested in this.
Lacking a head count, after conferring with Jim Wooten he just
brought the drinks left over from our last meeting. Although
Robert Welborne said he believes the feed to be a good idea,
nobody else spoke up to that effect and Robert offered no
response to the issue of nobody having contacted David for a
head–or belly–count.
David
reported the treasury thin but solvent. Robert reported that he
hopes to schedule a low-voltage seminar for this summer or fall.
Again
we lacked a quorum, so no election; all officers who are willing
to remain in place do so. We did not get around to discussing
cooperative publicity, an issue explicitly deferred for the
March meeting. Wayne Robinson did not bring the information that
he had hoped to provide regarding lightning strikes and about
aluminum GECs. Nonetheless, we kept ourselves gainfully
occupied.
Programs
The
educational component featured two speakers. Erica Woodkilll,
our District Sales Manager for FLIR cameras, brought a
presentation on thermography. Bill Zimmerman of Biben Marketing
Group, a Leviton representative, talked about GFCI developments,
about some 2008 Code changes, and about various new, relatively
new, and forthcoming Leviton products.
Thermography
Thermography
produces radiometric JPEGs, indicating temperature differentials
of as little as 0.05 degrees C, if you’re willing to pay
enough for an IR camera. Their prices are down from $30k and up
a few years ago. FLIR’s cheapest is now $5750. It can be
rented for about $500 a week. The color palate of the image is
changeable at the user’s discretion. Whatever palate is
chosen, the image’s colors will correspond to temperatures
shown on a scale on the left side of the image. Furthermore,
moving the cursor to any spot on the image will result in a
color reading–and not only at the time of image-taking,
but later, from the stored image.
Erica
spent a fair bit of time describing other purposes to which IR
cameras can be put, including detection of paths moisture takes
to immigrate into or through a home, causing mildew and worse.
Closer to our interests, it can be used to identify the paths
taken by radiant heating lines embedded in floors, so drillers
can avoid them.
There’s
an important caveat regarding their use, particularly as
locators. If a source of heat or coolth has been operating for
too long, the temperature differential will dissipate as its
surroundings are warmed or cooled, and the source will not show
up distinct from its surroundings. A secondary, contrary one is
that IR cameras show surface temperatures, so to the extent that
deeper temperatures do not penetrate to the surface, these
cameras are blind to them. This was demonstrated as Erica
scanned the room and displayed the live image through her
projector. Head hair showed up as markedly darker than head
skin, and bearded chins markedly darker than non-bearded areas.
A momentary, perhaps-inconsequential surface temperature change
will show and be recorded: she put her (clean) hand on the wall
for a second, and after she removed it, the IR hand print was
clearly visible.
FLIR
offers a one-day course (actually, 4-5 hours) introducing their
use, for new purchasers. Asked whether renters could attend, she
responded that some spots may be available to potential
purchasers. There also are free half-day seminars, with a
slightly different focus–an expansion of the introductory
pitch that Erica provided to us.
Robert
asked how tough these cameras are. She replied that her
company’s units are “almost milspec.” Wayne
asked about their warranty; they are bundled with a one-year
warranty. He asked about the need for calibration. Yes, she
said, at least yearly you really should send it in for a 5-day
calibration costing between $700 and $2k, depending on the unit.
There
was a bit of har-de-har, for instance questions about taking the
temperatures of co-workers to confirm that they are alive. Erica
took this opportunity to mention that her company’s
cameras were used in China to check airline boarders for fever,
to help combat the SARS epidemic.
Ed
Holt mentioned that the Office of the Architect of the Capitol
purchased a high-end thermography unit last year, and he
considers it the way to go. He has been using it to document the
temperatures of some problematic feeders. Wayne noted that
Prince George’s County has a requirement on the books that
each time a switchboard terminations’ torques are
confirmed, a record be kept of the terminations’
temperatures. Unfortunately, there is no strong reason to
believe that thermography actually is performed each time.
Leviton
After
Erica and her crew left, Bob Zimmerman came up to the plate. He
started out by acknowledging the efforts of Robert Welborne to
bring him. Robert had met him at a Rexel counter day and kept
nudging him with daily phone calls, till he showed up this
evening. Bob mentioned that he had neglected to bring a shirt
that normally is donated for use as a door prize, but that it
remained earmarked for us. We voted unanimously that he send it
to Robert in acknowledgement of his recruiting efforts.
While
Bob may not have had all the answers to questions about Leviton
that a senior factory rep might have been able to provide, he
did offer an informative and light-heartedly entertaining
session. Leviton is the fifth-largest privately-held company in
the U.S. They supply 60% of the wiring devices installed in U.S.
residences. They use manufacturing plants in the U.S., in
Mexico, and in China. (Bob had no idea what the proportion of
product comes out of each.)
Bob
started getting down to detail with GFCIs. All those ones
manufactured under the standard that held through mid-2006 have
been sold. At least the big players are out of stock of those
less-reliable GFCIs. Bob didn’t know of any marking that
can be found reliably on GFCIs, across brands, to indicate
whether they were manufactured under the old or under the new
standard.
The
finding that 20% of GFCIs in the field were nonfunctional
eventually may be relegated to history, as an increasing
proportion of this new style are put in place. Even now, 50-80
lives a year are saved by GFCIs in the U.S.
Ed
Bihlear spoke up on the subject of defective GFCIs. Examining
newly installed GFCIs, and using brand-new LED GFCI testers of
various brands, he has found consistently that a disturbing
proportion of the GFCIs trip in response to their own TEST
buttons but do not respond to the idiot light’s test
button. These are not GFCIs that have been in place long enough
to somehow have reached end-of-life, or GFCIs that have been
exposed to massive surges, or GFCIs that have been miswired or
that are nongrounded. A similarly disturbing proportion trips in
response to the tester, albeit not to its own TEST button.
Ed
Holt brought up the fact that in his rural area, there are many
ungrounded circuits. While they may be GFCI-protected, and
downstream ones may even be marked as GFCI-protected, they may
very well not also be marked, as they should be, “No
Equipment Ground.” Consequently, an inspector using an LED
GFCI tester may complete the circuit to ground through his or
her own body. If the GFCI works, there may be a momentary sting;
if it fails, the consequences could be more serious, depending
on how well the inspector is grounded.
At
one point, faced with all our technical questions, Bob invited
us to sign on to Leviton’s site and take their “Easylearn”
courses, which allow participants to print themselves up
certificates when finished. (He did not claim that these qualify
as evidence of CE activity.) Continuing with his show-and-tell,
another product combines an LED night light with a receptacle,
for hallway or bathroom use. There is a GFCI version, and one
that incorporates a photocell.
With
the 2008 NEC, we may see a requirement to install childproof, or
at least tamper-resistant receptacles throughout residences. We
had a chance to look at a sample. They have offered
tamper-resistant receptacles for some time in the hospital and
commercial grade. Bob says they are in the process of coming out
with a tamper resistant GFCI in hospital grade. The
residential-grade tamper-resistant receptacle, to meet the new
need under the 2008 NEC, is not yet available. (So we install
"commercial grade.") Another change, earlier mentioned
by Robert and David, is the forthcoming requirement for
weather-hardened devices in outdoor use, notwithstanding their
installation in weatherproof enclosures. These too will be
available. (Bob didn’t know when, though the flyer said
“March availability.”) Next were pigtailed
receptacles, which eliminate the need to use push-in,
back-clamp, or screw-terminations. These should cost about 50%
more than familiar basic units. They appear to have triple-wipe
brass contacts. The pigtails are brazed–Bob first said,
“soldered,” but David brazenly pointed out that
electricians are forbidden to use grounding connections that
rely solely on solder. These are available in a Hospital Grade
version as well as standard.
Next,
Bob talked about their intelligent switching lines. The
radio-frequency version operates any corresponding device within
45 feet, 75 within a straight line. I presume that “straight”
means without shielding in the way. A dimmer might run $60, a
programmable unit $100, a receptacle or light module $40. These
also can interface with any other, non-Leviton modules utilizing
z-wave technology. He mentioned someone setting all his lights
to go on when his smoke detectors operate.
Miscellany
After
the presenters left, we chatted widely about Code and safety
issues. Once again the new waterfront complex was a topic. Wayne
noted that the big bucks building similar centers in Florida,
Tennessee, and Texas have carried through with plans that
involved running 13.8 kV above dropped ceilings in cable tray.
Not in Prince Georges county, though. This is a legitimate use
of cable tray in industrial applications. However, Wayne defines
these centers as Places of Assembly, and convinced his division
head. Inches of concrete lie between the 13.8 kV feeds and the
people in those buildings. Someone noted that powerhouse walls
are marked to indicate where the conductors are hidden, so no
one setting an anchor in a wall need risk hitting a live
high-voltage line.
Ed
Bihlear brought a number of panoramic photos of the convention
center. He also brought in some dead devices. One example was a
bonding bushing with a burned lay-in lug–zinc rather than
the copper it should have been.
Wayne
continues to believe that Prince Georges County may end up not
adopting local amendments to the 2005 NEC, just going directly
from the 2002 to the 2008. Apparently a number of engineering
firms offering Third Party Inspection services in DC have lost
their eligibility. Rules for documentation of Third Party
inspection services have become more elaborate.
David
brought in a letter from Tyco encouraging the use and the
acceptance by inspectors of Amp in-line NM splices and taps.
Nobody was enthusiastic about them, though Ed Holt noted that
similar products have been around for years. Ed Bihlear talked
about 3M Scotchloks used in fluorescent fixtures having a
similar design. In his experience, if they get moved around,
they tend to start arcing. Ed Holt and David talked briefly
about push-in, as opposed to general insulation displacement
connections. David has seen problems with line fluorescent’s
terminals that did not have the leads pushed in far enough. Ed
has seen others whose leads were pushed in too far, so that the
wire missed the contact, which grabbed the insulation instead.
Wayne
asked whether anyone had seen undercarpet ribbon in current use.
Ed Bihlear has seen some used on the North side of Baltimore Jim
has, too. Jim also reported inspecting a Laurel hotel that had
wired their clothes dryers in zip cord.
David
next brought up correspondence with Randy Dollar, the AFCI
product manager at Siemens. A recent Siemens mailing strongly
pushed the use of AFCIs. In response, David had asked whether
they had any response to a piece in EC&M in which Mike Holt
guesstimated that under proposed regulations, there would be a
half-Billion dollar expenditure for each live saved by AFCIs.
Furthermore, David asked about reports that they
nuisance-tripped in response to some paddle fans and surge
arrestors.
Before
he could share Mr. Dollar’s response, Ed Holt chimed in
with the information that Mike Holt has, in Ed’s
estimation, turned 180 degrees in his stance on AFCIs, and that
Holt now considers the technology mature enough to make it
worthwhile to enforce the new requirements. Others commented
that the CPSC used to want GFCIs throughout the house, but the
proposal was shot down. Now the CPSC proposes similar widespread
residential application of AFCIs, with the support of the
association of State Fire Marshals, and it seems that the
proposal will become Code.
As
for the latter part of Dollars’ response, he told David
that the nuisance tripping was a response to leakage current.
Siemens’s early AFCIs set their GFP at 10 mA; moved up to
30-50 mA and delaying response for several half-cycles solved
the problem.
This
did not make people happy. Ed Holt reminded us that early GFCIs
would “nuisance-trip” in response to leakage current
from bath exhaust fans. However, it is so long since the UL
standard for equipment reduced the permissible level of leakage
current to below what a Class A GFCI detects that raising AFCIs’
GFP trip level seemed unnecessary, perhaps even suspect.
Subsequent
to the meeting, Siemens's Randy Dollar added these comments:
"I
wish I could agree that all equipment installed had leakage
currents below the Class A GFCI levels, but we measured far too
many paddle fans that leaked current in excess of 10 mA for me
to agree. Many of these fans did not leak that current
continuously but rather on "turn on", at the
initiation of the dimmer control, if so equipped, or at some
other transitional stage that may or may not have been directly
controlled by the customer. We did not investigate why this
happens since we do not manufacture and/or sell these products,
just that it does happen. We originally operated under the same
assumption that Mr. Ed Holt stated and, therefore, did not
expect these results that we later found.
"In
regard to the surge arrestors, many of these devices also
provide some level of filtering. Most of these devices
accomplish this by diverting noise on the power line to ground
intentionally. This noise is well above the 60 Hz line current
but was nevertheless detected by some of the earlier AFCI
production units. Raising the fault current trip level and
delaying the response time slightly allows these products to
perform their intended function without nuisance trips by the
AFCI.
"Our
complaint rate for AFCI products on either side of this solution
also strongly support the fix I stated was indeed the solution.
I hope this helps to better explain those issues."
Next
Most Recent Meeting
This
is the report of our January 16, 2007 chapter meeting. Attending
were six associate members, four inspector members, and five
guests. We’ve now officially moved to the basement lounge
of 9201 Basil Court, until such time as we find a venue that’s
more convenient to, say, Montgomery County members.
Programs
Despite
considerable effort on the part of Harry Langway and Robert
Welborne, none of the speakers they attempted to contact came
through with a program for this meeting. Harry discussed his
educational plans for 2007, which will include regular
CEU-earning activities. We agreed that our last program would
have thoroughly warranted the granting of CEUs. So long as Harry
can get the information to David in time, David will contact the
IO with requests to grant official IAEI CEU certificates.
Harry
hopes to have a program on thermography for March. He’ll
investigate when we can enjoy a return of the fine team of UL’s
Cangemi and NEMA’s Moniz–he’ll ask whether
they can come back as early as this May. There was extensive
discussion of possible programs, with a number of our members
stepping forward with ideas and contacts. Ron Breuer from 3M may
have a program on low voltage cable. There are a number of
exciting demonstrations that we might be able to schedule–one
blowing up a 200 amp panel, another shorting across a
distribution transformer with a metal ladder, that sort of
thing. We have no seminars scheduled for the near future, but
Wayne has agreed to teach a 2008 Code Changes seminar in March,
2008.
Quorum
Quandary
This
was to be our official annual meeting, with our Board meeting
and our election. However, we feel short of a quorum for each.
David described the procedure needed to change our bylaws, for
instance to permit proxy or electronic votes. We did not come up
with any motions to modify to our rules; proposing one for
higher review would have required a quorum, anyway.
Officers
Meanwhile,
lacking a quorum, all officers who are willing to remain in
place do so. Because we are short two officers, Jim exercised
his authority to appoint a new membership coordinator. Robert,
who has energetically worked on this and on our educational
programs, agreed to take on this responsibility. Harry suggested
that Joey Panizari might be willing to fill our At-large seat,
and will broach the matter with him.
Cooperative
Publicity
David
raised another policy issue. We were approached by the
representative of a local supply house that is sponsoring a
couple of Code-related seminars by a well-known presenter, with
the request that we publicize his talks. Given the lack of any
seminars on our schedule, this cooperation did not seem to be
problematical–particularly given that this supply house
publicizes various local activities on their web site (including
ours, when they receive adequate notice). However, while an
off-the-cuff decision to cooperate was made this time, it seemed
wise for us to think it through as a group. Our president asked
that we put this off till our March meeting.
Eats
Another
decision concerned food. Robert had suggested that it might be
helpful to people coming to meetings at 6 PM, right from work,
for us to provide real food. Especially now that our Meatball
Maestro has stepped down and out, hard-working people might be
facing the idea of lasting through the evening on sodas; not
promising. David picked up $70 worth of sandwich makings,
crudites, drinks and suchlike, and they were appreciated.
However, the cost seemed excessive, especially with our cash
reserves down to $220. At future meetings, attendees will be
invited to hit the soda vending machine if they want more to
drink than fountain water (except that the few sodas and
non-perishable juices left over from this meeting will reappear
next time). As for food, we will have something on the order of
one sliced-up giant sub sandwich, and eaters will be
incited–invited, if we eliminate the typo--to throw a
couple of dollars into the basket toward their dinner.
Chat
Big
and a Bit Scary
Most
of the evening, when we weren’t discussing our chapter’s
plans for future meetings, we chatted. The new waterfront
complex was a prime topic. Wayne Robinson has responsibility for
plan review, and some of the plans that have come to him are
disturbingly inadequate. The reviewer becomes the designer, in a
sense, given the number of comments the plans demanded as he
evaluated them. Ed Bihlear has been working on the project, and
he described a number of hair-raising episodes. To the best of
his knowledge, there have been no fatalities yet, and this says
something positive.
Miscellany
Here’s
something that was very positive: all the members present at
this meeting got into the conversation, whether by suggesting
resources for programs or by relating stories. Wayne again
discussed the hard-to-install Homeline Main Bonding Jumper. Ed
Bihlear brought up the recall of a Square D disconnect with an
ergonomically-shaped handle. David talked about the confusion at
Schneider/Square D over the availability of combination-type
AFCIs, particularly in Stablok, which is owned by a subsidiary.
Wayne promised to bring some information that he picked up at
the meeting of a Texas chapter regarding lightning strikes and
also aluminum GECs. Harry expressed bemusement over the fact
that people will run aluminum as the GEC from a loadcenter to a
cold water pipe when the distance is a mere three feet. Robert
countered that he’s amazed at some installers who choose
to put in new services filled with half-size breakers.
Who’s
to Enforce Safety?
Two
of our members who carry some AHJ responsibility threw up their
hands (metaphorically). trying to take it lightly but not
looking as though they succeeded fully. They were expressing
their unwillingness to agonize over the fact that those with
authority over them prevent them from doing what they should be
able to do to ensure electrical safety.
We
discussed various jurisdictions that functioned without chief
electrical inspectors for some time. Ed Holt asked about his
ability to carry a Maryland State inspection license, just as an
added credential. Wayne reads the Annotated Code of Maryland as
saying you have to inactivate your other Maryland licenses if
you want to carry any Maryland inspection license. He also
reported that the State Fire Marshal’s office now has been
given a bank of 250 new, improved questions to select from. A
number of people talked about the old questions as having been
both too easy and too unclear, so it’s a good move that a
competent group was asked to provide replacement items. Finally,
Jim Fridell warned that you need to keep an eye on your
licenses’ renewal dates; he failed to receive the notice
he expected when his was about to expire.
NEC
Sales, Code Adoption
David
asked about the disposition of the NECs the chapter owns. Is
anyone yet likely to be adopting the 2005? Wayne reported that
Prince Georges County may end up not adopting local amendments
to the 2005 NEC, just going directly to the 2008. This said,
although the County presently is enforcing the 2002 NEC, when
people who bring in plans cite the 2005 he is quite willing to
go along with them. There still is hope for our 2005 texts.
Adoption of the International Building Code drives NEC adoption,
Wayne believes, even more in Virginia than in Maryland. Since
they just adopted the 2003 IBC, they just brought in the 2002
NEC. However, they don’t skip versions, so eventually they
will be adopting the 2005 NEC.
Licensure
Proposals
Wayne
has hopes that eventually, even if masters have to arrange for
local licenses as they move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
journeymen will be able to carry a single Maryland license that
is accepted statewide with no further fussing. He also hopes
that a rule will be adopted requiring journeymen to earn ten
CEUs every two years, just like masters.
Good
and Welfare
We
learned that Art Hesse just went through surgery for cancer in
his face. He’s in pain, and expects to be out of
commission for a couple-three months.
Next
Most Recent Meeting
11/21/06
meeting, GW Chapter, 6:30-9:20 pm.
17
attendees + 2 speakers: attendees included 5 inspector members,
5 associate members, and 7 potential members.
The
previous meeting’s minutes were summarized and approved.
David Shapiro pointed out that we lack a Membership committee or
officer. He suggested that, rather than taking up the issue now,
people consider filling this vacancy later on, so as to avoid
taking time away from tonight’s presentation.
David
also reported that the treasury is rather hollow, and why, but
that we’re solvent. He mentioned a mistake he’d
made--misplacing the Chapter’s checkbook and register.
While no checks have been misappropriated, he’s stopped
the absent checks (at his own expense), just to play it safe.
Dick
Bissell announced a cookbook sale to benefit one of the
charities he supports.
We
welcomed the seven apprentices that Robert Wellbourne had
encouraged to attend.
EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM
We
were extremely fortunate to have Gil Moniz here representing
NEMA, and John Cangemi for UL. They entertained and informed us
for two hours, so that portion I can report will be limited,
mostly to tidbits that I personally found to be eye-openers.
∙ In
the introduction of our speakers, I mentioned Gil’s value
as someone who can answer questions such as, as an example,
whether any NEMA member offers, or is working on,
weather-resistant receptacles. These may eventually be required
if a 2008 NEC proposal goes through. (Gil’s response is,
“I am not aware of any weather-resistant receptacles
currently available and I do not know who is or is not working
on them at this time.)
∙ The
general theme for the evening was 110.3(B), but oh my we roamed.
∙ Section
110.14, specifying the temperature limitations on terminations,
originated in the UL White Book. Until being brought into the
Code as a separate section it was enforced via 110.3(B).
∙ Near
its handle a circuit breaker might have a marking authorizing
connection to 60 degree C wiring, or 60 and 75, or whatever. On
its body, typically, it will have a marking of 25 or 40 degrees
C. This latter number is not for terminations but refers to the
maximum acceptable ambient temperature of the environment in
which it will be installed.
∙ Dick
asked whether there are any jurisdictions that accept products
Listed by other agencies but not by UL. (No, not so far as our
presenters know.)
∙ Next,
whether there are any that accept only some Listed products.
Both our presenters sit on the New York City advisory board and
its Code committee, so they were able to answer with certainty.
New York City demands, for example, that fluorescent fixtures
use thicker metal than the minimum that the UL Standard permits,
and rejects fixtures with snap-in terminal ends.
∙ On
to GFCIs. Wayne Robinson asked about Class B GFCIs, which used
to be found in the White Book, but seem absent from the latest
edition. Apparently 1965 and earlier swimming pools with
intrinsic lights had leakage levels requiring Class B GFCIs’
20 mA maximum leakage level, to prevent nuisance tripping. (We
did not discuss whether there is anything inappropriate about
characterizing potentially deadly levels of leakage as
“nuisance.”) The disappearance of Class Bs, Gil
suggests, is due to the fact that no one is making them any
more. Ed Holt brought up GFPE, for the protection of pipe- and
vessel-heating lines and snow-melting tapes. John said that
these devices sometimes still are needed to avoid nuisance
tripping that would occur with Class A GFCIs. GFPE devices have
specified trip levels set between 6 and 50 mA.
∙ Compliance
with Listing includes following specific instructions. In the
case of GFCI receptacles, the manufacturers have established
uniform instructions. At one point, the requirement for “bubble
cover” protection was added, for wet-location
installations. This was not an NEC
requirement,
except via 110.3(B). A point that John repeated several times is
that Listing means that a product complied with the relevant
safety standard at the time it left the manufacturer’s
control. Listing is not removed, but it also does not indicate
that the product remains safe, or complies with the very latest
version of the standard. For example, in 1978, the requirements
for making copper-to-aluminum connections were upgraded to
safer, more-rigorous ones. This did not mean that connectors
manufacturer up till then were “De-Listed.”.
∙ We
were challenged several times to examine slides and identify
which products are Listed for which purposes. A number of
two-screw squeeze connectors were shown, some turning out to be
Listed for use with SE only, some for NM, many but not all of
the latter suitable for use with either one or two NM
connectors. Looking at them offers no indication. The
connectors’ box is the only source of that knowledge.
∙ We
discussed clamps for building steel, with respect–they
thought--to the problem of removing fireproofing to make clamps
permanently accessible. (A 2008 proposal should change that
requirement.) The slide they showed did raise several other
questions among our group. Other grounding clamps were shown and
discussed, in another listing-guessing game. John noted that the
clamps’ basic Listing indicates suitability for use on rod
or pipe electrodes. That’s it, unless they are also or
instead marked for use on other items such as tubing or rebar.
∙ John
talked briefly about the difference between splicing and
termination, and David brought up King’s setscrew-type
wire connectors John spoke highly of their compactness, as well
as the fact that they keep copper and aluminum terminations
separate.
∙ John
led from this to the restriction of receptacle and switch
push-in connections to 14 AWG wires. This came, again, from a
change in the UL standard. The reason is that failures were
being reported only with 12 AWG conductors. John suspects that
this is because 14 AWG wire is more flexible, and when
installers fail to fold wires and tuck them back, 14s don’t
push and pull at the connections as much as do the stiffer 12s.
∙ Back
to GFCIs. John observes that nervous homeowners tend to mix up
line and load terminations less commonly than do hurried
professionals, who don’t take the time to determine which
conductors entering the box are which.
∙ Another
point regarding terminations. Some, but only some, aluminum
conductors are compact-stranded. These must be installed in
connectors that are Listed for such conductors. UL will not List
connectors for compact conductors only, but does List some for
standard stranding only.
∙ One
reason that AC cable installation requires the use of anti-short
bushings, but MC does not, is the greater antiquity of AC.
Another is that MC connectors have smaller openings. openings.
Consequently, they tend to center the conductors away from any
risk of being cut by sharp armor edges.
∙ AC
cable always requires the insertion of a red hat; according to
the Standard, it is not enough to use it with a connector that
contains an intrinsic plastic bushing.
∙ There
are legitimate, officially designated “Hospital grade”
receptacles. However, there are no actual “Hospital grade”
or “Healthcare” cables, although some may be
suitable for certain Article 517 uses. AC cable with a
green-insulated conductor is suitable. In the new type of MC,
originally sold by Alflex but now a Southwire product, with the
oversize bare grounding wire, its armor and the grounding wire
in close contact with it are together considered a grounding
system. Provided that in addition to this it contains a
green-insulated conductor in the wire bundle inside the plastic,
it too can be used in patient-care areas. An older-style MC
containing two green-insulated conductors sometimes was referred
to as “Healthcare” cable, but was not suitable for
this use. A use that is in keeping with its Listing is for
wiring Isolated Ground circuits for reduction of electromagnetic
interference.
∙ When
we moved on to kitchen exhausts, there was a lively discussion
of range hoods versus microwaves. This could have gone on
longer, after the end of the presentation proper, but a portion
of the audience was flagging. Wayne did mention that Calvert
County inspectors require installation of a receptacle above any
range, for future use in wiring range hoods or microwaves.
∙ On
to luminaires and lamps. Ed Holt came right up with the answer
to what the numbers in lamp designations refer to: eights of an
inch in diameter. Thus a tube with the T8 designation is one
inch in diameter, and a pear-shaped, A-designation light bulb
marked A-19 is not quite two-and-a-half inches in maximum
diameter. This has an important implication when it comes to
retrofitting, upgrading, modernizing a luminaire. A fluorescent
designed for T-12s may not work right with a replacement ballast
used with T8s. The problem is that lamps generally need to be
within a certain maximum distance from a grounded surface,
normally half an inch. Otherwise, they may have trouble
starting, and try repeatedly–not a good thing.
∙ Another
pop quiz concerned whether a bath light/exhaust fan could be
installed legally over a tub or shower. The answer was yes,
provided the manufacturer’s instructions are complied
with. The instructions may require you to protect it with a GFCI
We had a bit of discussion over the fact that the sample
instructions we were shown specified protecting the entire
circuit, not just the device. Was this additional protection
necessary? Superfluous? Intended? How much of a chance would you
be taking by ignoring the literal wording?
∙ This
discussion of the wording led to John’s differentiating
between a circuit–the wiring between any two points–and
a branch circuit, meaning the wiring downstream of a branch
circuit overcurrent device. Hence the difference between a GFCI,
merely protecting a circuit under the first definition, and an
AFCI, which is defined in the NEC
as protecting
an entire branch circuit.
∙ John
mentioned the www.UL.org,
with
its regulators’ corner, and its downloadable pdf White
Book. Gil mentioned www.NEMA.org,
with
downloadable documents, for example one on dealing with
water-damaged electrical equipment.
∙ We
went over a few of the items in the six pages of notes from the
Eastern Section Code Workshop that David had distributed to
chapter members. John discussed UL Standards, and availability
of information from them. Standards tend to be 8 ½ by 11
inches by half an inch thick, containing mostly test procedures.
About 80% are ANSI documents, but Standards are not something UL
can afford to give away to anyone and everyone. If an inspector
needs particular information from one of the standards in order
to better make a call on a particular job, sure, the odds are
that this can be accommodated. There has been talk of making all
the standards searchable online by AHJs, through the use of
passwords. It is possible that something like this might some
day come to pass.
∙ Ed
asked about the need to recertify lightning protection systems,
perhaps every second year. To the best of John’s
knowledge, this is not required on the ground that some change
must have been made, but only when the setup is indeed known to
have been modified.
∙ David
asked about AFCIs, and the issue of whether their running warmer
than standard circuit breakers could cause problems in older
panels with narrower troughs. The short answer: no problems have
been reported. So far, there is no indication that the CBs would
need to be staggered. AFCIs do run warmer, but don’t
actually run hot.
∙ Finally,
Wayne asked whether a T.I.A. had been adopted regarding the
derating of conductors in cellular metal floors, as in other
raceways. To the best of Gil’s knowledge, it had not been
adopted.
Next
Most Recent Meeting
9/19/06
meeting, GW Chapter, 6:10-9:40 pm.
26
attendees: possibly 11 inspector members, 14 associate members,
and 1 nonmember
Our
president’s arrival was delayed. Due to our plan of
providing 3.5 hours of continuing education, we started without
him.
We went all over the place, touching on easily a couple
of dozen aspects of grounding. Forgive an assortment of notes
that are more scattered than usual.
Harry
and all thanked Wayne for his services to the Chapter and to
IAEI in teaching the mini-seminars.
David
mentioned the forthcoming Eastern Section meeting in
Philadelphia. He also talked about the UL/IAEI-sponsored child
education program, “I am safety smart,” encouraging
members to sign up to participate. Finally, he invited members
to buy the books we have for sale. (One Code book sold.)
Wayne
started quite promptly. To begin, he said his intention was not
to provide the basics of grounding. He recommended Soares
highly. Later in the evening, he mentioned that in the back of
Soares there’s a list of the lengths of each raceway that
can be relied upon for grounding. Pete, an old-timer and
hard-line inspector who relies on his Soares, sits on a CMP, and
works at keeping up to date, had never used this (but plans to,
thanks to Wayne’s having brought it to his attention).
Wayne’s
first comment was that you size grounding conductors as you
would ungrounded.
We spent some time on the differences
between grounded and ungrounded systems. For grounded systems,
grounding facilitates the operation of overcurrent devices.
Ungrounded systems are not designed to trip overcurrent devices
on ground faults, except when they turn into phase-to-phase
faults.
There are three types of wiring system between 50
volts and 1000 that must be grounded. Then over 1 kV, systems
supplying mobile or portable equipment are required to be
grounded, while systems serving non-portable equipment are
permitted to be grounded.
In
general, high-voltage systems operate ground fault protection
via relays. (We had an extensive discussion of what to
characterize as “high-voltage.”) Ungrounded delta is
grounded only via capacitance in metal raceways. As of the 2005
NEC, all delta systems require ground detectors. The first
ground fault to occur creates a corner-grounded system, and a
relay operates to alert whoever’s monitoring it. This
gives them time to complete any important process and shut the
system down. Any second ground fault, though, creates a nasty
phase-to-phase short.
High-impedance
grounded systems are much safer than ungrounded. With an 8 AWG
neutral conductor going to ground, fault current is limited to
less than 10 amps. Tracking down the fault was very hard in
ungrounded systems. It could be anywhere in the system. You
could have 10 feeders in a building. In such a case, you have to
go to the service and find out which feeder it’s in, and
then which phase. We also had quite some discussion regarding
the installation of separately derived systems based on
generators. Most manufacturers insist on a local ground rod.
Pete and David and Ed Holt and Wayne had a nice little go-round
on this. Grounds are common to both systems; they tend to be
connected through building steel even if by no other path.
There
are systems that are not permitted to be grounded: Class 3,
health care isolation transformer systems, low voltage lighting,
and electrolytic cells.
Pete
reminded us of an IAEI News article published some years ago
about South African paper mills with problems of flashovers to
ground. This was due to their burning off cane; the smoke was
conducting.
Parenthetically,
Wayne noted, overvoltages and surges are burning out downstream
surge protectors.
We
turned aside for a while, as Wayne told us how he hates Homeline
panels due to “small terminations,” and a too-short
MBJ. He was there just to observe his son install a Homeline,
but got sucked in to the painfully difficult job of trying to
secure the Main Bonding Jumper. Ed Holt, on the other hand, says
he never has had a callback with Homeline panel, but has with
Cutler Hammer CH panels and Schneider QOs. Ed did not say how
many of each he’s been involved with, though, so there may
well be a baseline effect. (In other words, his sample of
Homelines might be on the small side, biasing his findings.)
In
the course of reviewing options for identifying return
conductors, Wayne mentioned using a white with three colored
stripes. Ed Holt said he is familiar with computer circuits run
in a common raceway, normally with separate neutrals. Nowadays a
grounded conductor with three white stripes, on a base color
other than green, is a regular production item. For example, he
is used to seeing a raceway containing a white grounded
conductor with three black stripes as the identified conductor
for a circuit whose hot conductor is black, with three blue
stripes for a blue hot, etc.
Next
Wayne showed us a picture of a silvery ground lug screwed to the
back of a cabinet. The first thing that made him uneasy is that
it was not copper. We had a big discussion of the suitable
material for grounding lugs. Another question was Listing. Drill
and tap a panel and you may not have enough thickness for the
lug to be secured properly. Wayne figures that the locations for
pre-tapped holes for securing grounding terminal strips or MBJs
may be thickened. Another member disputed this observation, at
least as a rule.
Another
interesting morsel was that if you have an ungrounded system
serving a building and add a grounded system in the building,
you must add a grounded conductor to the first system.
Otherwise, faults in it could travel to the first system’s
MBJ via the grounding electrodes. Main bonding jumpers strike
Wayne as tiny for the fault they may need to carry and survive.
The
next topic was zigzag grounding of delta transformers. The
arrangement appeared to consist of connecting a y-transformer
superimposed on/into a delta, their windings connected together.
Another discussion concerned the need to bond greenfield
extending from a separately-derived system.
Wayne
reminded us that delta systems cannot use slash-rated circuit
breakers, such as ones marked 120/240 Volt.
Back
to sizing grounding conductors. Realistically, nowadays, the 12
1/2% sizing of conductors over 1750 kcmil is only going to be
found with paralleled conductors, Wayne pointed out.
We
had a fun discussion of how to bring service conductors from a
wireway into multiple disconnects. Wayne showed a picture of
such a setting, and discussed the need for bonding bushing, with
special emphasis on the fact that the jumpers from the bonding
bushings have to be sized appropriately. Wayne often sees 6 AWG
bonding jumpers whatever the conductor sizes, rather than larger
size jumpers that might be required. A member pointed out that
this expense and complication could be eliminated by using RNMC,
and Wayne granted the point. In the course of this, someone
pointed to the field-cut threads of the steel nipples in the
slide. We learned that as an apprentice, Pete used to use red
led to paint cut threads before handing conduit to the
electrician.
What
about the use of reducing washers in service equipment? Some are
listed for grounding and bonding. Wayne is not enthusiastic
about this, especially because of their not being made up tight.
He said, “If I can spin it, add a bonding bushing.”
He
noted that a 2005 change requires remote metering to be adjacent
to the service. Otherwise, the frame could be a
current--carrying conductor.
Wayne
spoke highly of CMI’s rebar clamp. Pete warned that some
water pipes have a shiny protective coating giving a really high
impedance where the grounding electrode connector tried to dig
in. unless you rough them up with plumber’s paper.
Wayne
spoke distastefully of the permission to ignore grounding
impedance when two ground rods are installed. Pete, often the
Tartar, spoke proudly of his use of a grounding meter, and
talked about his insistence on satisfactory grounding
electrodes.
We
puzzled over reports of a couple of utilities disapproving
Ufers. Allegheny Power in Garrett County rejects Ufers, as does
DelMarva Power on the Eastern Shore. Both insist on driven
ground rods, despite rock in Garrett, and sandy soil on the
shore.
Noticing
a slide showing a ground rod with a GEC diving underground from
a house on its way to the rod, David asked inspectors what they
consider adequate protection for a GEC heading away from a house
toward a ground rod. Pete said he requires they be run 18"
deep, “standard shovel depth,” to protect it from
gardeners. Wayne and some others questioned this idea of a
standard shovel depth. Ed Holt cited 300.5, requiring three-foot
depth. Wayne said nope, it’s not voltage related. Simply
run it below soil level.
Jim
asked about bonding gas pipe. Wayne said yes. David noted that
doing so via an appliance such as a furnace is okay. Wayne
pointed out that Washington Gas is supposed to have a
nonmetallic fitting in each gas meter. Jim said they don’t
ground or bond gas pipes in Annapolis. Wayne cited 250.66 as the
place to look for bonding-conductor sizing if you don’t
have a gas appliance.
Joey
asked about using a stove igniter's plug for bonding a gas
system. David rejected this on the ground that a plug-in
appliance does not offer reliable system bonding. Wayne
aphorized, “If you have to ask yourself, bond it.”
We
learned that Fairfax County requires the use of a 6"-plus
piece of 4" PVC with a female fitting and plug atop each
ground rod, to help inspectors locate the top of the ground rod.
Ed
mentioned that 15 years ago the end of a ground rod was required
to be accessible, but then an old lady tripped and fell, hurting
herself against it. (She did manage to drive herself to the
hospital.) In response to her experience, they removed a
requirement the end of ground rods be accessible. Harry said
that eight years ago, in Baltimore City, a woman tripped over a
bush and put her eye out on the top of a rod.
Next,
some stories of greed. Wayne said there is a big problem of
people stealing copper in Prince George’s County. Ed said
that classy copper downspouts and gutters are being stolen.
Clean #1 Cu brings close to $3 a pound now.
Wayne
mentioned that during his trip to California, when he might have
been playing, he spent some time observed grounding systems. He
learned that they’re using lots of the armored GECs which
look like BX. Clearly, these still are being made.
Finally,
Pete told us that Bill Davidson’s DC’s new chief
electrical inspector.
Pete
had mentioned, early on, that comments on the ROP, which are due
by October 20, now can be submitted online. The URL is
http://submissions.nfpa.org/onlinesub/onsubmain.php
Previous
Meeting
This
is the full report of our May 2006 meeting.
26 attended:
about 4 nonmembers, 17 Associate members, and 5 inspector
members.
Business
Minutes
President
Jim Wooten surprised secretary David Shapiro by not asking for a
reading of the minutes.
Money
In
other standard business, David reported our treasury at nearly
$1200–it ended up at a bit more, actually, once some
attendees paid for their workbooks.
Contacts
In
new business, David mentioned concern that he had been asked to
send meeting notices to Richard Keely, John Gomolijak & John
Nelson, but not provided with addresses or edresses for them.
President Jim Wooten had one, and Richard provided his own; Jim
has promised the third.
Space
Wayne
explained that the meeting room actually had 37 chairs, so we
had not needed to turn anyone away. We’ll keep that in
mind for subsequent meetings that do not move to a larger venue.
Unfortunately, only one of those registered who could not make
it let us know ahead of the meeting, enabling a wait-listed
member to attend.
Our Education Committee are actively
seeking suitable meeting spaces with more room.
Next
Meetings
Attendees
at our September 19 meeting will enjoy the last mini-seminar for
this year, on grounding. A tentative plan, based on a model
David thought derived from the practices of the Lancaster, PA
chapter, is to encourage all interested members of the industry
to attend, presuming we have enough seats, but to issue CEUs
only to IAEI members. At our November 21 meeting we anticipate
learning from representatives from UL, NEMA, and at least one
manufacturer.
Code
Issues
Darrell
Robinson showed us literature associated with the Colorado Jim
cable straps. In the course of his inspections, Darrell had
needed to correct some installers who used these for purposes
other than those for which they are intended. While these are
Listed for use with as many as four 6-2 NM cables, some
installers try to make them hold more. Interestingly, their
limitations vary depending not only on whether they are used to
secure cables to wood studs or metal ones but also on whether
they are used in the U.S. or Canada. (Canada lets them hold
fewer cables of a particular size than we do.)
David
also brought up three issues of products standards or Code
interpretation. Most concerned outdoor installations. One is
wording in Article 312 seems to greenlight product use in
violation of Listings. “Are NM connectors suitable for
damp locations?” one member asked. No, only dry. Yet we
use them as installers, and accept their use as inspectors,
outdoors on the undersides of wet-location enclosures, even when
we don’t consider the interiors of the enclosures to be
dry locations. We have accepted this practice forever. The same
is true of SEC and SER connectors, which we accept even on the
sides of outdoor enclosures, clearly wet locations. (This is in
keeping with 312.2.) One member mentioned that he never has seen
a watertight connector for SER, only for SEC; nobody chimed in
to say that they remembered seeing one for SER. His point was
that if a wet location connector for the purpose is not
available, its use can’t be required, for example where
SER exits a meter stack to feed the indoor (sub)panel.
David
mentioned a warning by Gil Moniz, our NEMA rep. While gland ring
cable connectors for hubs on the tops of meter cans pass
rigorous tests, what’s actually installed may not keep out
water. The problem is that each connector is designed to seal a
certain range of cable sizes, and different manufacturers’
cables have slightly different dimensions. We agreed that to be
safe, adding a little duxseal, as we have in the past, is the
way to go.
(An
additional issue was mentioned recently in the “UL
Question Corner.” All watertight hubs are designed to mate
with conduit and conduit only, because of their threading. Given
this, arguably we also should use duxseal around the rim where a
connector enters a hub.)
Then
there was an issue concerning the interiors of wet-location
enclosures. When an FS or FD box is mounted against a building
wall, should UF enter it from the building, or is NM okay? Wayne
noted that he considers the space between the building and the
box a wet location, and we agreed that it needs to be sealed if
NM and an NM connector are used. Still, there was the issue of
bringing dry-location conductors into a box whose interior is
not dry. One member noted that he considers the interiors of FD
boxes dry enough for practical purposes, condensation not being
a significant concern. However, he has been less satisfied with
FSs. Then Rich said that the problem isn’t real: he’s
sure that all the NM he sees has dual-rated THHN/THWN
conductors. We agreed that if that’s what’s being
sold around here, the problem is resolved.
The
last question David brought up is that a raceway can be used as
a protective sleeve for NM cable, in recent Code cycles, but
when the “protective sleeve” continues on to
enclosures, is it a protective sleeve or is it a wiring system?
If it’s a wiring system, it seemed to him that the
transition should be made in an enclosure, whether or not the
cable sheath is stripped back. The distinction between a wiring
system and a protective sleeve is not defined explicitly. Nobody
shared his concern. In the course of the discussion, Ed said
that there needs to be a transition fitting, at least, between
the cable and raceway, but only where accessible.
Wayne
asked whether anyone has used the MC cable with a bare aluminum
bonding wire. No one had. He noted that it’s quite light,
and the bare wire does not need to be terminated–it can be
clipped. David asked how this differs functionally from BX,
whose skinnier bonding conductor permits its armor to be used
for grounding. It appears that its having a fatter wire inside
its sheath enables installers to follow the rules for the MC
cable, Chapter 330, rather than AC cable, 320, without having
grounding conductors to terminate. Perhaps if we have a
representative of the manufacturer over, we will learn the
tradeoffs between this and corrugated-sheath MC.
A
few members brought up the practice of temporarily substituting
cable connectors for bugs. Although one or two respected members
did not think this was anything very wrong, no one was prepared
to stand behind it as a legitimate practice, even in service
work where the utility was going to come by fairly soon to
re-terminate.
We
talked briefly about circuit breakers and the unlikeliness of
decalibration. Jim Holt pointed out that this certainly wasn’t
the case with FPE, whose infamous fraud meant the calibration of
breakers manufacturing had been totally untrustworthy. He worked
with UL on clearing up that mess. If we’re lucky, maybe
we’ll get him to tell the story from his firsthand
perspective at one of our meetings.
Other
matters
A
few members bemoaned the standards of our educational
institutions. They are finding new hires not sufficiently
literate to handle their job requirements. A disturbing number
are helpless at performing simple arithmetic without a
calculator–no one mentioned slide rules!--can’t take
reliable measurements, can’t read and write adequately to
fulfill the modest demands of their jobs. Parenthetically, this
is not just a matter of a couple of contractors bellyaching
about the local high schools, and no one bothering to contradict
them, nor even merely a local issue. Even high school graduates
who get into college have this problem. Reportedly the March 10
Chronicle of Higher Education stated that 40% of these kids need
remedial work.
One
of the disillusioned contractors made an unexpected side
comment. He is concerned about the affect of such electricians
on the status of our industry, which he sees as relatively low.
None of us who have different opinions of the status of
electricians felt strongly enough to speak up and dispute that
comment.
Someone
asked about testing and reciprocity. Two points were made.
First, journeyman tests have had pass rates on the order of 33%.
Second, Charles County has accepted journeymen on the basis of
grandfathering rather than testing. In consequence, no other
county is known to have accepted a Charles County license as the
basis for reciprocal licensure.
Seminar
Last
time, Wayne showed dozens of slides that he had prepared, some
with sketches, some with sketches and calculations. This time,
no slides. He had prepared a spiral-bound, colored 100-page
workbook, though we didn’t actually work from it. People
who didn’t make it to the meeting and want to receive
copies may order them from the chapter secretary for $25.
While
we spent a certain amount of time on Code calculations, at least
as much of the evening was devoted to discussion of Code
changes, and how they modify the numbers we come up with. For
instance, with the 2002 Code, a small change in the article on
SE cable used indoors meant that its 75 Degree rating now can be
used. Through the 1999, there was no exception to the rule that,
indoors, it has to follow all the installation requirements for
NM cable--including the 60 Degree ampacity limitation. Coming
forward, there is a significant change in feeder taps’
wire sizes, and those on the secondary sides of transformers.
One
of the first points Wayne brought up is that up to 800 amps,
fuse sizes can be greater than conductors’ ampacities.
However, he emphasized, the conductors must be sized to be
adequate for the loads they serve.
Soon
we moved on to calculating the load for a sample residence. He
noted that in the 2005 NEC, “Fixed appliances” are
referred to simply as appliances. Just as in Article 430, we
look for the largest motor load in a home, to take at 125%. This
does not mean guessing or extrapolating: if there are major
appliances whose loads are not specified as part-motor, they are
not to be considered. The largest identified motor load may
merely be the garbage disposal.
The
former Note 3, now Table 310.15(B)(6), appears to be the source
of some confusion. Wayne reminded us that it only applies to
single-phase services and feeders. Because it only goes up to
400 amps, it does not apply to some multifamily dwellings.
Patiently, he clarified someone’s confusion about its
applicability. After a small tussle, the member took in the fact
that indeed 310.15(B)(6) applies to a feeder from the service
disconnect to an apartment, although not from an apartment panel
to any subpanels. For other residential services and feeders, we
revert to 310.16.
Shifting
from residences, Wayne talked about load calculations for other
buildings. Wayne pointed out that Section 230.42 sets the pace
with the rule for service calculations, and the same logic
applies in 215.2 for feeders and 210.19 for branch circuits.
Conductor ampacity needs to be adequate to carry 100% of
noncontinuous load plus 125% of continuous. Historically, all
lighting in commercial buildings has been continuous; this needs
to be taken into account in performing calculations.
He
described 220.14(K) as a clarification. With banks and office
buildings, you need to compare the load added to the basic
square-footage requirement by multiplying the number of
general-use receptacles by 180 VA with the load added by
multiplying footage by an additional 1 VA. Then you add the
loads required by receptacles for specific equipment.
Section
220.14(G) is different, at least to some of the inspector
members present. Wayne does not believe a show window can be
calculated optionally. The Code says to figure it one of two
ways, either at 200 VA per foot, or at the per-outlet figure.
The latter might be 180 VA for receptacles. If it’s a
known “specific load,” that nameplate rating would
be the figure. If it’s a track, it would be 75 VA per
foot. Any of these is taken at 125% for continuous operation. He
reports a consensus among Code authorities he’s read that
it should be taken as the larger of these two means of
calculating the load. Ed Holt pointed out that the NEC does not
say so explicitly.
He
reminded us that we need to allow for a sign circuit when
performing design and calculations for any commercial building
with grade access. This includes any non-residential building–a
school, for example.
Wayne
walked us through sizing a wireway for service conductors.
Members appeared surprised at the fact that conductors in
nonmetallic wireways require derating as they would in conduit,
whereas derating in metal wireways depends on fill. After
talking about fill, he brought up wire-bending space. As an
aside, he noted that conductors in 200 amp panels often violate
the requirement in 312.6 for wire-bending space.
Proceeding
to a transformer calculation, he gleefully noted a change in
conductor sizing, improving safety. The fuse on the primary side
of a transformer can be upsized to 250%. Why? To handle inrush
current.
Consider
a 112.5 kVA transformer. Primary current rating will be 135 A,
secondary 312 A. The permissible 250% upsizing of primary-side
protection yields 337 A, permitting use of a 350 A fuse. Up till
the 2002 NEC, under the 25-foot tap rule there was no minimum
size for secondary conductors to feed a 100 A panel, beyond the
100 A rating of the load OCD. Now, though, 240.21(C)(6) says
that the secondary conductors need ampacity 1/3 the primary
protection X the transformer ratio. This can mean these
conductors will need to be upsized, unless the primary
transformer protection is downsized or secondary protection is
provided at their origin.
One
issue that was not resolved is where a 10' feeder tap can
terminate.
Section 240.21(B)(1)(b)limits the ampacity of a
feeder tap to either of two numbers. The second phrase of the
sentence mentions the rating of the overcurrent device fed by
the tap. The first phrase, though, mentions the rating of the
device fed by the tap. We did not come to a clear agreement as
to an example of such a "device." It seemed like a
strange term to use for a switchboard or panelboard.
Previous
Meeting
This
is the full report of our March 2006 meeting.
Wayne
Robinson, who has been teaching Code topics forever, has agreed
to offer at least two mini-seminars in association with our
chapter’s meetings. At the end of our March 21, 2006
chapter meeting (which started around 6:30 p.m.), we enjoyed an
overview of Article 430, addressing motors and motor
calculations.
With
our usual venues unavailable, we were grateful for the kindness
of Prince George's Community College, which let us use the space
without charge. The only cost, as it were, was that we were not
permitted to charge a fee for attendance. The room seats only 30
people, and we nearly filled it, with 13 associate members, 4
nonmembers, and 8 inspector members. If not for six no-shows, it
would have overflowed. A couple of members showed up without
having registered, on the off chance that there would be room.
(Our May meeting is booked to capacity, unless we can arrange
for a larger venue.)
Business
President
Jim Wooten started by asking for a reading of the minutes.
Secretary David Shapiro did not have them with him, mentioned
that they are available on the chapter’s web site (and in
shorter form appear in IAEI News), and furthermore warned that,
given their length, reading them could use up a significant
portion of the meeting’s time. Jim has asked David to
bring summaries to our future meetings.
In
other standard business, David stated that our bookkeeper, Pam
Panizari, reported our treasury activities proper. As of early
April, we have more than $1300, a healthy start on our main
annual expense, paying for representation at the Section
meeting. An annual report has been forwarded to the IO. This
ensures that we will receive our share of dues money this year.
In
new business, David mentioned a concern that was brought to his
attention. Some inspector members, he was told, avoid our
meetings and seminars, or at best attend but sit quietly at the
back of the room. This is because if they speak up at meetings,
it can come back to hit them in the face. Certain contractors
who have attended these meetings have asked for Code
interpretations from the inspectors in attendance. Later, on the
job, they have used their memories of these interpretations to
challenge the on-the-job rulings by colleagues of these
inspectors.
There
were quite a few responses to this, and they varied
considerably. One was, “If you’re confused about a
Code issue, come up to me privately to ask my opinion; don’t
embarrass yourself in front of the whole room.” Someone
pointed out that in his opinion there isn’t a lot of Code
that takes interpretation. Most of it is clear if you read the
text. Others disagreed. Another suggestion was, “The
inspector on the job is the AHJ, and he rules. You can appeal
his ruling to the chief, but for this effort the dispute is
going to have be over the need to make a change that results in
real cost." Yet another voice piped up with, “Inspectors
who have that kind of worry are just the sort of people who
would get the most benefit from these meetings.” Another
comment was, approximately, “If I expect to do this kind
of work, I just can’t be too thin-skinned.” There
were many more. One thing that did not happen was for any
consensus to emerge. Certainly the invitation is there, for all
every member to attend, and it does not carry with it the
obligation to ask or to respond to any question, for any reason.
Seminar
We
didn’t wait too long before letting Wayne get started, not
with two and a half hours of education to fit in. He showed
dozens of slides that he had prepared, some with sketches, some
with sketches and calculations, and relatively few devoted to
text. Wayne kept largely to the intention he stated up front of
not reading slides. Instead, he asked us questions, he answered
some of ours, and he added comments to the material we were
looking at. Here are some examples.
What
are torque motors? Belt drives are an example.
What
are adjustable voltage motors? Printing presses are an example.
Their brush locations are moved in accordance with the applied
voltage. Six- and nine-wire motors can have different circuits,
with differently-sized wires, for each speed.
The
2005 NEC removed reference to Design E motors. They never were
built in quantity, not being sufficiently energy-efficient.
Until
the 2005 NEC is enforced, there could be motors with higher AIC
ratings than their controllers, with the result that the
controllers and equipment can be destroyed.
Wayne
and others recommended obtaining Bussman’s information on
AIC and selective coordination. It can be found in their catalog
and online at www.bussman. com.
Wayne
mentioned that he prefers getting numbers from 430.251 over
using his formula to calculate locked-rotor current. This is
needed mainly for fire pumps. Wye-delta starting lowers starting
current by 50%. He advised getting hold of NFPA 20 for work on
fire pumps, as 680.95 does not have all the information you’ll
need.
“What’s
duty cycle?” he asked. It refers to the number of minutes
out of every 60 that equipment will run.
We
spent a little time on taps. Wayne pointed out that motor taps
send you to 430.28, unlike feeder taps.
Ed
Holt piped up when we got to 430.57, which requires fuseholders
be sized to accommodate Table 430.52 fuses. Can you have larger
fuseholders, and use reducers? Wayne came back with, “Are
fuseholder reducers Listed?”
Safety,
always safety: 70E, Wayne mentioned, is the NFPA’s biggest
seller after the NEC.
Looking
at 430.72(B)(2), Motor Control Circuits, he noted that the level
of overcurrent protection they require varies depending on
whether they are fully within the controller enclosure, or
extend beyond it, as with remote start-stop stations.
The
NEC is not the only player when it comes to legitimizing motor
work.. Listing laboratories are involved, too. UL spent months
going over the Mitsubishi presses at the Washington Post and the
Gazette. European motors are rated in kW. You divide this by 746
to get the equivalent HP rating. They are very high quality, and
the voltages are specified to accommodate wide ranges.
As
the evening continued, we all wore down a bit, with this coming
at the end of a regular work day. Some of the impromptu asides
concerned UL’s follow-up of Listed products, after they
have made their way successfully through the initial
investigation. We were left with these comments: If the agency
receives a letter complaining about a product, they may take a
serious look at the factory. Otherwise, one knowledgeable person
complained, their checking can be entirely too superficial.
This
is the report of our January 17, 2006 meeting at the Prince
Georges' County Offices at Peppercorn Place, in Largo, MD.
President Jim Wooten called us to order around 6:40 p.m. Besides
our two presenters, we had 18 attendees: seven inspector
members, nine associates, one lapsed member, and one non-member.
We
started out with Executive Board and business matters.
Treasury
David
reported that our treasury continues to be healthy. We are due
for an audit, but he sees more than $1400 in our checking
account, before paying for our next flyer mailing.
Job
Descriptions
David
proposed that we explain the duties associated with each office.
This is what we came up with, accepted unanimously:
Duties
of all the Board: Attend regular meetings regularly; discuss and
vote on matters that can’t wait for a regular meeting,
either by phone and email or at a special executive meeting
should this strike the president as necessary, as has been the
case once so far.
President: Preside over meetings; Call for
a special meeting, if deemed necessary; make any command
decisions required. For example, decide if a meeting is to be
cancelled for bad weather.
Vice presidents, in order: take
over when the president is unavailable.
Past President:
Provide guidance to the president as desired; take over when
both the president and the vice president(s) are unavailable.
Secretary-treasurer: Get out flyers, record and post the
minutes, maintain the web site, look up answers to bylaws
questions, handle correspondence and generally any other writing
or printing, generally interact with the IO, maintain our bank
account, and normally represent the Chapter on the Section
Board, attending their meetings.
Education: Arrange for
programs at meetings, and notify the secretary in good time for
him to inform the membership.
Seminars: Arrange for other
educational programs, particularly more-extensive ones; normally
enable the chapter to raise funds by doing so; handle associated
logistics.
Membership: Welcome new members; recruit members;
contact inactive or departing members and try to resolve any
concerns they express.
At Large: No specific duties.
Godfather: Keeps us steering right.
This is not an
exhaustive list of possible offices.
Note: The bylaws
restrict the presidential and vice-presidential offices, and
them only, to Inspector members.
Election
Subsequently,
we voted in this year’s officers. Our 2006 Board consists
of the following:
President: Jim Wooten
Vice President:
Wayne Robinson
Second Vice President: Vacant
Past
President: Wayne Robinson
Secretary-Treasurer: David
Shapiro
Education: Harry Langway
Seminars: Wayne
Robinson
Membership: Dino Panizari
At Large: Susan
Flashman
Godfather: Vacated by the death of Art
Hesse
Assistant Godfather: Vacated by Dick Bissell's dropping
out of IAEI
At
our last meeting, Jim urged that flyers be sent out so as to be
received a week before meetings, and a consensus supported him
at this. David unilaterally decided to wait till after the
meeting and send out a special mailing, giving attendees at our
January meeting first crack at signing up. This turned out to be
a good idea, as we decided to amend them slightly.
The
members of our new education committee, Harry Langway and Robert
Welborne, want to begin general distribution of flyers shortly
after Valentine’s Day, presuming that any seats remain
available. Therefore, the flyers mailed out now to members will
give them a deadline of February 13 by which to get their
registrations back, in order to receive preferential treatment
over non-members.
David will be responsible for collecting
registrations and printing up CE certificates.
Later
in the meeting, Wayne expressed concern over logistical matters
for the mini-seminars: seating and the availability of a
projector. He will investigate solutions.
Wayne,
Jim, David, and Ed were applauded for their service.
EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM
We
enjoyed an excellent introduction to firestopping.
Ron
Breuer from 3M had a quite-distant appointment early the next
morning. Still, we got a lot of questions answered. One
indication that Ron is a master of his subject matter is that he
showed no defensiveness. He talked freely, and generously, about
Nelson, Hilti, and STI. He praised competitors’ web sites,
recommended this competitor as having field representatives who
give fine presentations, acknowledged that company as having
originated one type of fire sealant, this company another. I
don’t mean that he ignored 3M’s contributions.
Still, this added up to give him a feeling of solid
trustworthiness.
I
can’t hope to convey most of what he taught us, so I’ll
give you a handful of useful snippets.
Firestops
can have three types of rating. Electricians are most concerned
with “F” and “L” ratings, but there are
also “T” ratings. An “F” rating says
that the barrier will not allow flame to pass through for a
specified time. A “T” rating says that heat rise on
the other side of the barrier is limited to a specified extent
for a certain amount of time. An “L” rating says
that the rate of air --meaning smoke and toxic gases--leaking
through is limited in a specified way.
There are four types
of firestop.
The first is intumescent, meaning that it
expands when heated. After you insert backing material in a
hole, a half-inch of this caulk or putty does the job.
The
second is endothermic, meaning that it releases chemically-bound
water once it reaches 600 deg F, and cools the penetration.
The
third is ablative, meaning that it slowly sacrifices itself,
keep fire from penetrating by burning away. Only 1/4-1/2"
is needed over the backing material.
The fourth is
insulative. As it is packed in, it blocks fire from penetrating,
without any need to expand.
Packing
materials vary, and they, unlike the active firestopping
materials, are fungible; you do not need to use one from the
same manufacturer whose firestopping materials you are
installing. The best is mineral wool, but others include
fiberglas and alumina silica fiber or strips, and barrier duct
wrap. Unlike packing, you must not mix and match different
manufacturers’ products when it comes to other firestop
materials, the active components, because these are Listed
systems. Whatever the firestop, it cannot improve the
fire-protective rating beyond the rating of the wall or floor
system itself. It is pointless to firestop to a greater level. A
wall with 5/8" sheetrock on each side commonly has a
one-hour fire rating; with double 5/8" sheetrock on each
side, two hours. A four-inch thick concrete floor commonly has a
two-to-four hour fire rating. A firestop is not a material as
such; it is a system, meaningless unless installed in the manner
specified by the UL Fire Resistance Directory. This
specification can be found in the installation guide, available
as a book from the manufacturer, on the manufacturer’s web
site, or both.
Generally,
a floor needs firestopping installed on either the top or the
bottom, but a wall requires it on both sides. It is important to
firestop all the way around cables or conduits in holes (between
them as well, especially when they run vertically), rather than
leaving them in contact with the hole on one side, and
consequently not getting firestop between them and the hole on
that side. It is far preferable not to have the hole a great
deal larger than what needs to pass through it. If it is too
large, a composite sheet can be installed, secured with fender
washers, to reduce it to a blockable size. With cable tray, one
issue is how many conductors are in the tray, because only the
wires inside the plastic are reliably noncombustible and
nonmelting.
UL
distributes product ID numbers to the various manufacturers.
They share common elements. If the ID starts with an “F,”
it is for use in firestopping floors only. If the ID starts with
a “W,” it is for use in firestopping walls only. If
the ID starts with an “C,” it is for use in
firestopping either. The number following the letters tells you
whether the system is for firestopping empty holes, holes
containing metal conduit, holes containing plastic conduit,
holes containing electrical cable, and so on.
Here
are some other notes.
Fire
blocks, unlike firestopping systems, only block smoke and toxic
gases. Still, if a barrier has no fire rating, these can be
suitable, and less expensive than firestopping. They may be
colors other than red, to distinguish the materials. Seams of
drywall spackle separate in fire. Mortar repairs of cinderblock
result in multiple seams: the one where the mortar hits the
cinderblock and the one where the mortar hits the item
penetrating. Both are vulnerable. Firestopping pillows are
mineral wool with intumescent material on each side. Four
pointers about using them: (1) do not remove the plastic
wrapping. (2) step on each one to compress it tight before
installing it. (3) stick them the long way into the wall, using
more of them. (4) They can block only so large an opening. If
necessary, repair the wall between penetrations, in order to use
pillows to block them. Telecom wiring takes putty sheets molded
about it. It costs $3.– to $4.50 a sheet. Putty goes
around metal boxes, but not plastic. Add 5/8" of caulk, and
you get 50dBa soundproofing. The loose material looks like duct
seal. Mark Bryant, the product rep who introduced Ron, used to
represent Carlon. He described plastic boxes’ behavior in
fire. They transmit the heat to their content less than do metal
boxes, whose contents bake. After the fire reaches a certain
point, the plastic boxes melt, further protecting their contents
(in a manner Mark did not have time to explain). Too much
intumescent caulk or, protecting telecom wiring, too much
intumescent putty can be not merely useless but harmful. It can
overexpand and break the seal. A final and important note: If
you don’t have UL’s red multi-volume fire-resistance
directory, and don’t want to have to visit web sites when
you install or inspect these systems, you need
manufacturer-specific literature. Call 3M at 1-800-245-3573 and
you will be given the option of requesting theirs. Members
attending our meeting loaded up on it.
Code
Matters
ASHI
home inspector Bob Sisson, a member whose attendance usually has
been impeded by meeting night conflicts, described some puzzling
restrictions on receptacle installation. All of us agreed that
the NEC says nothing about putting the ground up or down, right
or left. (Actually, David mistakenly thought that in flammable
anesthetizing locations there was or had been a requirement; a
little checking proved this wrong.) Some jurisdictions,
apparently, did impose rules in this regard. Specifically, where
receptacles are used as the required switched lighting outlets,
some builders like to specify that the lighting outlets be
installed in the opposite orientation to the other receptacles
in the room, as an indication that they are the switched
outlets. This was forbidden by some inspectors–some
jurisdictions outruling the practice entirely, and others
calling it a violation only when the receptacle was split-wired.
As he went though such houses, Bob was stuck with the option of
using a permanent marker to indicate which receptacles were
switched. None of us could explain these restrictions in terms
of Code rules, nor even in terms of documented local amendments.
Montgomery County, Maryland had been one of the jurisdictions
named. A subsequent check with Phil Waclawski confirmed that
they have no such requirement. If an inspector insisted on
anything with regard to receptacle orientation, this was
independent action, and could be challenged. He also mentioned
that they hope to move on the 2005 NEC, with luck sending it to
Council for adoption this year. They will work on paring down
amendments.
Bob's
comments led to some other wild and wonderful stories. (These
followed the "truth can be stranger than fiction"
violation photos to which a couple of members treated us.) One
member inspected an installation with switched lighting outlets
in the corner of a room far from any place where they would be
usable for floor or table lamps. Another inspected a development
that cheaped out by installing switched receptacles in dining
rooms in place of hard-wired luminaires. Another had a
most-peculiar story about a consultation concerning a marine
dock–but he asked that this be left out of the minutes. If
you can’t make it to our meetings, you miss out.
In
other matters, Wayne mentioned having been asked about
reciprocity between Prince George’s County licensure and
Washington, D.C.’s. It is possible that journeyman
licensure will be reciprocated, so long as it remains local. If
licensure goes statewide, reciprocity wold have to be statewide.
This is why Prince George’s County cannot offer reciprocal
master’s licensure. It is possible that journeyman
licensure will not go statewide, as Baltimore County opposes
this.
Washington,
D.C. still looks for adoption of the 2005 NEC any day. The
matter remains in council, so Mr. Ali (who subsequently
mentioned that he regretted having had to miss our meeting)
could not even discuss local amendments whose inclusion is
anticipated.
-END-
Report
of Our Previous Meeting.
This
is the report of our November 15, 2005 meeting. We've returned
to the Prince Georges' County Offices at Peppercorn Place, in
Largo, MD. President Jim Wooten called us to order around 6:45
p.m. We had 16 attendees, once again: five inspector members,
ten associates, and our presenter.
We
started out with Executive Board and Business matters. They
included a note that former Executive Board member Sam Levinrad
has dropped away. When the IO provided a certificate
acknowledging his 35 years of membership, we sent a note asking
him if he’d like to pick it up or have it mailed. We
didn’t get a response to the note. Susan, our at-large
member, suggested that we mail it anyway. Member welfare seems
close to her heart, as she and Dick consistently supply
snacks–this time including home-baked cookies.
Lead
Time
One
of the first substantive matters concerned the timeliness of
flyers announcing meetings. Jim urged that flyers be sent out so
as to be received a week before meetings, and a consensus
supported him at this. So it will be done, at least so long as
the necessary information is at hand in time.
Seminars
On
to education. It’s been a while since we’ve offered
a one- or two-day seminar. Harry proposed, and all agreed, that
we will experiment with something different for a while. Wayne
has agreed to teach comparatively short seminars, preferably on
topics which are not too stale for him. These mini-seminars will
take place on meeting nights, and we will grant CEUs.
Members
will attend free, non-members for $25 (non-transferrable and
non-refundable). Members will have first crack at registering,
just in case we should reach the 50-person limit on attendance
that is set by the meeting room’s size. We will accomplish
this by including sign-up sheets in the flyers mailed out
announcing the previous meeting to that at which we offer each
mini-seminar. Closer to the event, flyers and sign-up sheets
will be distributed at electrical supply houses. The
generally-distributed flyers will make note of the fact that
people who join IAEI and attend two seminars will recoup more
than half the price of a year’s membership, due to not
having to pay the seminar fees.
On
March 21, 2006, we will have an overview of Article 430,
focusing on motors and motor calculations.
On
May 16, 2006, we will have general calculations, largely Article
220. The latter, at least, will include a workbook–one of
well over 100 pages.
Treasury
David
reported that our treasury is healthy. He mentioned that the
Eastern Section generously voted to subsidize registration at
the annual Code Workshops for members of its Executive Board, so
long as the Section has funds available. This reduced the hit
our treasury took to send representation.
Code
Matters
Wayne
mentioned that D.C. should be adopting the 2005 NEC soon; its
consideration is in Council.
Cable
Support.
David
brought up a couple of Code questions on the difference between
supporting versus securing cable within a foot of connectors. By
and large, inspector members’ consensus seemed to be that
the Code can be complied with as written.
First,
whether or not this is enforced commonly, the fact that a cable
passes through a hole, even very near a box, does not eliminate
the requirement to secure it. Second, if a recessed light is in
a non-accessible ceiling, the cable must be secured within a
foot of the junction box that is part of the frame-in kit. Wayne
emphasized that a tie wire going up to the ceiling is considered
adequate to secure, not merely support, the cable. If stapling
cable to a joist means the frame-in kit’s junction box has
to be too close to the joist for easy splicing access, well,
installers can gain access from below, just as would be done
once the ceiling was in place.
Wayne
also expressed some dismay, or at least considerable concern,
over a development under the 2005 NEC, with luminaires in
accessible ceilings. It seems connectors can themselves be
treated as means of support, where cables go from luminaire to
luminaire. David pointed out that he presumed such connectors
have to be Listed for the purpose; we don’t know that any
are so Listed. He told the strange story of the standard for
raised covers suitable for bonding devices attached to them, as
recounted by UL’s Chuck Mello.
Subsequent
to the meeting, David checked with UL, and his impression was
corrected. Here’s what Chuck Mello wrote back:
I
checked the Code sections you cited for the AC cable and also
for NM cable and then went to the listings for those connectors.
Both are listed under UL 514B and both have a fairly strong pull
out test. The recent harmonization of this standard with Canada
and Mexico actually reduced the pull test requirements (in terms
of pounds of force) for smaller sizes of cables but generally AC
cables for 1/2 inch KOs have to support a weight of 75 pounds
and this goes up. The NM cable connectors have to support a
series test of 25 and then 60 pounds with some other things
thrown in between. So it would appear that for the areas where
not more than 6 feet of AC cable can be left unsupported, except
for the connector, then the connector can clearly support the
weight of the cable. The same is true for NM cable. Any cable
connector that is listed would also be listed to provide this
support without any additional markings or provisions indicating
it was suitable for this use.
Other
Code Matters
A
number of jurisdictions have adopted their own color coding
requirements for conductors used at different distribution
voltages, or associated with particular transformer terminals:
Brown-orange-yellow, black-red-blue, white for the phantom phase
in open delta . . . .
Jim
brought up the problem of installers overlooking 334.10's
restrictions, attempting to install NM in commercial buildings
of Type I or II construction (or, perhaps, installed exposed in
other Types). Wayne pointed out that, while you have to go to
the Building Code for the clearest discussion , NEC Appendix E
does a better job in the 2005, in his opinion, than it did in
the 2002. Sparky needs to check with the G.C. Where there is a
building permit, someone noted, the Construction Type should be
right on the application.
EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM
Frank
Peri, President, Communications Design Corporation, was our
presenter. He represented Dupont Communications Cabling
Solutions, pinch-hitting for a couple of their scheduled
speakers who had to bow out. He is a member of NFPA, and sits on
the committees for NFPA 90A and NFPA 75. He authored the article
in May’s IAEI
News on
the same topic he covered for us.
It
was well worth reviewing, and of course there’s a great
advantage to having the expert there in person, answering
questions. Incidentally , he noted that he has lots more to say
on the topic. He has discussed with Dupont the possibility of
offering a presentation of perhaps 2 ½ hours . As with
many of our meetings, what I report here is only a taste of what
we learned.
Frank’s
topic was twofold. One, the fire hazard associated with
abandoned communications cabling. Two, the advantages over
present cabling, in terms of fire performance of
limited-combustibility cable, which is not yet in the NEC. It
melts rather than burning. (In response to a question, he noted
that Circuit Integrity cable, which is required to hold up for
at least two hours in a fire, doesn’t even have organic
material in its insulation.) His sponsor, Dupont, does not make
limited-combustibility cable but manufactures material used in
the cable.
One
of his major points was that, typically, low-voltage cable is
not the source of a fire (this is evidenced, presumably, by the
NEC’s easier requirements for running it). However, once a
fire starts, such cabling eventually ignites and then sustains
and spreads flame and smoke. The 1994 Rockefeller Center fire,
for instance, appears to have been started in power wiring, but
then spread from the fifth to the tenth floor–or maybe the
tenth to the fifth? With the fire and smoke damage that the
communications cabling exacerbated, no one can tell.
Another
point was that perhaps 95% of damage can be attributed to smoke.
Even without obvious damage, incidentally, smoke compromises
electronics. Equipment may seem to work after smoke exposure,
but often will become unreliable, and fail early. It used to be
thought that smoke somehow was corrosive . Eventually the
mechanism was clarified: fine soot particles get into things,
and combined with moisture, create internal shorts. Smoke also
endangers people by producing low visibility, hampering exit and
rescue efforts, and by producing poisonous, odorless carbon
monoxide.
He
was asked why the NEC requires removal of accessible portions of
abandoned communications cable, rather than accessible portions
of all abandoned cable. His answer was that there is far, far
more abandoned communication cable. A given mass of power
wiring’s PVC sheath, though, should represent a similar
hazard. Metal-jacketed cable is less susceptible to fire, but
eventually will contribute, as the jacket is breached. Cables in
metal raceways, though, are not considered combustible.
Interestingly, he knows of no data on the actual fire
performance of exposed power wiring in fire. In contrast, there
are alarming studies of how power wiring in metallic conduit
performs in a fire.
Wayne
mentioned his concern that the NEC permits MTW leading to motors
to be exposed in plenums, whereas communications cable in
plenums requires a plenum rating. Frank brought up a conflict:
the NEC permits communications cable in not just plenums but
ducts; this is something forbidden by NFPA 90A, the standard for
air conditioning and ventilation systems, which, incidentally,
sets smoke standards for plenums.
Frank’s
last code point was his interpretation of NFPA 13, the sprinkler
standard, which is referenced in the NEC. He believes it
requires that if you install combustible cable in any concealed
space, you must install sprinklers within that concealed space.
In
a final note, he mentioned that several companies, including
Dupont, offer guidance in arranging for the safe disposal of
abandoned cable, and will give building owners certificates of
safe disposal. Not only the copper but the plastic is recycled,
the latter often as the spacer inside new cable.
Checking
afterwards wtih DuPont, David confirmed that Dupont points
callers to sources of assistance in disposing of communications
cable only, not other cables.
Report
of Our Previous Meeting.
Due
to some well, can I say crossed wires, the secretary got to the
meeting quite late. Fortunately, Wayne Robinson stood in for him
and took notes during the first part of the evening. He reports
that after James Wooten called the meeting to order, four items
were covered. One, our next meeting will move back to Largo/New
Carrolton. Two, anyone interested can contact Harry Langway
regarding seminars. Three, there was some discussion over the
interpretation of NEC Section 250.52(B)(3)--Ufers. Four,
adoption of the 2005 NEC in Prince Georges County will be
addressed by a committee consisting of Art Hesse, Wayne
Robinson, and David Shapiro.
David
brought a notice from a New York inspection outfit that is
recruiting inspectors; there were no takers.
Program
Education
Director Ed Holt had a tentatively-scheduled presenter fall
through at the last moment. (He does have commitments for the
November and January programs.)
Fortunately,
Jim Wooten had invited Ann Arundel's John Gomoljak to come and
to bring his laptop, with slide shows of his twelve days of
volunteer work restoring Louisiana in the aftermath of Katrina.
Like many other parts of the country, Maryland sent lots of
volunteers--perhaps 500 all told--and equipment. They included
fire department personnel who worked at retrieving corpses. John
was quite glad to have a different set of responsibilities.
From
Maryland to the Gulf took them 25 hours, driving as fast as they
wanted--no tickets; a great feeling, John said, the National
Guard waving them through. They kept going from 6 AM to 11:30
PM, working hard, with no personalities getting in the way,
setting up six clinics at elementary schools, hooking up
generators.
I
won't go over the sights John showed and described. It's enough
to say that John made it sound like a thoroughly worthwhile
experience, and more than one of us expressed interest in doing
something like that.
Previous
Meeting
On
May 17, 2005, we held our much-postponed annual meeting, We had
16 attendees, counting the presenters: six inspector members,
three nonmembers and seven associates.
EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM
We
learned about the application of the 2005 Code changes governing
the use of manholes and handholes, with particular reference to
a line of products he represents. In addition, we received a
fascinating, flash-fire quick briefing on circuit-integrity
cable. Mr. Tom Kidwell, of Electrical Sales Associates, brought
us Mark Phipps and David Chase to give the presentations. As
with any of these reports, what you see here does not capture a
tenth of the information you would have gotten had you attended
the meeting.
New
in the 2005 NEC is an Article 100 definition of Handhole
enclosure, and Section 314.30, requiring handhole enclosures to
handle all loads likely to be imposed. Until 2002, there was no
standard for underground enclosures, whether handholes or
manholes.
Our
presenters represent a manufacturer of UL-Listed precast polymer
concrete enclosures. They spent several minutes discussing the
downsides of alternatives such as polymer-reinforced fiberglas,
which can break; thermoplastic, which deforms too easily;
concrete. . . they had much to say about the relative drawbacks
of concrete compared to newly available alternatives that absorb
much less water. They did acknowledge that concrete is the
appropriate material for manholes, at least for the enclosures,
though not for the covers, a role in which it is at too much
danger of cracking. They also warned us about problems with
polymer/concrete enclosures consisting of layers of dissimilar
materials. They spoke of potential liability arising when
enclosures fail, collapsing or becoming inadequately grounded.
Even
their enclosures are not suitable for use in all locations. Only
boxes of cast iron or reinforced concrete and suchlike are
suitable for "deliberate traffic areas," such as the
middle of a roadway.
Raceways
need to be brought into the underground enclosures, not stopping
short of them, but need not be secured to the boxes. All
conductors and, where used, splices and terminations must be
suitable for wet locations. This is because even closed-bottom,
gasketed underground boxes will fill with water within a month.
Most of those sold, by far, are the open bottom type.
They
also need to be installed properly. This means setting them on
at least six inches of gravel, with the gravel extending well
beyond the edges of the box. Otherwise, they can sink,
gradually. This can mean an edge cutting into a conductor's
insulation: bad news. Suppose the wires energize the cover!
Circuit
Integrity Cable
First,
Mark Phipps talked about MI. He described seeing it
manufactured, an awesome process. It is indeed, as he said,
"almost invincible." Unfortunately, it is awfully
expensive-and the fittings on it are not fire-rated! Circuit
Integrity Cable, the new stuff, is expanding its use in the 2005
and will doing so even more in the 2008 NEC. A coaxial version
for communications, another for lighting, for signals. It still
does need to be installed in metal conduit, with steel fittings,
not die-cast, it has a 2-hr fire rating with support every 5
feet. Furthermore, it's rated RHH, with no W, so it is no good
for wet locations. Junction boxes are okay for pulling but there
are no splices that are fire rated, so you have to fire-proof
any boxes that are used for splicing. This means the expense of
UL-Listed fireproofing kits suitable for the specific box and
environment. Circuit integrity cable insulation is silicone
rubber that ceramifies in a fire, hardening, but also, in
consequence, getting brittle. It is available in sizes 14 to 750
AWG.
Two
types are Listed: CI, a version of power-limited circuit
integrity cable not requiring conduit, and CIC, "Circuit
Integrity in Conduit," requiring conduit--steel EMT is
fine. The reason for the conduit is that with its protection the
fire fighters' water hose won't blow off the ceramified
insulation.
Next,
refreshments were served, courtesy of our outgoing Meetball
Maestro, Sir Dick Bissell, who was unable to attend, due to one
of his many other commitments.
EXECUTIVE
and BUSINESS MEETING
This
was our much-postponed annual meeting, We finally voted in a
slate of officers. It took a fair bit of discussion, given that
a number of people affected were not present. We were greatly
concerned about doing right by Wayne Robinson, our current
president. According to our best knowledge, his back is
improving, but he continues to be tied up on meeting evenings
teaching. On the other hand, a couple of people had the
impression that he may have wanted to be more involved in our
seminar program. Dick Bissell, on the other hand, made it very
clear that this time he is absolutely unavailable to continue to
serve as seminar coordinator. Ed Holt also wants someone to take
over for him, but manages to continue while we wait for someone
to volunteer to take his place, or at least help out.
Therefore,
the following slate of officers was nominated, and elected
unanimously:
President:
Jim Wooten
Vice President: Art Hesse
Second Vice
President: Vacant
Past President: Wayne
Robinson
Secretary-Treasurer: David Shapiro
Education: Ed
Holt
Seminars: Wayne Robinson
Membership: Harry Langway
At
Large: Susan Flashman
Godfather: Art Hesse
TREASURER'S
REPORT
We're
not doing real well financially. Our checking account is down to
less than five dollars! Aside from that, we have $100 in petty
cash, and 22 stamps. We are owed $1644 by one agency that sent
six people to our last seminar, and that check should show up
within the next week or two. However, most of that money will be
earmarked for our representation at September's Eastern Section
meeting.
Summer
CEUs?
Shall
we offer another seminar, perhaps even as early as this summer?
Normally, our chapter's activities are on hold during the
summer, as people get busy doing other things. Also, while our
last two seminars were quite successful educationally,
attendance was somewhat disappointing. Still, apparently there
is a perceived need, due to looming Continuing Education
requirements associated with license renewal. If enough meeting
attendees spoke up for another seminar it is possible that
something could have been arranged-especially if volunteers came
forward to help. However, those members who had called in to
inquire about this did not show up at the meeting and speak up,
and no one came forward at the meeting to volunteer to help with
the seminar program. In fact, the person we nominated and
elected to run it is Wayne, who had to be absent. Therefore, our
next seminar most likely will take place in the Fall. Still,
that is up to Wayne. If he sees fit to put something together
this summer, he's the man to contact: he's been elected to that
position, so he's in charge.
Electrical
Fires
John
L. Allen, P.E. is a member who has not been to our chapter's
meetings before. He is a senior electrical engineer at the ATF's
Fire Research laboratory in Ammendale, MD. He mentioned two
possibilities he will explore for us. One is a tour of the lab,
in association with one of our Fall meetings. That's something
he can talk over with Ed Holt. The other is a seminar, good for
C.E.U.s. The topic would be electrical fires, something that
most of us just have not been trained in evaluating. None of
this is a certainty by any means, but the promise is intriguing.
Show
and Tell
As
always, there was additional spirited free-ranging discussion of
unforseeable topics. David shared a UL recall announcement
concerning a counterfeit extension cord. John Allen mentioned
the CPSC recall web site, www.CPSC.gov, noting that today's CPSC
gems included a Glock pistol recalled because it tended to fire
in its holster, drilling into the owners' foot.
David
brought a sample of a non-Listed product, a block of rigid foam
plastic, that is being advertised in the trade press for use as
a thermal insulator around and behind electrical enclosures. It
did not receive a favorable response. The consensus was that its
use *in a single-family dwelling* is not a Code violation, but
that its flammability, and the tremendous heat and toxic fumes
generated if it was ignited by fire spreading from an electrical
box, mean there are better ways to do the job.
"It would
be good if it had a two-hour fire-rating; otherwise, it would
make a good bird's nest."-Jim.
"Plastic baggies
filled with mineral wool would be better"-Ed.
Code
Discussion
David
then mentioned a stinker of a Code issue concerning 300.4(d)-one
of those cases where "We know how we've always interpreted
the rule, but the literal wording allows something altogether
different." Phil Waclawski checked it in his Code book and
confirmed that 300.4(d) indeed lets you hang cable on a masonry
wall a couple of inches to the side of a furring strip, or any
other structural member, without any protection. Jim Wooten
said, in his inimitable manner, that he didn't want to pass it,
he didn't have a Code section to hang his objection on, but he
was thinking.
Ed
Bihlear then mentioned that back in the mid-1990s, the
contractor he was working for used 2 ½" studs with
holes drilled right in the middle. Four counties permitted them
to run cable in the middle without nail plates on both sides, he
said, including Prince George's. None of the Prince George's
County inspectors present agreed that they had permitted this
practice. Funny thing.
Ed
also mentioned in passing that aluminum GECs on cinderblock in
old buildings wears away because of the block's caustic
qualities.
Our
last item was a question by Jim Wooten. In 2005, there is a
change in 334.12. NM cable no longer is permitted exposed in
dropped and suspended ceilings in other than one and two and
multi-family dwellings. Does a scuttle hole in such an occupancy
constitute the same thing in terms of hazard?
In
subsequent exploration, it turned out that Jim was asking about
wood-framed ceilings with scuttle holes. ROP research by John
and David suggested that, as Ed’s and others’
discussion had indicated, one main concern leading to this
change was damage caused by dragging cables across metal
structural members. Hence Jim was satisfied that no parallel
exists.
HAZARD
ALERT!
Defective
Chinese Luminaires
www.seagulllighting.com
Sea Gull Lighting Recall Hotline: (800) 347-5483
Hazard:
“Due
to a manufacturing defect, the light fixture could fall and
strike a person beneath the light fixture. The fixture also
poses a laceration risk if the lamp breaks.” Description:
“The light fixtures were sold in a variety of styles and
shapes and hang from the ceiling. Models 31021-794, 31022-794,
66022-794, 5217-02, 5217-746 and 5217-786 are included in the
recall due to a component part problem with the screw collar.
The model number is printed on the inside of the ceiling canopy,
and also on the packaging and receipts.
“Contractors
sold and installed the 5217 model fixtures from October 2003
through October 2004, and the 31021, 31022 and 66022 models from
June 2004 through October 2004.”
CPSC
Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
Next
Most Recent Meeting
Our
meeting took place Tuesday evening, January 11 in the first
floor conference room at the Prince George's County offices at
9400 Peppercorn Place in Largo, MD. We had five inspector
members and three associates, an extraordinarily-low showing. We
speculated attributed this to the unusual scheduling--but it may
also have been related to the fact that we did not schedule a
formal presentation.
It’s
worth emphasizing that this took place the SECOND Tuesday of the
month rather than, as is normal, the third Tuesday, because
Martin Luther King’s birthday was celebrated on the third
Monday.
EXECUTIVE
and BUSINESS MEETING
This
was to be the annual meeting where we would vote in a slate of
officers to run the chapter for the new year.
We
needed, and still need, volunteers willing to serve as officers,
or simply as committee members. They needn’t be inspector
members, for many of the offices. So long as you take on tasks
that you can handle, it can be rewarding to help out. There’s
probably a place for you . . .
Would you be willing to
contact possible speakers for our meetings? To distribute our
flyers to supply houses or permit counters or other electrical
organizations? To perform some of the ground work for seminars?
To pick up refreshments for our meetings? To get in touch with
new members, or lapsing ones, and find out what we can do for
them? To find a way to help other area jurisdictions get more
involved with the chapter?
Perhaps you can think of other
ways you could serve the chapter, and, in turn, you can become
known to other members as someone who pitches in--just enough to
make a difference.
We
are going to be putting on some seminars, and one thing we did
finalize at this meeting, about an hour in, is what you’ll
be able to sign up for to receive Continuing Education credits,
and when, and where. The 2005 NEC
changes
were high on our list, because the new Code
will
be coming up for adoption.
The
first order of business in January was to be elections. However,
because we lacked a quorum, they have been put off till our
March meeting. Therefore, the slate of officers in place as of
last year remains in office for now. They are:
Prez:
Wayne Robinson;
Veep: Sam Levinrad;
Second Veep: vacant;
Sec'y_Treas: David Shapiro;
Membership: Joey Panizari;
Education: Ed Holt;
At Large: Harry Langway;
Past
Prez: Jim Wooten;
Godfather: Art Hesse.
Meatball Maestro
and Seminar Setter-upper: Sir Dick Bissel
The
bulk of the meeting was devoted to free-ranging discussion.
Larry Griffith, visiting from the Pennsylvania chapter, talked
about how things are done in that local-option state. Where a
township selects his agency, its inspectors do enforce the NEC
and associated codes, including for example requirements for
firestopping--which installers cry isn't electrical. But then
there is no licensing requirement for electricians.
Wayne
mentioned that in Prince Georges County, MD, with requirements
in place for licensure and continuing education, homeowners’
permits still work much like Pennsylvania permits. No longer are
there even open book questions before someone can pull a permit.
Theoretically, the homeowner has to stay resident at the address
at which the work is done for at least a year subsequently. Is
there any assurance thatt he homeowner actually performs the
work? Well, no. The main point is to ensure that work gets
inspected.
They
really do try to make sure that work gets inspected. The County
has a $45 minimum for permits, and they audit outstanding
permits monthly, and rotate inspectors from area to area. For
$80, though, you can have a yearly unlimited permit, covering
whatever work you want to perform on a property, including
heavy-ups.
Wayne
offered two items of new business related to how he is trying to
do things in Prince Georges County. First, he shared a clipping
from Gil Thomson about how two dogs were killed at utility
junction boxes in Baltimore. There, the utility can install
lighting at private parking lots, and use the neutral to bond
equipment. Wayne is fighting against such utility independence
on his turf.
Second,
he shared a bulletin about the enforcement of 680.26(b) &
(c). He is concerned that using encapsulated steel for swimming
pools (epoxy-coated rebar) means that there ends up being no
equipotential grid under pools. He will require bonding under
pools and 3 feet around, BOTH. You can make your own grid using
uncoated one-foot by one-foot squares of rebar mesh.
In
an aside, looking across the line, Wayne noted that Montgomery
County took adoption of the 2002 NEC to committee on 1/11/05.
This concerned Dick Bissell, who is sitting on our stock of Code
books from the last seminar we sponsored unilaterally. Art
suggested that Dick can look at a MEECA article regarding which
jurisdictions will remain on the 2002 NEC for a while, to know
who might want to buy our remaining 2002 NECs.
Dick
is going to finalize plans for our April 15-16 seminar on major
changes in the 2005 NEC, with Bob McCullough & Andy Cartal.
It will offer not only education and entertainment, but also
CEUs, Code Change books, lunch, and break refreshments.
Provisionally it will run 6-9:00 Friday evening and from 7:30 am
to 4:30 pm Saturday. We have no venue as yet. Several members at
our last meeting volunteered to investigate possible venues and
report back; we have not heard from them as yet.
Larry,
who has given seminars on 2005 changes, noted that there's lots
of nuance to the 2005 changes. Wayne mentioned that he likes
Western section seminars’ not having early mornings. We
have lots of faith in Bob McCullough & Andy Cartal, based on
experience.
Next,
we moved on to various show-and-tell discussion. David brought
in a new product by Wago. Their best-know wire connectors are,
essentially, variants of the “backstab” design so
strongly distrusted by many of us in wiring devices such as
receptacles, due to experience of those wiring devices’
field failure. (Larry did mention that he knows of one large job
that is employing the Wagos exclusively.) The new Wago product
we looked at, though, uses a lever clamp on the wires, a much
more positive connection. None of us faulted it as we do
backstabs. Interestingly, though, some of the members argued
that it took too much finger force and would not be worth using.
Next
was a cover plate: Chinese, “child-resistant,” and
not even pretending to have a NRTL marking. Is this flammable?
Would anyone accept it on a job? Wayne answered, and none of the
other inspectors disputed him: they would reject any homemade
cover plate made of combustible materials, and that includes
plastic. He’s also seen home-made panelboard
covers--non-combustible, but still not acceptable.
After
this we considered a question brought to David by Michael
Clendennin of the Electrical Safety Foundation International. If
an appliance is turned off, should it be unplugged to save
money? Does any current flow, assuming it does not contain a
clock or some other smart device that needs to keep running?
Larry mentioned that a maximum 1.4 mA of fault current
permitted, worst-case scenario, due to capacitance in appliance
cords to pass UL listing. Hence the cost would be a penny a
year. (It turns out that the home appliance manufacturers
recommend unplugging appliances not to purportedly save money
but to reduce the chance that kids will hurt themselves by
chewing on cords.)
Robert,
our new member, asked and received confirmation that in Prince
George’s County, electric water heaters need disconnects.
Larry talked about an electrician who was required to pull in
new wiring to feed six new clothes dryers. He had 1" rigid,
and tried pulling all of it in there. This did not pass. Jim
Wooten was inspired to mention a job with dryer that used zip
cord; it went downhill from there.
Someone
asked whether knob-and-tube still is permitted in Prince Georges
County. Yes, but it cannot be extended. Larry did mention a
class he taught at a location were he learned that knob-and-tube
wiring still is required. Along the Mississippi, in one area,
they require 3-wire knob-and-tube--so the wiring can dry out
afer flooding.
Next,
David passed around violation photos of a couple of panelboards
hidden under a sink counter, with a few inches of clearance–not
enough even for their doors to open far. The 110.26 violations
clearly were not created by the electrician, but we agreed that
the sink needed to be yanked! Larry’s notice to the
Pennsylvania chapter of their next meeting had some rather
extreme violation photos as well.
Recall
notices from the UL web site caused some surprise and dismay,
particularly the one showing holiday displays of outdoor
“animals” that can shock or start fires. Finally, we
discussed a new invention, a circuit breaker analyzer. A member
immediately suggested its use for FPE breakers--but then the
tester is only good for single pole circuits, and the big FPE
problem–Pushmatic, too, for that matter– was with
two-pole breakers!
Our
next-to-last item is a head-shaker of a story from Wayne. A
friend was buying an aluminum-wired house, and Wayne recommended
that, if he was going to live with aluminum wiring and
terminations, he at least consider AFCIs. The friend asked Wayne
to put them in for him. Wayne went to a shall-be-nameless home
center, asking the clerk for AFCI breakers. She handed him GFCI
breakers. He said, “These aren’t what I asked for.”
She said, “The inspectors only look for the test button.
They don't know the difference.” Wayne kept his tongue
macerated, and politely said, “You're probably right,
Ma’am, but I don't need these.”
Finally,
we heard a story of terminal temperature ratings. A 1200 amp
circuit breaker was fed by three 500 kcmil conductors. ‘You
need a fourth,” the inspector said. “No,” said
the electrician, “I was using the third column.” The
next time the inspector came by the job, by gumbo, a 90 degree
sticker had appeared on the breaker. -END-
Next
Most Recent Meeting
This
is the full version of the report on the meeting of the George
Washington Chapter Tuesday evening,
November 9, 2004, at the Prince George's County offices in Largo
(theoretically New Carrolton), Maryland. Counting the speaker,
we had 15 attendees. Five are inspectors, two of whom also are
contractors. Happily, this
meeting was characterized by lots of volunteerism. To begin
with, Garrie Shope and Harry Langway distributed flyers at
supply houses. (Our godfather, Art, and our President, Wayne,
arranged for flyers at permit counters.) Our unofficial
refreshment czar, Dick Bissel, donated a plate of chicken wings,
and delivered the chapter's drinks.
To
begin, President Wayne Robinson called for old business.
Nothing.
We
discussed the free workshop put on for us on November 3, by
Michael Johnston, courtesy of NECA. Attendance at that seminar
was disappointing; the presentation was not.
David
mentioned a very cordial note we received from Montgomery County
Permitting Services Manager Phil Waclawski. Among other things,
it requested collaboration between our chapter and other kindred
groups. Pete Bowers volunteered to make some phone calls
exploring possibilities.
Pete
opened up the issue of pure inspecting versus
instructing/advising. He is strongly inclined to tell
electricians what they need to do to fix problems, and then say,
"I'll be back to morrow to see that you've done it."
Wayne responded with a rather stern admonition: If you find
violations, red-tag them, and cite the Code sections. If you
advise the installers, you're taking on liability for their
jobs." There was some discussion of the need for master
electricians to take responsibility for designing and
supervising what's done, and for ensuring that violations are
corrected.
David
next brought up the International Office's Train the Trainers
program. We do have the funds to pay tuition for one of our
instructors to attend. However, we may not have enough to pay
for tuition plus air fare plus a few days' stay for the
training. Wayne suggested that, while this sounds interesting
and attractive, we put off consideration of sending anyone down
till after we've fattened our account by holding another seminar
up here.
Here
a number of people chimed in, volunteering to explore possible
venues for a seminar. Garrie Shope will investigate high
schools; prospective member Richard Keely will look at the
possibility of our using the City of Greenbelt's multi-purpose
room; others had additional suggestions. They will report back
to Wayne or David.
We
discussed what seminar to offer, when, and by whom. Wayne is
proposing that journeymen be required to earn eight CEUs to
renew their licenses. There appears to be interest in
Code-change information even aside from CEU requirements, It was
hard to determine just when the 2005 NEC will come in locally,
but apparently electricians want to come up to speed on it.
Seminars by other groups have been well-attended, and more are
scheduled. Incongruously, Maryland's "PS1" licensure
exam continues to be based on the 1999 NEC, even though
installations must pass or fail inspection based on the 2002
throughout Maryland, except in Montgomery County, which
continues with the 1996.
In
the Spring, there will be a County meeting of the ad
hoc committee
for the 2005 Code change. It will consist of representatives of
IBEW, IEC, and MEECA, plus Wayne Robinson, Art Hesse, and David
Shapiro. We agreed to see whether the great team of Andy and Bob
will be available in March to talk about 2005 Code changes; Dick
Bissell volunteered to contact them. Wayne agreed to teach the
seminar if Bob and Andy are unavailable.
David
brought up the Eastern Section meetings. He passed around the
souvenir book from the 2004 Section meeting; it garnered no
comment, except for someone's negative aside about the Nevele
conference center. He talked up the 2005 meeting, and passed
around the materials he had been given. This elicited a little
more interest, especially the mention of the classic hotel--and
its classic switchgear.
In
keeping with this, Wayne mentioned that there are several local
businesses that still utilize paralleled fuses: Bergman's
cleaners in Bladensberg, and the CVS in the Bowie Shopping
Center.
Continuing
the gossip, we learned that in D.C., three employees of the BLRA
apparently lost their jobs the first week of November. They
included the director and his assistant. There had been talk of
extending licensure to most people performing contracting work
in D.C., but this rumor has been discounted.
In
response to another comment, David disconfirmed a couple of
product rumors, based on inquiries he had sent. On Friday,
November 5, 2004, he received responses from "Paul"at
Square D's customer service. All the following applies to both
QOs and Homelines. Schneider-Square D sells common-trip,
two-pole GFCI CBs; no independent-trip GFCI CBs, as would be
required to protect multiwire circuits; and only single-pole
AFCI CBs. They have a combination-type AFCI CB in development
(one that will protect against both parallel and series arcs).
However, it will NOT be available in the near future.
=========
After
a refreshment break, our patiently-waiting speaker gave his
talk.
Our
featured product speaker primarily discussed Metal Oxide
Varistor surge protection. John Sartorius worked for Joslyn
Manufacturing as a sales representative for these surge
arresters for a decade before becoming a representative for
First Line Associates-which picked up Joslyn. He appeared quite
knowledgeable about how they work, as well as enthusiastic about
what they can do.
Joslyn
produces secondary surge arresters rated from 120 volts to 100
kV, and have done so since perhaps the 1930s. They started with
expulsion-type arresters, then in the late 1950s, moved to
silicon-oxide gap type, and in the 1970s the metal oxide
(specifically, doped zinc oxide, fired into a ceramic) varistor.
Around 1990 they left the silicon oxide type behind entirely. I
the mid-1990s, they upgraded their product to create a safer
failure mode. It is filled with silica sand, to quench arcs and
prevent its exploding. The high-impedance sand makes it act like
a current-limiting fuse.
MOVs
have some limitations, John noted. The hotter they are, the
better they conduct; hence, the rating is not
temperature-stable. Each surge reduces their life. Moisture can
get in, even though they are potted, and this too can reduce
their life.
Joslyn
Manufacturing's products have windows that start out white, but
turn black in response to internally-generated heat when the MOV
is used up. When this happens, it is time to replace them. "How
often does one need to check," we asked? Very rarely. Sure,
if there's a direct lightning strike, all bets are off. However,
while there are no specific guarantees, because duration-energy
curves make prediction-and comparison-nigh-impossible, the
arresters normally take many, many hits without shrugging.
A
couple of possible limitations with respect to NEC rules were
brought up by our snippy members. (John did not claim to be a
Code expert.) John talked about hanging the products from
brackets at weatherheads. Well, what is one to do about the
leads? They don't seem to be sunlight-resistant. David suggested
taping. Others brought up the issue of how to splice them in to
line-side conductors. The lugs on main breakers or busbars
normally are not rated for insertion of, say, a 4/0 aluminum
conductor plus a 14 AWG copper lead. John suggested using
insulation-piercing bugs; the range struck some of us as
unrealistic.
=====
After
John completed this featured presentation, he loosened up a bit
and talked about some other products he represents. When
greeting him, David had been somewhat gingerly about shaking
hands, due to a glancing blow he'd given himself with a
sledgehammer while driving a ground rod. John talked about
ground rod drivers. He talked about a more-positive
GEC-to-ground rod connector than the acorn clamp. He then talked
a bit about improvements to Cadweld's exothermic welding system,
to reduce misfiring problems associated with moisture, as well
as some relatively-rare hazards.
We
gave him a good hand, and will welcome him back to demonstrate
some of these other products.
===========
After
John was done, our own Ed Bihlear passed around, and discussed,
pictures of very-high-power equipment testing performed for the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority subway system.
Apparently before he came along no one ever photographed the
arcs drawn as these breakers operate-or fail. Workers have to be
well away, and until Ed thought to set up
automatically-operating photo equipment that could allow him to
be safely outside the building, there wasn't a good way to do
it. As it was, digital photo equipment was affected by the
powerful magnetic fields generated ahead of and with the arcs.
Our
next meeting will take place on January 11, 2005. We will vote
on our officers, and finalize plans for our seminar.
Next
Most Recent Meeting
This
is the full version of the report on the meeting of the George
Washington Chapter Tuesday evening,
September 14, 2004, at the Prince George's County offices in
Largo (theoretically New Carrolton), Maryland. Counting the two
speakers, we had 17 attendees. Ten are current members; four are
inspectors, one is a retired inspector, and two are both
inspectors and contractors.
Before
the meeting started officially, the handful of early arrivers
chatted about matters such as the various injuries from which
we're recovering. The trade press talks about how the
construction workforce is aging; our friendly bull session made
this very concrete.
President
Wayne Robinson called the meeting to order at 6:35, after 10
people had arrived.
First,
he called for old business. No one responded.
He
announced a free workshop being put on for us and the Virginia
chapter in early November. Most likely it will take place on
November 3, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Michael Johnston will be
coming to town to present it, courtesy of NECA. There will be no
fee, so far as we know, and attendees will be eligible for
Continuing Education credit.
While
primarily intended for inspectors, attendance is not restricted
to them, nor to IAEI members. We are seeking 65-70 attendees.
One focus will be home generators, and the other fire alarm
systems. NECA is redoing the National Electrical Installation
Standard (NEIS) for home generators, and that guide will be one
leg of the program.
After
Wayne announced the workshop, we got into a good bit of
discussion concerning home generators. Wayne mentioned that
people often will install a 25 kW generator that feeds a 200 amp
panel directly through a (service-rated) transfer switch. This,
Wayne warned us, is illegal because the generator's maximum
output is 104 amps, per 702.5. To make it legal they need to
feed critical loads through a subpanel protected by a 100 amp
breaker. Despite the fact that he is far less knowledgeable than
Wayne, David argued against the interpretation that a loadcenter
with a 200 amp breaker necessarily has an intended load of 200
amps. Wayne and Pete both responded with observations that in
Prince George's County, new homes often have 400 and 600 amp
services and often have simultaneously-operating loads that
easily exceed the capacity of a 25 kW generator.
We
then digressed from the direct discussion of topics that Mike
Johnston will cover. There is a problem, Wayne noted, in
connecting well pumps that will serve sprinklers. The circuit is
not permitted to be connected ahead of the main in Prince
George's County. For residential fire pump sprinklers for homes
that have wells, they install storage tanks in attics, easily
holding 200 gallons, pressurized, that will pump into 2
sprinkler heads. This pressurized tank is relied upon to keep
the water flowing long enough to get people out of the house,
and so the well pump is considered a general purpose pump rather
than a fire pump.
How
do you know that the tank pressure is being kept up? Someone
said well, surely you'll notice that water pressure is down.
Not
good enough. One answer was to have installers use a multiwire
circuit to feed kitchen lighting on one leg, the well pump on
the other. Use a two-pole, rather than handle-tied, breaker.
This way, if the pump power kicks off, the lights stop working.
Here's the problem. If you install a 0.5 hp or larger motor, you
are in violation of 210.23(A)(2), in the 2002, or 210-23, in the
1999 and earlier. The fact that it's a multiwire circuit may
mean that this is a legalistic fluke, rather than a necessary
protection, but it is still the law. This rule will have to be
reworked, so homeowners are made aware that they've lost
sprinkler power some other way.
Next
came the secretary/treasurer's report. David announced the
availability of the minutes from last Fall's UL Inspectors'
Meeting. Some people appeared interested, but nobody took him up
on his offer to forward them, or the URL.
On
to money. We had not had an executive committee meeting over the
summer. This meant not being readily able to get together to
consider the Section's urging for support by buying an ad in the
program book for their annual meeting. At the same time, we
agreed that presently we are not flush enough to have helped
them.
This
led naturally to discussion of seminars, our traditional
money-maker. Ed asks what seminars to do, suggesting 2005 NEC
Code changes. Wayne supported this, mentioning that the IEC is
interested in our putting on such a seminar, that he hopes to
get legislation going toward adopting it by early 2005, and that
electricians generally want the CEUs it would provide. He
generously offered to put it on for us himself. He thinks that
DC may move forward from the 1996 to the 2002 NEC, and do so
relatively soon. In the Spring, there will be a County meeting
of the adhoc committee for the 2005 code change. There was no
objection to it consisting of Wayne, Art Hesse, and David
Shapiro.
David
suggested comparing the 2002, 2005, and 1996 NECs plus local
amendments, so contractors and third-party inspectors can keep
straight what is legal. He also groused about a local
jurisdiction where inspectors asserted a requirement that is not
in the NEC, claiming that it was a local amendment. He made the
requested change but then followed up. On checking and finding
no documentation that it is indeed a local amendment, he
inquired, first by email and then by registered letter. He
received no response, beyond the return receipt. Sigh.
Jim
Wooten asked whether there are any low voltage wiring seminars
going on. Wayne answered that he doesn't know of any. He's been
getting chewed out for some time by low-voltage people attending
his NEC seminars; they're not interested in what he's teaching.
He, Pete, and Ed all teach, and all have to deal with the fact
that some students are there strictly because they are required
to attend.
Wayne
noted that, despite his efforts, a major telecom provider in the
area has persisted in ignoring the NEC. These scofflaws drive
their own electrodes, for example, without tying them to the
buildings' grounding systems.
We
still didn't have a plan for a seminar. Wayne proposed that we
offer a 2005 Code Changes seminar in April. We'll vote on that
at our January 11 meeting. Ed noted that some counties such as
St. Mary's are pretty early adopters, another reason he believes
there will be plenty of interest.
Susan
suggested that she would find it useful to have a seminar that
would both look at 2005 changes and review differences
jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
David
mentioned another interest: a seminar on how the building code
affects electrical work. He gave as examples firestopping
requirements and separations between boxes. Wayne noted that
in
Prince George's County firestopping hasn't been required for 6
years.
David
proposed that our next two mailings give notice that this
decision is coming up.
Pete
voiced the opinion that a seminar on fire alarm systems will
fill a room. The systems are very simple, but computer-ignorant
people are scared of them. Therefore, many contractors forgo
that part of the job. There might even be room for multiple
seminars for different levels of training on fire alarm
systems-offering not only the NEC rules but hands-on exposure.
Some people want to understand more than just how to install
it--design, troubleshooting. Then there is training, nearby in
Northern Virginia, leading to certification for system
inspection. In D.C. and in Prince George's County, though, the
systems are inspected by 3rd-party engineers.
Sam
objected that fire alarm systems are not as simple as Pete
portrays them. On the other hand, he acknowledged, a
manufacturer's salesman will lay out a system for a potential
installer. Wayne suggested that Pete work with Ed on putting
together such a seminar. He will offer it to County inspectors
for free, to justify the jurisdiction's providing a room.
We
didn't take time for introductions, as our discussion had taken
so long, but we did take a break for refreshments before
enjoying the evening's program.
Program
We enjoyed a
presentation by two representatives of the century-old Wiremold
company, which also has been responsible for the Walker line,
such as Walkerduct, since 1994. They spent most of the remaining
time talking about their product line and their services. This
did, however, provide the opportunity for a fair bit of
discussion concerning Code and installation issues.
They
made mention several times of EIA/TIA (Electronics Industry
Association/ Telecommunications Industry Association) standards,
non-legislated guidelines for datacom installers. Getting to
Code issues, they talked about a UL scrubwater protection rule
(UL 514 A &C), new in 2003, that requires floor boxes in
carpeted floors be gasketed. They noted that if a product meets
the current tile floor requirement, it automatically meets the
carpeted floor requirement. For the test, nothing is actually
plugged in.
Wayne
commented that Walkerduct (cellular concrete raceway) is full of
water from the time they pour concrete around it till the
building reaches the end of its life. Our presenter responded
that the point of the UL rule is to ensure that (conductive)
washwater doesn't seep down around the receptacle.
The
presenter asserted that the floor boxes offered by many
manufacturers, and installed by many electricians, are not
Code-compliant (nor NRTL-Listed). Others have flip lids or
screw-in plugs, which make them compliant--unless the closure
devices are broken or lost. (Theirs have slide-open,
child-proof-type receptacles.)
Pete
asked what longevity the standard demands of the gasket in the
face of repeatedly being opened and closed? Someone is going to
get shocked, he noted, when it wears away and water gets in. No
ready answer was available.
One
of the matters David had asked them to cover is common Code
violations associated with their products. They have a couple of
observations concerning poke-throughs. Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standard 4.5 limits the slope of the bump
to a 1 in 2 rise to run change in floor level. UL's Fire
Resistance directory has rules that installations of
poke-throughs must meet to meet the two-hr fire rating as
complete manufactured assemblies. These include installing not
more than one per 65 sq feet, and locating them a minimum of two
feet on center. Some design engineers are ignorant of this. The
presenters also noted that thousands of floor boxes were sold to
schools with linoleum floors even though they were only listed
for installation in tile floors.
Finally,
getting to surface raceways, they noted that their product is
NEMA 1; not rated for wet locations. This includes commercial
kitchens, which sometimes want to use stainless steel raceway,
even though it costs $35 a running foot. Similarly, where they
periodically need washdown, laboratories are considered wet
locations and surface raceway installation is a violation.
People want to put floor boxes on patios, in botanical gardens.
No go.
People
wanting to run a surface raceway right along the top of a
baseboard, camouflaged, for use with receptacles, can run afoul
of ADA. ADA requires that receptacles be at least 15 inches
above the floor.
They
mentioned that their company has a white paper on thermal
derating, but did not have a copy at hand, nor a reference for
obtaining it. They gave the opinion that the paper is hard to
work one's way through.
One
of the many products they showed us was a two-compartment
nonmetallic surface raceway. They mentioned that the low-voltage
section fills up much more quickly than the 120 volt section,
which has room for 18 12 AWG conductors. Wayne challenged them
on the utility of that branch-circuit wiring volume, noting the
need for derating with that many conductors. Jim asked them
about the PVC's toxicity. They identified the material as
Vee-zero, which takes longer to ignite and is not as toxic right
away as other versions.
The
final product we looked at was a removable, adjustable bracket
containing intumescent material that serves as a firestop. It
clamps onto a nipple of four-inch EMT that passes through the
wall containing cable(s). A number of people were interested in
this product as a promising alternative to non-removable
firestopping compounds.
The
nipple proved a bone of contention. Wayne was concerned about
the need to bond it. It has a #10 green screw, but can that take
a 6 AWG conductor? You'd need a copper lug. David protested that
the nipple is covered by the exception in 250 for short
enclosures or raceways provided for mechanical protection. Wayne
disagreed, saying that if there's any chance at all that metal
can become live it needs to be bonded.
Next
Most Recent Meeting
This
is the full report of the meeting of the George Washington
Chapter Tuesday evening, May 18, 2004, at the County offices in
Largo, Maryland. Counting the speaker, we had 14 attendees, of
whom 4 1/2 are inspectors.
The
Executive Committee meeting, open to all, started some time
after 6:30 pm. It segued into the business meeting and then our
educational program. We had a lot of laughs.
Our
chapter president, Wayne Robinson, graciously invited the
executive committee to meet out at his home at some point this
summer. Moving on to more-general business, the Treasury report
was terse. David said that since the last meeting we spent $37
on postage, and the International Office sent us $470. Meeting
refreshments cost us nothing. Once again, our former Education
Director, Dick Bissell, cooked and donated a fine tray of
barbecue-sauced meatballs and miniature sausages.
The
next business item was a request for information from a
representative of the Minnesota Electrical Association. No one
expressed interest in learning about the materials that
association offers. Similarly, nobody volunteered to call them
to answer the questions they have about our local rules and
needs.
Wayne
noted that Prince George's County has done away with the
homeowner's test. The County still does insist that work be
permitted and inspected. Furthermore, it restricts what work a
homeowner can perform. Before that restriction was established,
Wayne says, too much work covered under homeowners' permits was
performed by someone else entirely.
Jim
Wooten asked about where a Master Limited can obtain the CEU
credits that now are required. Wayne said that many sources have
been approved, including a couple of electronics schools. The
form stating course completion must, he emphasized, list the
number of contact hours. The county will provide a pre-approval
form on request. On it the licensee can list a school or course,
to ask the Board whether contact hours of attendance there will
be accepted for CEU purposes.
Our
secretary is to prepare a letter by this summer's Executive
Committee meeting that Wayne will submit, requesting that the
Electrical Board approve attendance at IAEI programs for CEU
purposes.
Finally,
we changed our meeting schedule.
Noting a conflict with the Master Electricians and Electrical
Contractors Association's meetings, we determined that the
second Tuesday may work better. Until further notice, we will go
back to meeting on the second Tuesday of every January, March,
May, September, and November. Our next one will be September 14,
2004, probably at the Prince George's County offices at
Peppercorn Place in Largo, MD
Program
Our
new local UL representative, Gary Babb, talked about what he and
UL what he can offer us.
Some
of what we heard was "old news" to anyone who's been
an inspector, or in the trade, for a while, so I'll zip through
it. Free UL directories still are available on request by AHJs
that prefer hard copy; likewise product guides; likewise the
Code Authority newsletter. Information is available through the
"Regulators" link on the web site. UL-recognized
products are components, not for field application but for
factory use. At the factory UL only samples items. UL relies on
reports from us to help them catch problems. Field modification
of Listed products remains a sore spot. Labels are designed to
self-destruct when removed for application elsewhere, but some
cheaters succeed.
Gary
offered some details, information that we found valuable or fun.
He said that field inspection now can be provided within 24 to
36 hours of a request. That's worth knowing, though it would be
nice to know how much the evaluations tend to cost, too. Pricing
is hard to average, of course, and Gary does not get involved
with that end, anyhow. Field evaluation of a new product, as
opposed to inspection of a product lacking a sticker, can take
longer. Another bit of worthwhile information is that Gary has
spent a lot of time doing factory inspections. These included
more than the unannounced aperiodic checks that UL relies upon
for its Listing/Labeling program. He also has inspected for
compliance with many European standards and with the ISO 9000
standard for quality (well, for documented quality improvement
procedures).
A
fun item was Gary's explanation of the history of UL's
recognized-component mark, as told to him. He heard that UL had
submitted a proposed mark that consisted of a forward-facing
"UR" on film, but it was rejected. The copyright
office considered it to infringe on the mark used by United
Railways. UL's designers finally just turned the film over and
said, "Let's try it this way."
We
also learned that, many years ago, products used to be marked,
"UL Inspected." Unfortunately, this misled some to
presume that every single item had been looked at, rather than
output merely being sampled. This concern led to the revised
wording, "UL Approved," and then to today's
"UL-Listed." Factory Mutual still uses the language,
"Approved."
Gary
also had a lot to say about electric signs, an area of
particular expertise and one where Jim Wooten, in particular,
has a lot of irritation. We had quite a lively discussion of how
to interpret the requirement that Listing labels shall be
visible after installation. Are they visible, if you need
binoculars? A ladder? A rooftop perch, because the label was
stuck where it can't mar the sign's appearance from the ground?
I'll
offer snippets here, but not go into full detail. What I will
report is that we hope to have Gary back in the Fall to offer a
two-hour presentation, good for CEUs, on the NEC as it relates
to signs.
He
spoke happily of the relative safety of the new LED signs, whose
12-volt wiring poses so much lower hazard than traditional
high-voltage signs. Sign transformers incorporating GFCI-
protected secondaries have been required for two or three years,
and these as well constitute a major change in the direction of
greater safety. For one thing, a poorly-grounded system will not
light, or will light only briefly, when fed by one of these. UL
has field-investigated outline lighting for more than two years.
We
talked some more about UL and sign installers, and about
lightning-protection certification, . . .you had to be there.
Code
Discussion
After
our meatball break, we had a bit more Code chat. Art mentioned
that in Laurel smoke detectors in bedrooms must be on AFCIs, and
yet when he's turned off AFCI circuits, the smoke detector
lights have stayed on. Does this mean they are not on such
circuits? Opinions differed. He did not want to have to require
that the batteries be removed. One option suggested was to just
ask that this be done at a single smoke detector. Another was to
check the manufacturer's instructions.
David
asked a question about recessed lights. Can they be supported
merely by the stabs on the ends of their support bars, or do
they require nailing, if the manufacturer's instructions don't
say? Many of us agreed that the stabs are unreliable, but Wayne
pointed out that the blankety-blank old-work recessed lights
aren't nailed in even to that extent. He agreed that it's not
good to let even Type IC contact insulation or combustibles, but
as Gary pointed out, if the manufacturer's instructions permit
it, it's permitted. John Hoff noted that he's bought some non-IC
lights that are convertible to Type IC.
Finally,
we discussed a sewage-pumping question that had been emailed by
an electrician out west. The basic issue is how to protect the
line going out to the panelboard from any gases that make the
sewage area a Class 1 Division 1 location. David Noted the
presence of hydrogen sulfide, heavy, and ammonia, light. Wayne
added methane, light and very combustible. John believes that
this issue was covered within the last couple of month's as the
Code Question of the Day. Wayne pointed out that the systems do
occasionally fail, at which times the effluent rises-- not just
gases. Finally, we generally agreed that if the cord was a
specialty item designed to lock out hazard, standard
hazardous-location seal-off fittings might be adequate.
Otherwise, it would need its jacket split, and the conductors
separated and packed in a fitting that would ensure that no
gases could travel up through the cord and then through the
conduit sleeving it to reach the panel.
Previous
Meeting
This
is the full report of the meeting of the George Washington
Chapter Tuesday evening, March 16, 2004 at the Laurel, MD town
hall. As usual, refreshments were enjoyed. This time once again
Dick Bissell not only was kind enough to deliver our drinks, but
cooked and donated a fine plate of barbecue-sauced meatballs and
miniature sausages. We had 12 attendees, including the speaker,
evenly split between inspectors and non-inspectors (5 ½
of each).
Like
the previous gathering, this was one of our chattiest meetings
in memory. Joey Panizari started off by describing some very
dangerous installation he has come upon. He lamented the fact
that they either escaped inspection or somehow passed despite
their clear danger. Jim Wooten suggested that this often comes
about because inspectors are not given sufficient time to carry
out their duties effectively. Others chimed in with similar
stories. Pete Bowers, though, was the life of the party. He
started out by describing similar observations, but went on to
detail how he has documented them and reported them to
Washington, D.C.’s head of inspections. He also regaled us
with fine stories–as did Jim Wooten and others–of
finding ignorant, careless, or defiant violations and refusing
to pass the jobs, or red-tagging them. An example mentioned by
more than one person was finding electrical cables left in place
after plumbers scorched them sweating nearby fittings. Jim found
a twelve-by-twelve trough that was extended with wood,
stealth-painted grey. Contractors, we were told, are pulling
permits for unlicensed persons to perform incompetent work–and
accepting payment by check, moreover. Low voltage work very
rarely is being inspected, or covered by permits.
We
had a bit of a dispute over a couple of the items that one Third
Party Inspector tends to fail. We all agreed with him that when
the drywall goes up before concealment inspection, it’s
got to come back down unless, at the least, someone takes the
responsibility of meggering the installation. We agreed that
boxes recessed beyond the maximum permitted quarter-inch are not
acceptable. However, the gentleman goes further.
He
has been rejecting jobs with boxes that protrude from a wall, on
the grounds that a child might conceivably get scraped on the
edge of a cover plate. We tended not to agree with him that
these should be considered in violation. Another issue was studs
with drywall installed on one side before concealment
inspection. Seeing how much harder these make it for the
electrician to install his boxes, he gives the G.C. a hard time
about these, at the least. It appeared that he was alone in
doing so. One final controversial issue that he brought up was
wiggly boxes. On final inspection, he goes around and tries
every single receptacle with his idiot-light tester. When he
withdraws the tester, the receptacle had better not pull out a
quarter-inch or more or he considers it an improper
installation. Our Education Director, Ed Holt, pointed out that
with metal studs, most especially when there is drywall on only
the one side, this is rather to be expected. Dino Panizari noted
that some plastic boxes have tabs/ears that bear against the
back of the drywall on the side not supported to the stud, and
these prevent such movement. Other options noted included the
use of Madison straps, or of 1900s instead of gems.
David
put forth a slightly-different concern: partly-covered boxes.
While sometimes it is clear that the drywall finisher or painter
puts our receptacle into violation by recessing a box or leaving
too wide a gap around its edges, sometimes the problem is the
opposite. When the drywaller closes the opening around a box by
running drywall tape and joint compound alongside it, he or she
can get over-enthusiastic. Sometimes instead of running right up
to the edge of the box, it runs over the edge of the enclosure,
even right up to the edge of the receptacle or switch. While we
agreed that this is undesirable, we also failed to find a Code
section it violates. It’s not actually reducing the box’s
volume.
We
discussed other amusing challenges of the “find the
section this violates” variety. We noted some changes that
snuck up on us. Receptacles over baseboard heaters are not
explicitly forbidden. There are Fine Print Notes in a couple of
locations (210.52 and 424.9) alerting installers to the
possibility of a 110.3(B) issue, but whether this is a violation
depends on the individual heater’s Listing. David also
argued the inadequacy of common wording. He pointed out the
absurdity of asserting that any receptacle installed above a
heater would put equipment cords at risk, using the example of a
clock-hanger six feet up. Ed brought up a “whoops”
in the 2002 NEC. Closing panelboard openings no longer is
explicitly required. We agreed that this is meat for a T.I.A.
Our
speaker was exceedingly patient. Our meeting notice had gone out
late, because we were awaiting confirmation by our speaker.
Unfortunately, what we received was disconfirmation,
so our Education Director, Ed Holt , arranged for a replacement
presenter. Our local Caddy and Rayco rep, Bernie Schreiner of
Paul Bloom Associates, Inc ., generously filled in at the last
minute. After our break, he presented a short and lively
show-and-tell . Some products received very-interested
responses, others skepticism regarding their usefulness or
cost-effectiveness. We particularly enjoyed the “magic
trick” associated with undoing Caddy’s multi-use
low-voltage cable ties. We took heed of his warning that they
are not for power wiring, and moreover only the red version, not
the yellow, is for plenum use. Another warning he offered is
that of two Caddy items that position boxes with respect to
ceiling grids, only one is Listed for support. He also noted
that there are plastic grommets for use in steel studs not to
protect NM cable but simply to expedite the pulling of armored
cable and to keep it from rattling.
At
the start, Bernie brought up couple of startling points
concerning prices. In the first few months of 2004, steel prices
have escalated to where conduit prices have doubled. The Chinese
are buying up scrap steel, worldwide, he explained. Copper
prices have gone up 30% from late January to mid-March.
Presumably he mentioned this because electrical customers might
be extra-concerned about installation value after experiencing
sticker shock over materials.
We
were interested to varying degrees in the items Bernie offered
to speed up installation. They tended to be quite a bit more
expensive than what has been used in the past, but if they do a
better, faster job, they could be worth the price. No one will
be interested in them if they do a worse job. Pete questioned
whether using aircraft cable rather than threaded rod to support
luminaires would cost important anti-sway benefits from the rod.
Others asked whether 480/277 volt installations required
connectors rather than internal clamps. With Bernie’s help
we determined, via 250.97(D), that boxes with internal
connectors are perfectly satisfactory to bond 277 volt cable
sheaths-they are tested to 600 volts. The question that remains
is whether one can apply this in Montgomery County, MD and
Washington, D.C., which remain in the 1996 NEC. The applicable
section, 250.97(D), was new in 2002.
Following
the presentation, we addressed business briefly. As no local
jurisdiction has plans to adopt the 2005 NEC, we will not be
pre-ordering books from the IO. We also do not plan to call on
them for a cooperative seminar, though we do need to get our
seminar program rolling again. Our books have been audited,
reconciled, and blessed. We noted the availability of Listed
wet-location EMT connectors, but only in sizes ½",
3/4" and 1". No attendee expressed interest in details
of September’s Eastern Section meeting. Finally, Pete
offered to help David fill a strange little request he received
from a Florida contractor, asking for help locating a Trilliant
circuit breaker.
Treasury
Report
As
of late March, with the meeting's mailing and refreshments, and
the bookkeeping audit, paid for, based on the audit David
believes we have $1485 in our checking account, and a bit under
$170 in petty cash.
Former Education Director Sir Dick
Bissell still has a Code Change Analysis book or two that we'd
be happy to sell, plus quite a few 2002 NECs.
Education
We
still look forward to scheduling another seminar with the great
team of Bob McCullough and Andy Cartal, but the date has not yet
been scheduled. If you have an idea for some other seminar,
pleasde contact Ed Holt, our Education Director.
PERSONAL
MATTERS
These
notices and, especially, our snailmailed flyers, serve as a
convenient means to get the word out to fellow members. We do
not take advertising. However, if you have, for example, a job
announcement around the time when we are sending out a mailing,
feel free to ask that it be incorporated.
SEMINARS
Our
next seminar, on April 15-16, will cover major 2005 NEC
changes.
It will be presented by the great team of Bob McCullough and
Andre Cartal. Stay tuned, or get in touch, for further
information.
General
Notes:
Seminar
registration fees are non-refundable, unless a seminar is
postponed or cancelled. However, registrations are transferable.
Therefore, if it turns out that you cannot make it, you can give
your ticket to a colleague. There are two caveats, "yes-buts."
First, if you claimed a member discount, and the colleague is
not a member, the difference must be paid. Second, we need at
least a few days' notice in order to prepare a Continuing
Education Certificate.
Credit: Several area jurisdictions
require participation in Continuing Education activities in
order to renew your license. Virginia is one that does not
presently require documentation of the specific coursework.
Prince George's County requires that Continuing Education
activities be approved, and this approval is up to the
Electrical Board, which meets every other month. We expect to
receive their blessing.
For
further information on chapter activities, contact Ed Holt <
eholtjr@comcast.net>, our Education Director, or
telephone Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro (9 am - 9 pm only,
please) at 301-699-8833, or email him at <GWIAEI.org>
The
Central PA Chapter
has
meetings that might not be too far for a few of our members.
Their September 12 talk was on infrared imaging to detect points
of overheating. Their November 14 meeting featured a speaker
from Square D on AFCIs. While their website access is
temporarily on hold, Larry Griffith, their Secretary- Treasurer,
can be reached at 717-872-2618 or emailed at
larrygriffith@paonline.com
Code
Books
If
you are a member whose dues have been paid up continuously for
three or more years, you should have received your copy of the
2002 NEC from the International Office long ago. We still have
couple of copies of the errata available for members who cannot
download them. To be reading this, though, you clearly have web
access. You will find them on NFPA's web site. Go to
http://www.nfpa.org/nec/ and select the third item down on the
left-hand navigation bar.
If
you are a newer or a rejoined member (hence ineligible for the
complimentary copy), and still have not purchased a 2002 NEC,
you can buy one from the Chapter at a reduced rate. Contact Dick
Bissell, our former Education Coordinator, at 301-277-5823.
This
is the report of the meeting of the George Washington Chapter
Tuesday evening, January 20, 2004. It was held in the first
floor conference room of the Prince George's County offices in
Largo, MD. As usual, refreshments were enjoyed. This time, our
former Education Director, Dick Bissell, not only was kind
enough to deliver our munchies and drinks, but cooked and
donated a fine plate of barbecue-sauced meatballs. We had 14
Attendees, including 5 inspector members and one non-member,
John Hoff, who joined up at the meeting.
This
was one of our chattiest meetings in memory. We started out with
a lot of grousing about the lack of support for qualified
electrical inspection, its implications for the morale of decent
inspectors and honorable installers, and the likelihood that
only tragedy, if even that, is likely to turn the tide.
Eventually
we moved on to more positive topics. First, we learned that
Maryland jurisdictions are finally adopting the 2002 NEC.
Carroll, Calvert, Saint Mary's, Charles, and Ann Arundel
Counties already enforce it. Prince George's County (PG) and
Laurel, MD will adopt it by the last week of January, 2004. They
will share identical local amendments. PG's local amendments, to
be adopted simultaneously with the 2002 NEC, will be available
to people who email or visit Wayne, the Chief Electrical
Inspector, or eventually, by downloading from the County's web
site.
Montgomery
County does not yet have plans to enforce the 2002 NEC.
Montgomery County, we were told, has a long-standing local
amendment limiting even residential receptacles to 12 on a 20
amp circuit, 8 on a 15. The City of Rockville shares this rule.
Another variation is that they don't require AFCI protection.
(We were told that multi-hat inspectors in PG generally have not
been enforcing this rule, although it certainly is on the
books.)
Presently
only PG and Cecil Counties require Sparky to earn CEUs to
maintain his or her license. Wayne has letters out to the
electrical board to grant us the power to award CEUs for
attendance at our training programs.
All
useful information. Next, this being our annual meeting, we had
elections, fruitful ones. Two executive board members who simply
have not been around have been dropped. Two of the chapter
members who had been speaking up at this meeting, deploring the
fact that so many don't seem to care about the issues that IAEI
is about, were persuaded to join our executive committee. We now
(sigh of relief) again have an Education Director. This is the
final slate, which was voted in by acclamation:
Prez:
Wayne Robinson;
Veep: Sam Levinrad;
Second Veep: vacant;
Sec'y-Treas: David Shapiro;
Membership: Joey Panizari;
Education: Ed Holt;
At Large: Harry Langway;
Past
Prez: Jim Wooten;
Godfather: Art Hesse.
PROGRAM:
MATERIAL QUESTIONS
David
Shapiro presented a program on Listing issues. His thesis: what
you don't know about even common products can hurt you. Unlike
most of our programs, he is not ethically able to provide
exhaustive notes about the presentation for IAEI
News .
They would conflict with a feature, covering some of the same
material, that David sold to Electrical
Contractor.
What
we can say, emphatically, is that in order to comply with Code
it is not enough to have a copy of the NEC, because 110.3(B)
demands that you follow the rules for the materials you install.
Only a small portion of them accompany the materials in the form
of written instructions. While those of us who are blessed, if
that's the right term, with computer access can go to UL's web
site and look up the guide card on a product, the big problem is
that if we don't know about restrictions, we may not realize the
need to look things up.
Some
of our members, particularly Ed, Art, and Wayne, were
surprisingly savvy, but no one seemed in the least certain
about, for example, whether EMT installed in concrete needs
supplemental protection. Look it up: Category FJMX. Another
category with information that surprised attendees is KDSH,
"Grounding and Bonding Equipment, Communication.
We
had much entertaining discussion, as the presentation was quite
low-key. We wandered all over the map. Ed shared a
troubleshooting trick: his system for finding bad connections.
When a circuit goes dead, he beats on the walls near the various
receptacles. When he finds the right area, whatever is plugged
in will come to life again, telling him where to go to tighten a
termination.
LOOKING
AHEAD
It
appears that our next meeting, March 16, will be held in Laurel,
MD, thanks to the good offices of Chapter godfather Art Hesse.
Starting perhaps in May, several meetings' programs may be
devoted to a multi-hour, CEU-granting program on Code
calculations, being prepared by Wayne.
Next
Most Recent Meeting
This
is the report of our meeting Tuesday evening, November 18, 2003.
It was held in Laurel, MD, thanks to the good offices of Chapter
godfather Art Hesse, who not only arranged for the meeting space
but came early and set it up despite suffering from bronchitis.
We had 11 Attendees, including 5 inspectors and one non-member.
We started
right off with our scheduled program, which gave us a head start
asking what we wanted of jolly old Mr. Nick. Our good friend at
NEMA, Gil Moniz, brought Dave Mercier, Technical Director of
Southwire's electrical division, the world's largest building
wire and cable manufacturer, and owner of the"Romex(R)"
brand. He came to talk about how to and whether to! repair cable
jackets-and lots more. Dave is an alternate member of
Code-Making Panel 7, and former member of CMPs 6 and 8. He is
involved in NFPA's study of aging residential wires, the Copper
Development Association's study of elevated ambient, and other
important projects.
Dave
started out with a light touch, warning us of the risk
associated with traveling with wire samples, post-9/11. "You'd
better have a business card, to show the security people what
you're doing with it."
He
talked about the fact that in some commercial work there is a
cycle of regular, planned, rewiring, but this is not the case
with residential work. He figures that if wiring is 30 years old
or newer, it's fine. Older, and he just can't predict status.
Some folks have a rule of thumb that says if you touch wiring
that's over 30 years old, you replace it. This is not based on
any studies, which is why he considers the NFPA Research project
so important.
The
ambient temperature study also is quite important. One 2005
change coming out of it is that cables bundled for 24" or
more no longer will be the only ones requiring derating due to
bundling. Bundling for a shorter distance and covering with
draft-stopping insulation will also require derating. Running
raceways outdoors in the sun will mean adding 30 deg F to the
high end of the general expected ambient temperature.
When
Gil visited us previously, he made a splash by noting that the
transparent nylon covering THHN/THWN, while arguably making them
sexy compared to THW, is not required to maintain the
conductor's dielectric properties. Therefore, if in the course
of installation the nylon suffers the odd nick, or unsightly
run, or even is scraped off, the conductor is fine so long as
the insulation underneath remains intact. Learning this much, we
had to have Dave over for more of the story.
Unless
conductors are exposed to gasoline or oil, or submerged for an
extended period we're talking many months--the nylon covering
offers strictly a mechanical protection, Dave explained, with
the underlying PVC supplying the dielectric properties as Gil
had told us. The nylon actually is stripped away for the UL
acceptance test. Therefore, if the nylon is scraped off, but the
plastic underneath is intact, an appropriate response usually is
"Good; it's done its job," and a green tag.
It's
not just the nylon covering on THHN/THWN, we learned, but the
sheaths on cable assemblies also often are optional. A cable
installer nicked the sheath of a nonmetallic cable installed in
a dry indoor location, and responded in a curious way: he turned
the cable so the nick faced toward the wall. Not a bad response,
Dave opined (while not wholeheartedly endorsing); this way,
people glancing at it in passing wouldn't be unnecessarily
concerned.
You
may detect from this that Dave is quite an engaging speaker;
moreover he's one with 19 years' product and Code experience
under his belt to give plenty of clout to the information.
Damage
is not necessarily limited solely to cable sheaths, of course.
If a cable appears damaged, Dave recommends cutting a window in
the sheath so you can examine the conductor insulation beneath.
If that's good, you can "reinstall the window."
What
should you do when you do want to, or need to, repair a cable
sheath? Vinyl tape does just fine, Dave said, except in a wet
location, and self-sealing mastic tape does even better. Best is
a layer of self-fusing tape covered by a layer of vinyl. It even
can be used outdoors on UF or SE cable, so long as it is not
buried. For that, you need the sealing coverings that come with
a Listed underground splice kit.
Art
asked whether NM or SE cable repaired in this way still meets
the UL standard. Dave commented that it is tough to say. There
needs to be a dialogue between the manufacturer, AHJ, and
installer. A qualified installer of repair materials should be
able to make a repair acceptable to the AHJ, and Southwire's
warranty will remain in effect. "Qualified?" Jim
Wooten asked. "Someone who has received certified training
in using the material, either in an apprenticeship class, or
continuing education such as is offered by tape manufacturers."
Even damaged Medium Voltage cable remains warrantied, so long as
the shielded jacket, which is there for mechanical protection
like that of MC, is fixed using a Listed repair kit installed by
a qualified person.
We
hope to co-sponsor such a class with 3M or Raychem or some such
organization.
Taping
certainly is not the only option for repairing insulation or
sheaths. TED magazine ran an excellent article by 3M on
available options. Industrial electricians tend to prefer to use
heat- shrink tubing. Dave warned, though, that there is more
room for error in using that than in taping! One problem is
applying the right amount of heat all over. In addition, unless
you get the "zipper sleeve" version, shrink tubing is
pretty much limited to the ends of conductors. Cold shrink
tubing tends to be more reliable than heat shrink, because it
provides a constant, even pressure around the conductor and is
not dependant on the need to apply heat uniformly, like heat
shrink. It does not do a good job of resisting hard objects,
though, which is one reason it is not Listed for direct burial.
There is also an "armor repair" material for larger
cables, which requires a bonding wire to bridge across it.
(These are way bigger than our AC or NM.) Parenthetically, he
noted that many distributors seem to be ignorant of which
fittings are suitable for larger-size cables, so for the present
Southwire is supplying them.
Dave
neither smiled or frowned on the use of liquid vinyl repair
material. Does "vinyl mender" use restore warranty?
How would anyone become a "qualified installer" of
that stuff? Unfortunately, he didn't have the definitive answer
to every possible question. The only use of vinyl mender he is
familiar with personally is as paint, to field-reidentify the
ends of conductors.
Dave
fielded one question that had an interesting Code twist: "Do
you have concerns about pulling cables (as opposed to insulated
conductors) through raceways, including long runs, and bends?"
Presently it is legal to do so with "short lengths"
(undefined) for mechanical protection, and for up to 10 feet
entering a panelboard. Dave answered that he strongly favors the
practice. A difficult run, which might damage conductor
insulation, might be even a little harder to pull if you add the
stiffness of cable sheath or armor! However, if what gets
abraded during the pull is sheathing or armor, this may well
spare the conductor insulation itself. Furthermore, the fact
that it is not legal to pull cables through complete raceway
runs, enclosure-to-enclosure, is a fluke, an unsubstantiated
change, the result of a lack of correlation between CMPs during
Code amendment. The NEC should accept the practice as in the
past, as a general rule, unless a cable article forbids it.
Instead, for the 2002 cycle it forbade the practice, as a
general rule, unless a cable article specifically authorizes it.
A Tentative Interim Amendment may be forthcoming, pending the
2005 correction.
This
said, you can't just yank cable in to a raceway. Manufacturers
supply tables of maximum force. You need to apply these
guidelines, taking into account sidewall pressure where pulling
around bends. (People often fail to monitor it putting their
work at risk!) You also need to be sure to pull on the sheath or
armor, along with the conductors.
Here's
another big question Dave helped us gain insight on: about how
much heat, or moisture, can cable withstand without needing, at
the least, evaluation? The heat part of the answer is simple for
THHN/THWN (and Dave can't remember seeing any THHN that isn't
dual-rated as THWN): 90 deg C. This is 90% of the temperature it
takes to boil water. Hence the mere fact that a cable is running
"hot," even too hot to keep your hand on, may indicate
that you have a problem, but not that the conductor insulation
is being damaged by the heat. You have to take its temperature.
Cables
of standard building wire with hotter withstand temperatures are
not particularly in the works, in part because if you go to a
whole lot higher temperature you are installing a cable that
theoretically can get hot enough in normal use to set wood
afire!
So
much for heat. If cable has been subjected to flood water, the
results can be particularly unfortunate, in part because of all
the nasty materials the water can deposit, some of which are
conductive, and in part because of hazardous mold and mildew,
which can develop within 48 hours if materials are not dried.
Mildew will attack plastic. Jim mentioned that flooding in
Annapolis resulted in armored cable falling apart within a week
after being submerged .
How
should we go about evaluating cable suspected of having suffered
damage? Replacement is always the safest approach. It's not
always a welcome option. Whether the issue is heat, flood, or
simply age, visual inspection is by far the most important
inspection. Inspection involving testers can be misinterpreted.
For instance, the concept, "It tests good, therefore it is
good," without inspection, is just wrong. The one time you
can rely on a tester is if it says something is wrong. Some
testing of medium voltage, Type MV cables is in fact potentially
damaging, so that the next time you use the cable after it
passes the test, it will fail due--to the test.
This
said, testing can be useful. The two approaches are go-no go
high-potential (hi-pot) testing and insulation resistance
measurement. The latter is more of a challenge, because it
requires interpretation. Cable and tester manufacturers offer
tables of values to look for. It is pretty clear that in normal
building wire, measured in the vicinity of something grounded,
insulation resistance below two megohms should fail, and above
50 megohms should pass. Measurements between those numbers
warrant further investigation of the cable, especially near
terminations.
Dave
fielded lots and lots of questions. Harry asked Dave about NM-C.
He's never seen it. "Use UF-B," he recommends. There
just isn't enough call for NM-C: embedment in the walls of adobe
or log homes, that's about it. Plain, old-fashioned UF is not an
equivalent to NM-C, because the temperature ratings are
different, but the only disadvantage of UF-B compared to NM-C is
that it's harder to strip.
We
learned a lot about where cables can be used, and also where
they are used. There are a number of municipalities that forbid
running circuits with conductors smaller than 12 AWG. Dave
cannot urge the necessity of such a policy, especially where
dedicated circuits have been run to take care of heavy loads and
long runs.
SE
cable is good for services because not only is the sheath
sunlight-resistant, the internal conductors are, as well. Power
and Control Tray Cable, Type TC, can be used for services as
well, but while its sheath is sunlight-resistant, its internal
conductors are not. (In accordance with Article 336, TC cable
must also be installed in a cable tray or conduit system unless
supported by a messenger wire outdoors or similarly protected in
an industrial installation.) Ignore the restrictions and you're
taking a risk. Some NM cable may withstand underground use, for
example, although it is not Listed for the purpose, but such
violations are chancy. What you may be able to get away with
this week can be dangerous next week, as the formulation of the
internal conductors can be changed without any indication from
one that can withstand moisture to one that cannot.
The
silicone rubber cable that is fireproof, turning to ceramic
inside its steel conduit when baked, does indeed seem to do the
job claimed. Sure, it needs to be replaced after the fire, and
the traditional, far-more-expensive MI does not, but the odds
are there is so much structural damage anyway that this may not
matter.
Colored
plastic cables, we learned, have a tendency to fade in sunlight.
Are
cables being developed that are immune to vermin? Not really.
There isn't enough call for that, and toxic chemical additives
are frowned upon. Install something the vermin can't get their
teeth around. In Texas, ants eat Romex(R). Squirrels have eaten
right through an aluminum service conductor.
Jim
asked whether there's a problem with knob-and-tube wiring. No,
not so long as it is kept open, people don't touch it, and it is
installed correctly, including the transitions to other wiring
methods. It still is being installed in Louisiana and Texas.
Susan
asked, "How is cable to be stripped?" Some of the
apprentices she's supervised have trouble. Dave said there's no
one answer, except . . . Whether you use a knife, a pair of
side- cutting pliers, or a patent wire stripper, you cannot lose
strands or nick conductors.
How
about color-coding cable jackets and armor? Partly in response
to inspectors' lesser skill, Wayne will be requiring that, in
Prince George's County, armor be color-coded to indicate voltage
level. Dave mentioned that Southwire has a White Paper on the
problem of diminishing skill in the field. He noted the amount
of gray hair in the room; Wayne riposted that the gray is
premature. They also have a Building Wire and Cable Handbook,
which he offered to send to those interested.
Dave
invited us to tour Southwire's highly-automated manufacturing
plant in their Carrollton facility outside of Atlanta, which is
one of the largest facilities in the country manufacturing
utility and building wire products. He talked briefly about the
economics of U.S. manufacture versus importation. (Sorry--you
had to be there.)
One
last item Dave talked about was the restrictions on NM use. What
used to be a three-story rule became what is essentially a
five-story rule, as it shifted to being based on type of
building construction. He sees little political support for
extending NM use beyond this height. He noted that NM is illegal
above a suspended ceiling. The fact that this is true even if it
is in a raceway makes little sense to him.
We
had a fine time with Dave, and he in turn confided afterwards
that our group was one of the more knowledgeable and receptive
that he has been with. After Dave was done, or rather after we
were done with Dave, who was game to answer questions quite as
long as they kept coming, Secretary-Treasurer David broached the
matters of business that normally would have preceded the
program. While the information is laid out at length below,
there were only four items that caught anyone's interest.
First,
yes, the I.O. proxy just seems to be a matter of housekeeping.
Second, we're still solvent. Third, our next meeting, January
20, should be back at the Prince George's County offices in
Largo, MD. Fourth, while we urgently need a new Education
Director, Dick Bissell holds out some hope of a January 2002
Code seminar, at a PEPCO facility.
Ray
Millet, Section Secretary, asked that we pass on the following
highlights of the 2003 Board of Directors meeting. The web site,
, has three new items: a New Member Application form, the
opportunity to renew membership on-line, and the ability to
update/correct information such as your address. I have
previously mentioned that the site provides the opportunity to
review Code questions and answers from the Jubilee. Ray also
shared an estimate of the cost for the 2005 NEC: $65. The books
they offer to prepare for exams and certifications will not be
updated to the 2005. Instead, they recommend their $39.
Comprehensive Study Guide. They're hoping to get the IAEI
Analysis of the NEC updated to the 2005 version in time for
2004's Section meeting. Ray mentioned that you received a proxy
request in the mail because IAEI is not incorporated in Texas.
Here
is email I sent to our Executive Director, Jim Carpenter, on
11/9:
"When
asked, I've been assuring members that this is just
administrivia, enabling our representatives to move the
organizational registration to where you'd prefer it, down where
the IO is actually located. I don't know whether there are
particular problems with having it registered elsewhere, but
don't know of any reason for people to think twice about the
proxy. Is there anything else I should know, and communicate?"
I
also asked about whether associate members are really supposed
to be voting on this. I have not heard back from him.
$
We may end up owing money for, or receiving some disbursement
due to, the overall costs to and receipts to IAEI from the
Jubilee, but we won't know yet for some months. We can expect
I'd guess a couple of hundred dollars, a partial disbursement,
from the IO in December. I figure we have about $220 in cash, $5
in postage, about $900 in our checking account (thanks to
providing less-expensive refreshments than at other meetings),
and enough paper and envelopes for our next couple of mailings.
Our bank thinks we have a few hundred more in the account, a
disagreement that has been true for a few years. This is much
better than a disagreement in the other direction, but still one
that I hope our auditor, Pam Panizari, can reconcile next time
she goes over the books.
Previous
Meeting
September
2003
The
George Washington Chapter's regular meeting and program took
place Tuesday evening, September 16, 2003, at a different
location than usual, the Laurel, MD town hall. Four inspector
and four associate members attended. Our president and
vice-president were unexpectedly absent, so we handled things
informally. The first thing we did, before the meeting even came
to order, was to present our godfather, Art Hesse-also the
evening's host--with a certificate acknowledging his 25 years of
IAEI membership.
We
started out about 6:45 with David reporting a conversation he
had at the IAEI Jubilee with the Ohio chapter's secretary, Tim
Curry, about building chapter membership and attendance. Tim was
generous with his time, forgoing the opportunity to attend a
training session at the jubilee, in order to give us the benefit
of his experience. One response we took at this September 16
meeting was to gather a list of distributor personnel. Harry
Langway has volunteered to approach them to publicize our
meetings and seminars. Another response was to vote our thanks
to Tim Curry for his help.
GOSSIP ABOUT
TOOLS AND MATERIALS
Harry
talked about counterfeit electrical products, and mentioned that
he recently has been sold old-standard GFCIs by a supply house
and been very unhappy about it. There's nothing illegal about
this, but Harry likes to work to the best standard available.
David discussed the 2003 change in the standard for GFCIs. One
member had understood this to include self-testing for proper
function, which one brand claims to offer. David explained that
this capability is being proposed for a 2005 revision of the
GFCI standard.
Ed
Holt brought up the fact that UL tightened the standard for
raintight EMT connectors, such that the presently-manufactured
ones no longer comply. David noted that the UL representatives
at the jubilee said manufacturers may be offering redesigned
connectors for evaluation for compliance with the standard. Ron
Greenfield, our speaker, offered to contact a manufacturer he
represents for information on this.
David
mentioned the great wealth of information he recorded at the
jubilee, and started to discuss the differences in marks for
recognized components compared to Listed products. He offered to
share more of it after the evening's scheduled presentation,
should time allow.
Our
presenter, Ron Greenfield, was quite helpful in suggesting
people at supply houses for us to contact. Ron represents Ideal
and quite a few other manufacturers. Most of his time was spent
touting the features of the particular products he is hired to
promote, so details seem inappropriate to reproduce. We did find
it interesting when he said that current versions of the
Suretest (TM) report as a false ground any grounding that relies
on armor or raceways-on anything but a separate ground wire. Ron
gave the impression that he believed a separate ground wire is
Code-required in residential home runs.
Some
of his information on the NEC and UL standards was at odds with
the understandings of the rest of us. He finds 7 mA to be at the
low end of what it takes to trip a Class A GFCI, according to
the test instruments whose use he promotes, and he understood
this trip level to be normal and proper. Based on our response
to this statement, he did say he will check his information.
Codes
and standards issues aside, he did offer a fair bit of
interesting gossip. Advance, Sylvania, and Magnetek all are
offering inexpensive electronic ballasts for residential use
that produce more than 30% total harmonic distortion. Because he
represents one brand of megohmmeter, he is often asked what
level of impedance is reasonable. He has come up with no
guidelines from manufacturers. Ed Holt mentioned that well
manufacturers do have such guidelines, depending on the age of
the well pump. Ron mentioned that solenoidal voltmeters are far
more expensive to produce than electronic ones. He also told us
that newer tic tracers no longer react to voltage in neutrals.
After a couple of efforts, Ed was allowed to ask about the
voluntary recall of Voltcon testers. Ron explained that the
solenoid failed in two units, dated between 1999 and 2002, used
to test voltages over 750 VDC. Nonetheless, Ideal is replacing
all such units turned in.
Finally,
Ron discussed the line of fire protection equipment he
represents, Kidde. It includes smoke detectors, heat detectors,
and carbon monoxide detectors. A garage might call for a heat
detector set at 135 degrees, and an attic heat detector set at
200 degrees. The manufacturer does recommend vacuuming the units
or blowing dust and suchlike out with a hair dryer. This was a
surprise to Sam Levinrad, based on his (not necessarily
up-to-date) understanding of NFPA 72.
Ron
was done talking a bit before 9 pm, and we adjourned for fruit,
soda, and shrimp. The consensus was that it was too late to
resume, so we left after refreshments, taking Ideal pigtail
samples provided by Ron, plus low-voltage books donated by Mike
Holt Enterprises, Inc.
May
2003 Meeting
This
is the report of our regular meeting starting about 6:40 Tuesday
evening, May 20, 2003 in the first floor conference room of the
Prince George's County offices at 9400 Peppercorn Place in
Largo, MD. Fifteen members attended, four inspector-type and the
rest Associate. We enjoyed the presence of several members of
the Chesapeake Chapter and one from the Central Pennsylvania.
OLD
BUSINESS
EDUCATION
Education
Director Sir Dick Bissell made three attempts to confirm that
the evening's scheduled speaker would be able to make it.
Unfortunately, Dick received neither a yea nor a nay, and we had
to announce our program on faith. (Our wait for a response was
one reason the meeting notice was mailed out somewhat late.)
Coming
up on the meeting, Dick still expected to bring back the great
seminar team of Bob McCullough and Andre Cartal, probably in
mid-June. Unfortunately, he was not able to obtain a good-sized
venue. Art Hesse assured us we could use the facilities of the
Town of Laurel, but Dick hopes we would get more attendees than
Laurel could accommodate. Dick has hopes that PEPCO's
Forestville facility might be available for us to offer a
seminar, with seating for a hundred or more; and PEPCO would not
charge us, or restrict how we ran it. As a result, we shifted
our hopes to the Fall. More on that below.
Dick
himself remains over-scheduled, and would like to step down. We
still need a volunteer to take over as Education Coordinator.
Treasury
Report
Dick
still has a 2002 Code Change Analysis book or two that we'd be
happy to sell, plus quite a few 2002 NECs. Dick brought some to
this meeting, and we did sell three books. Once the check has
been received for the two books purchased at the meeting and not
paid for with spot cash, I anticipate that we'll have about
$2700 in cash, savings, and postage. We still have a few months
before we send representation to the next Section meeting, which
will take place at IAEI's 75th Anniversary celebration in
Orlando. Unfortunately, we anticipate no further income during
that period, and in fact expect to spend money on an additional
mailing.
Visiting
Central Pennsylvania Secretary-treasurer C. Larry Griffith
advised us that we will need to rely on seminars for more of our
income, because the International Office is looking to the
chapters to kick in more to support them, rather than helping us
out financially.
OTHER
BUSINESS
NEIS
Dick
Bissell formally presented the collection of NEISs to Wayne.
They were given to our chapter by Andrew Porter, the Executive
Director of the local NEA chapter. Wayne has sent a thank-you
note. Susan proposed, and we agreed, that these will circulate.
Richard Velasquez was the first to take advantage of this,
borrowing the entire set.
LONGEVITY
A
number of members have stuck around long enough that we have
certificates to present them acknowledging their loyalty. This
meeting, we had agreed, offered the final opportunity for them
to receive the certificates. None either showed up or called.
Nonetheless, Susan proposed, and we voted, to mail them the
certificates.
FELLOW
TRAVELER
Harry
Langway, Jr. is a local contractor who chooses to be a member of
IAEI's Chesapeake Chapter. Nonetheless, he attended, and has
asked to be on our mailing list. Sure thing.
COLLABORATION
WITH THE IEC
IEC?
IBEW/NECA? We don't take sides, or, to put it more piously,
we're on the side of everyone who's concerned with improving
electrical safety and the consistent application of the NEC.
Some choices came up, though. Here's the situation.
Grant
B. Shmelzer, Executive Director of the Independent Electrical
Contractors' Chesapeake chapter, asked for assistance in
marketing IEC continuing education classes to all the members of
IAEI. It was not clear whether the IEC has publicized our
chapter's continuing education activities or whether there is
any possible competition for paying audiences. Not being a
member of our chapter, he was careful to point out in his
request, "We are members of IAEI." Despite quite a
number of other pulls on his attention, he attended this meeting
to urge his case. Asked whether there might be a conflict
between our seminars and the IEC's, he said that would be hard
to predict.
These
are the points he made:
He
puts out a monthly newsletter with 250 recipients.
In it he
announces the IEC's continuing education activities.
In it he
has not announced IAEI's continuing education activities.
He
would like us to use our mailings to announce the IEC's
continuing education activities, including the dozen courses the
IEC will give during the remainder of this year (or as many of
them as are still upcoming when we put out a mailing).
He
would like us to consider using their facilities for a seminar.
If we do so, they are willing to take on a fair bit of
administrative work, and provide the food. They would expect a
certain fee per head for the food, and half the net
receipts.
Perhaps because he is Chesapeake, rather than D.C.,
oriented, he considers his Odenton, MD facility centrally
located and convenient for our members.
He emphatically
recommends using a local speaker rather than the IAEI team, but
doesn't insist on it.
He strongly urges that we raise the fee
for attending the seminar so that it does not significantly
undercut the rates they and others charge. This is true whether
or not we co-sponsor the seminar.
If we co-sponsor a
seminar, he advises us to count on attendance by no more than 50
or so, not that sign-ups can be predicted.
He warned that we
might not make any profit if we charge as we have (although we
have come out ahead consistently, in the past).
If they
co-sponsor it, he offers to try to get a distributor to kick in
some money towards books or food. If they were successful in
obtaining the underwriting, they would want the fee for
attendance to stay as high as if the distributor were not
helping out.
If we decided on co-sponsoring it soon enough,
they would publicize it at the mid-June electric show, as well
as through their newsletter mailing. It was not clear whether
they would publicize our seminar if we used PEPCO's facilities
rather than co-sponsoring with the IEC.
He suggests that we
provide a link to his web site on our chapter's web site. He has
a link on his web site not to our chapter's but to the IO's.
Wayne
supported raising prices. Dick, David, and some others favored
keeping them relatively low, with strong incentives for early
registration, as in the past. Susan pointed out that we want to
act like a non-profit devoted to electrical safety, whose main
point in offering seminars is to teach people who otherwise
might not take a class. As well as doing a great job, Andy and
Bob give us a break on pricing, to support our mutual goals.
Wayne's
opinion, echoed around the room, is that we should work with
anyone interested in continuing electrical education. Larry
mentioned that his local IEEE chapter has a link to the
Pennsylvania IAEI's web site, and this brings some engineers to
their seminars.
Dick
brought up this question: In the fairly-recent past we chose not
to publicize a Toastmasters(TM) club, open to all but sponsored
by IBEW/NECA, because an inquiry to the IEC determined that some
of their officers would see this as favoritism. How would the
chapter working with the IEC jibe with this?
Grant
responded that, having researched Toastmasters(TM) further, if
asked again he would not oppose publicizing them. At the same
time, he made the point that helping people with public speaking
and leadership skills is not part of the IAEI's purpose, and
continuing electrical education is.
David
asked for a motion setting a policy regarding publicizing
others' seminars; Wayne gave the opinion that none is needed.
That's where it was left, basically up to whoever's on the spot.
We
started thinking about September for our next seminar, but Larry
pointed out that much of it would conflict with the IAEI Golden
Jubilee meeting. Susan Flashman suggested that we look at the
last three weekends in October for possible dates. Grant offered
the IEC facilities for October 24-25, with the following
Friday-Saturday also possible.
Program
Our
presenter was to be Bill Grande, Product Manager for Safety
Products at Leviton Mfg. He had offered to talk about electrical
imports with genuine UL Listing and Labeling, but that violate
U.S. copyrights. Unfortunately, he did not appear. He told us
afterwards that he was on the West Coast when Dick's messages
seeing to confirm his commitment to show up came in. We did
enjoy some Code discussion on our own, though.
DEFECTIVE
PRODUCTS
After
the break, Larry discussed a couple of problems with materials.
One, a large bundle of EMT, made in Colombia but UL-Listed, had
a number of pieces that split when bent--just moderately.
Another, a coil of Carol MC cable, dropped a substantial
quantity of oil, used in its manufacture, from its cut ends.
Carol reportedly said it's not their problem.
In
the course of the discussion, Wayne said the UL now advises we
contact them in South Carolina when problems arise.
LITERAL
VERSUS APPLIED NEC
David
brought up a couple of Code-interpretation concerns from
installations he has been on recently.
FISH
OR CUT WALL
Here's
the first. The NEC focuses on new installations more than on old
work, but not exclusively. There is an exception to the rules
for securing cables in the case of fishing, for instance in
334.30 (B)(1); a question that it would be nice to hear from
different members, especially, different inspector members,
about is when and where old work is considered fishing, cable is
considered concealed, and support impracticable.
Think
it's obvious? What if cable is fished down from an unfinished
attic to a switch box location? Certainly if the hole cut for
the switch is no bigger than is needed to fit a self-holding
box, or a gem box (single gang or multi-gang) and a couple of
madison straps, the cable does not require stapling. Suppose,
though, that a side-flange square box is chosen, and plastering
will be needed later anyway? Is the cable still "concealed,"
and support "impracticable"?
Now
suppose that a strip of wall is cut away to enable drilling of
studs to run new cable to receptacles. Clearly, where the cable
is run through a hole within a foot of the receptacle, it is
considered supported, so there's no problem. However, with studs
sixteen inches or further on center, some cable will not be
supported by a hole within a foot of each outlet box. Given that
the wall has been chopped into considerably already, is the
cable still "concealed," and support "impracticable"?
Suppose that, again, large-enough holes were chopped anyway to
use side- flange square boxes for the outlets; would that make a
difference?
Larry's
opinion was that if there was room to swing a hammer, you needed
to staple or strap. Wayne was harsher, and he carried other
inspectors with him. He said that if you don't use a cut-in box
it's not fished. Even if you're cutting drywall in order to
drill studs, patch and use an old work box.
Dino
Panizari asked if anyone has a problem with using an old work
box in new construction. No; not unless it's beign installed in
a hospital.
MULTIWIRE
The
second set of questions concerns 210.4(B) and 300.13: should the
rules for multiwire branch circuits apply only to split-yoke
wiring? Only to points where more than one hot conductor is
present? This judgement call affects both the requirement to
pigtail identified conductors and, in residential occupancies,
the requirement to use handle ties or multipole CBs. If your
jurisdiction puts one or the combination of both those limits on
the requirements, do you do so via a formal local amendment, or
on the basis of "everybody knows what it's supposed to
me/how we apply it."?
There
are several potential hazards. We'll take it as a given that if
you're careful enough and/or lucky enough, you can work
anything, live, and not get hurt, and if you're
ignorant/careless/unlucky enough nothing will protect you. With
that aside. . .
There
is the risk associated with losing the grounded conductor
upstream of a point where both, or all three, hot legs are
feeding loads; this involves exposure to, and dividing of,
phase-to-phase or leg-to-leg voltage.
There
is the risk associated with interrupting the grounded conductor
upstream of where a load feeds into it; this involves exposure
to line-to-ground voltage.
There
is the risk associated with contacting a grounded return
conductor that is carrying a load; this involves dividing the
return current between the upstream return conductor path and
whatever path you provide inadvertently.
While
they may throw light on the Code, these issues are separate from
the question, "What does the NEC actually require?"
If
we take 210.4(B) literally, it indicates that any device, such
as a duplex receptacle, fed by a multiwire circuit needs to be
fed by a multipole breaker or handle-tied breakers. It doesn't
say, "any device fed by both hot legs of a multiwire branch
circuit." If you are creative rather than literal, and read
into it that the receptacles are "not fed by a multiwire
branch circuit" if they're only fed by one side/leg of it
and the link between them isn't broken, then single pole
breakers would be okay in residences. The NFPA handbook
illustration shows the tab broken on a common yoke. The
McPartlands' McGraw-Hill Handbook of the NEC doesn't just
suggest this via an illustration but uses the wording,
"split-wired," in discussing the 210.4 prohibition
against using independent single-pole circuit breakers. When the
NEC wording is not explicit, it should be made explicit, rather
than having to be interpreted. Still, how do you call it?
Handbooks
don't have the force of law. The question is whether they talk
in terms of split-wired devices because that is the example
where pigtailing, and disconnecting both circuits, is
demonstrably most important, or because the CMP didn't mean what
their literal wording says, but in fact only intend these
requirements to apply at split-wired devices or, alternately,
only at points in the system where more than one hot wire of the
multiwire circuit is present in the enclosure.
The
wording of 300.13(B), Device Removal, requiring pigtailing, is
not restricted to residences, and not restricted to multiple
devices sharing a yoke. The only out from the requirement to
splice and pigtail the white conductor is by creative
redefinition of "multiwire branch circuit." Some
people argue that downstream of where, typically, the 14/3
splits off into 14/2 cable, "it's no longer a multiwire
circuit." Unfortunately, this would seem to run counter to
Article 100, which considers a circuit to be defined at the
point it leave the last overcurrent device.
Doesn't
the NEC permit a designer to treat a multiwire branch circuit
the same as multiple (separate) branch circuits? This would
suggest that, at least at points after it divides, it doesn't
need to fulfill the requirements imposed by 210.4(B) and
300.13(B) Only in two contexts. The permission seems to be
limited to fulfilling one requirement and being exempt from one
prohibition. A multiwire branch circuit can be used where
normally you would need multiple branch circuits. Thus one
multiwire branch circuit can be used where you would be required
to install two or more small appliance branch circuits in a
kitchen/dining/pantry area. Also, a multiwire branch circuit can
use one leg to serve as a small appliance branch circuit and
another leg for general lighting, without violating the
prohibition against combining a small appliance branch circuit
with a general lighting branch circuit. Neither situation
clearly indicates that the NEC defines it as no longer being a
multiwire branch circuit at some point along its path.
Wayne
personally likes to pigtail and multi-pole breakers, but
considers it okay to use separate single-pole breakers unless
you have a device split-wired. Larry disagrees, because someone
trying to balance loads could move one of the breakers onto a
different leg, overloading what should be the neutral. Larry
believes you should pigtail the grounded conductor even where
it's down to two wires. Dino believe you need to pigtail it only
where more than one hot is present. We did not achieve
consensus. It was clear, though, that David was the only
attendee who saw the literal wording as clearly requiring both
grounded-conductor pigtailing and multipole or handle-tied
breakers throughout circuits that originate with shared
neutrals.
DC's
supervisory electrical inspector, Robert Brock-Smith, who
visited us back in September, does not require pigtailing or
handle ties except where a yoke is split. He does, however,
require some installers to pigtail both hot and return
conductors under 110.12, if he's not satisfied that they make
good connections via devices, multiwire or no multiwire.
Subsequent
to the meeting, NEC Consultant and Northern California IAEI
member Creighton Schwan confirmed by email that, wording aside,
the intent of Code is to require simultaneous disconnection only
when split-yoke wiring is used, but grounded conductor
pigtailing even past where more the circuit splits, as often it
does, and only one hot conductor of the multiwire circuit is
present. The latter may not serve a specially useful purpose in
that part of a circuit, but it is how the requirement reads.
Before
the report of our chapter's next most recent meeting, here is
some of what took place at the April meeting of another
organization with related goals.
ACES
Meeting
This
is a portion of what transpired at an April 10, 2003 meeting
attended by David Shapiro, Secretary-Treasurer, as
representative of the George Washington Chapter.
He
was present at the kind invitation of the American Council on
Electrical Safety, which is administered by the American Council
of Independent Laboratories. This is the association of
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs), plus U.S.
Customs, the U.S. C.P.S.C., Federal OSHA and several electrical
inspection jurisdictions.
NRTLs
were defined and recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor in
1989, and formed ACES as part of ACIL three years ago. The ACES
group meets twice a year, in April and November. ACIL is a much
larger organization of testing laboratories and testing
companies, in many disciplines beyond the testing and
certification of electrical products. Not all NTRLs may be
represented; Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. has only shown up
at the three most recent meetings.
The
first lengthy order of business was discussion of the fifth
draft of the document, "Recommended Practice and Procedures
for Unlabeled Electrical Equipment Evaluation." The issues
are important, and straightforward. If an AHJ is asked to accept
the use of a product, the first inclination is to ask whether
the product is Listed and Labeled, and used in accordance with
its Listing. This is best, if only because rarely can a field
evaluation perform all the tests that normally would be
employed. Some of them may in fact be destructive, even if they
don't require special laboratory equipment.
While
field evaluations may not be as complete as the factory Listing
process, they do have a couple of positive sides, even beyond
offering some assurance to the AHJ. First, whatever tests are
done are performed on this specific unit, rather than just on a
sample of the run of which this unit was a part. Second, this
unit probably is being evaluated in the context of location,
application and environment. Many locations, especially in the
western States, require that the field evaluation be specific
and unique to the site where the equipment is installed (or is
to be installed). Move it, and you void the evaluation. In other
States and in Canada, it can be either site-specific or
non-site-specific. Note that even if the evaluation is not
unique to a specific site, evaluation nonetheless includes
checking for necessary markings or instructions, such as
restrictions to sites with particular characteristics.
Where
non-Listed products are to be used, getting them approved can be
hairy. Some AHJs are willing to evaluate products' suitability
on their own. Very many, though, are reluctant to take on that
kind of responsibility, especially because they may not have
testing knowledge, ready access to the applicable standards, or
the equipment needed to do the job. Most AHJs are, however,
willing to accept field labeling by professionals.
What
type of professionals should these be, though, with what
qualifications, applying what standards if they're not going to
be the same standards as would be used in a factory run? The
State of Washington and Los Angeles City and County are writing
rules specifying how field evaluations are to be performed.
These jurisdictions, and most others, require that laboratories
or companies seeking to provide product field evaluation and
labeling services apply to them for accreditation or
recognition.
Some
AHJs will accept a sign-off by any P.E., others list certain
laboratories or other services whose work they accept. By
developing a nationally-accepted standard as to what the field
testers should do, ACIL/ACES members may provide the means
whereby some of the least-competent would-be testers can be
eliminated, or at least held accountable. Even under OSHA rules,
which generally require products that fall into 37 categories*
to be NRTL-Listed, when used in workplaces, use of products
labeled by organizations other than NRTLs continues to be
perfectly compliant provided that the local AHJ accepts
installations of products based on that labeling. *The
categories do not include some items that might surprise you:
ladders, gloves, and some footgear.
This
is not the place to go into detail about the bits of the Draft
document that were chewed over. It's enough to say that ACIL
members were greatly concerned about not wanting to appear to be
advising AHJs on how to do their job. Some minor adjustments
were proposed, an ancillary document may be prepared, and after
April 30 one final draft may be circulated for adoption. Chuck
Mello who represents Electro-Test, Inc. on ACIL/ACES, is the
point man for the revision. Chuck, who is a member of IAEI's
Northwest Section and I.O. Board, can be reached at
<chuck.mello@electro-test.com>. He would appreciate any
comments from local AHJs. The end goal of this effort is to help
the AHJ in the field understand what the field labeling process
is, what to expect from the provider, to have some guidelines on
how to qualify or recognize third parties doing this work, and
to have some level of uniformity and consistency across the
United States.
OSHA's
Bernard Pasquet talked about two or three proposed changes. One
is rather technical, of concern solely to NRTLs with regard to
where and how they do their testing. I don't think I need to
discuss it here, but if you want to chase it down, I-or, I
certainly expect, Pasquet-- can provide the information. They
are open to input. At this point, I'm afraid, they have
circulated the information only by email; there's nothing on
their web site.
The
other, big-deal proposal is going to result in a Request for
Information in the Federal Register. Here's the scoop: in
Europe, manufacturers provide Declarations of Conformity saying
they've been good guys and their products comply with applicable
standards. It's rather like sending in a post card when you're
done wiring, saying that you're sure it was done right, instead
of calling in the AHJ. Here OSHA demands Listing by NRTLs that
have checked to make sure the products manufactured by our good
guys (or anybody's, if they want to apply NRTL Labels) really,
truly, comply with our standards. (Well, okay, the Federal
Communications Commission has approved Self Declarations of
Conformity (SDOC) by manufacturers of telephones; this is not
working, someone commented.)
That's
how it has been so far. What happened is that in late-2001 the
Information Technology Industry Council (which we knew as CBEMA,
The Computer and Business Manufacturers' Association, in the
1990s) requested that OSHA permit it to forgo use of NRTLs and
rely on SDOCs. This would not meet the letter of the OSH Act.
Still, OSHA plans to seek public comments on the appropriateness
of accepting SDOC-from IT manufacturers or anyone else. It is
hard to see how allowing any companies to bypass the NRTL
program will serve the public either in terms of safety or in
terms of maintaining a level playing field among competing
products. The NRTL program, incidentally, while providing only
about 50% cost recovery through its fees, costs the taxpayer
minimally. Even before the partial recovery of expenses, it
represents about one thousandth of one percent of the OSHA
budget.
This
is worth our chiming in on.
When
I am informed that the request has been posted, I will pass that
information on to our members.
We
learned about one other forthcoming change in OSHA rules. CFR
1910.7 lets NRTLs List products for hazardous locations because
they meet standards for Class and Division ratings. It does not
quite yet permit Listing of products that comply with standards
for the Class and Zone system covered in NEC Chapter 505, except
insofar as they may happen to be dual-Listed for a zone and a
division.
The
next item was a presentation by IAEI past-president Doug Geralde
of CSA on anti-counterfeiting efforts. Sure, in dirt-poor
countries black markets are very active. Counterfeiting, though,
means pretending that products are produced by reputable
manufacturers, sometimes when what's being sold does not even
approximate the legitimate product.
Some
counterfeits are simply flimsy or rip-offs; counterfeits such as
concert tickets or T-shirts receive less attention than other,
more-dangerous ones. Counterfeit shampoos contained e-coli.
Counterfeit safety shoes had nails going through to the metal
sole plate, destroying their dielectric protection. Counterfeit
name-brand toys presented choking hazards.
In
early 2002, bogus extension cords were imported that deviated
strongly from product standards. How do you stop that? There's
nothing illegal about bringing in cords that are good for
nothing much. Fortunately for our compatriots' safety, the
importer was challenged by Federal marshals primed by Customs
and Consumer Product Safety Commission officials. The importer
was caught in about 50 lies to the Marshal; each one constituted
a felony. He served jail time.
Counterfeit
products represent 5-7% of the world's gross economy. The
counterfeiters can be shrewd, watching for the cancellation of
NRTL file numbers when products cease being Listed, and
subsequently creating labels using those numbers. Geralde knows
of at least two cases where the counterfeit products were part
of the process of laundering receipts from organized crime.
Manufacturers
need to check defective or unsatisfactory products returned to
them by consumers, to make sure they are not counterfeits.
Consider the irony of a company reimbursing, and apologizing to,
customers when it has not even received income from the
product's sale. We heard more on this later, from Gordon
Gillerman, of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.'s Washington, D.C.
office. Gillerman pointed out that U.S. Customs inspects less
than 10% of imported products. Partly as a result, counterfeit
products represent more than $100 million of domestic products
annually. While 75% of seized products are manufactured in
China, some of them travel by very indirect routes. UL works
hard to convince Customs to destroy counterfeits. Otherwise, if
turned away, they can simply re-enter through a different port.
Our coastline and borders are too long to prevent this.
Bill
King of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported
hopes for enhanced AFCI protection. The paradox he wants to
address is that the technology was developed to address a
problem that is most severe in older wiring, but NEC
requirements are not retroactive and the rules are applied
primarily to new wiring. Data collected (in non-randomized
samplings) indicate that while 70-odd percent of houses are more
than 20 years old, they suffer 85% of fires. He has sought to
resolve this paradox by requiring the addition of AFCIs to all
branch circuits when a residential loadcenter is upgraded. The
AFCI technology we presently have would respond to approximately
half the arcs that cause fires despite fuse or standard circuit
breaker protection.
King
would like to see enhanced GFCI protection as well, ideally
protecting all residential branch circuits. He pointed out that
there are many grounded surfaces in homes, such as metal window
frames, that can serve to electrocute children in contact with
something energized. Two cost-benefit analyses were posted in
April to the CPSC's web site,
WWW.CPSC.gov, dated March 10, 2003. Search for "Economic
Considerations-AFCI Replacements" or "Economic
Considerations-GFCIs." They pretty much conclude that the
items pay for themselves.
This
is based on estimates of fires prevented and lives saved, plus a
variety of assumptions. For instance, to get a number for use in
the analysis lives are counted as worth five million dollars; to
simplify the calculation, fire fighters' injuries and deaths are
not counted; device life is taken as 30 or 40 years; and,
finally, even though some of the analyses talk about benefits
deriving from adding AFCIs 10 or 20 years after construction, to
estimate cost of installation this is taken as new work, so the
costs of installation are not really considered, including the
costs of rewiring where existing circuits would nuisance-trip a
GFCI or AFCI. This should be a sufficient sample to demonstrate
that while some assumptions may strike you as generous, others
may seem overly conservative, and yet others arbitrary. Still,
they're a stab at answering the person who wants to know how
safety stacks up in dollars and cents.
We
can expect one or two increases in GFCI protection requirements
in the 2005 NEC. Outdoor commercial receptacles accessible to
the public is one; vending machines, whether installed indoors
or outdoors, are another. People have been injured by
ground-fault shock involving outdoor commercial receptacles
feeding holiday lighting, coin-operated appliances of various
types (e.g., amusement rides for children and laundry
appliances), power tools, and sound amplification equipment.
The
great thing about the new rule for vending machines is that it
will be subject to immediate enforcement. Here's what's so good
about that. There have been incidents involving vending machines
in indoor settings such as hotels, recreational areas, and
laundromats, as well as many incidents in outdoor settings.
Vending machines tend to have about a ten-year life. They then
can be refurbished, and provide another decade of service.
Presuming this passes, though, new machines will incorporate
integral GFCI protection; where the NEC is enforced, existing
ones will be served by GFCI-protected outlets.
It
is not impossible, King pointed out, to get existing equipment
modified when the NEC changes, even without action on the part
of AHJs. He pointed out that when a GFCI protection requirement
was added for pressure washers, insurance companies required
people to get their machines modified if they wanted to retain
coverage.
Among
the final issues raised at this meeting were how a contractor or
AHJ can determine whether a product is being applied in keeping
with its Listing, what standard applies, and how standards get
developed or changed.
The
answer to the first piece was straightforward. Each product will
have a file number or "ccn number" on it, in the case
of a UL product a four-digit an alphanumeric code. Take that to
the catalog, available on UL's web site, <
www.UL.com>, and look for the header of the entire
category. That will provide "guide information" and
list the standard number. It also will mention any special
marking provisions. UL sells standards, (although AHJs can
receive copies) but the answer to this question does not require
reading through the standards themselves. UL's web site lists
the scopes of all standards. The scope should let you determine
whether the product is being applied in keeping with the
standard under which it was investigated.
It
si not only the specific requirements in a standard that are
applied in investigating a product, Gordon noted. If its
features do not meet the safety intent described in the foreword
to the standard that applies to it, the investigating laboratory
may add requirements before Listing it.
The
next piece of the question is how a product is investigated when
there is no standard that applies specifically. UL, at least,
generates a "scope of investigation" whereby they
cobble together requirements from more than one standard, if
necessary. When there are a number of submittals in a single
area, they take this as a hint that it is worth their while to
develop a new, separate standard.
Standards
Technical Panels (STPs) have been in existence for four years to
consult on changes to standards. They meet every six months, and
may also schedule emergency meetings. They welcome applications
from volunteers who wish to join their work. Changes are driven
by three inputs: proposals from panel members, proposals from
the general public, and NEC changes.
If
you see an unsafe permitted condition of use, one not addressed
by the product standard, you can offer a field report to the
NRTL, and even propose a specific change in the standard's
language.
Acceptance
of standards is not automatic. The enhanced UL standard for
GFCIs that was implemented in 2003, for instance, was not
accepted by ANSI.
Another
source of standards besides UL is IEEE. Their C357 standards are
used for medium-voltage applications. IEEE uses a process
similar to UL's STPs.
A
final question concerned modification of products. Plugs, cords,
contactors, motors, component switches, any number of parts
break down regularly, and regularly are replaced in the field.
Does a product maintain its Listing once it's been repaired?
NRTLs are exceedingly reluctant to endorse a product's safety
once it leaves their hands and others get their hands into
it.
Even if the equipment manufacturer supplied a replacement
part, the fact that the repair person used an OEM part is not
enough. Was it the right part for this model? Was it installed
correctly?
Was there any damage incident to the repair?
Certainly the product as a whole has not gone again through the
testing it received in the factory to earn its Listing.
So
much for field repair undertaken without the expense of a NRTL
field evaluation. Manufacturers have created their own
refurbishing programs, NRTL-monitored, but these have not proved
very popular.
The
final item addressed at the meeting was a date for the next
meeting. It is planned for November 13, 2003. Once again,
Inspector Members currently working for AHJs are welcome to
attend as guests of the ACIL.
Most
Recent Meeting
The
following is the report of our regular meeting Tuesday evening,
March 18, 2003, Vice President Mike Raffael presiding. In
addition to our speaker, we had 14 attendees: 4 Inspector
members and 10 worker bees.
Under
Old Business, Education Director Sir Dick Bissell noted that he
has had some difficulty in finding us a space to present our
next Code Change seminar. He will pursue the possibility of
using PEPCO or Town of Laurel facilities. There are additional
concerns. First, our presenters' "dance card" is
filling up. Second, a number of other organizations have been
teaching seminars or classes on 2002 Code Changes. Fortunately,
all Maryland jurisdictions except Baltimore County will be
adopting Continuing Education requirements for license renewal,
so there's an extensive, ongoing need for training.
Meanwhile,
Dick continues to look forward to turning his job over to a
successor. Any
volunteers? Please step forward.He
notes that at some point he and Susan will be moving to the
wilds of Virginia, at which point he no longer will be available
to serve, replacement or no replacement.
Dick
also noted that Andy Porter, Chair of D.C.'s NECA chapter, has
donated a full set of National Electrical Installation Standards
to our chapter. Dick will transfer them to Wayne, who will bring
them to future meetings.
Under
New Business, David Shapiro brought up five items. First, the IO
wanted to spread the word that our Executive Director had been
honored by appointment to a new responsibility, membership
aboard, as it were, the CSA Certification Board.
Second,
a caller had inquired about where he could receive a 10-hour
Maryland Occupational Safety and Health awareness course. No one
knew offhand, but Mike Raffael will find out. Wayne subsequently
mentioned that Prince George's County Community College offers
such courses and has plenty of room for additional attendees.
Third,
Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc. kindly offered free 2002 Code Change
Books, with certain ideas about how they might be used as
incentives. Holt wanted feedback on this proposal. There were
two responses. One was discomfort with offering the books free
to Inspector Members only. The other was the suggestion that
rather than offer them as incentives for members to attend a
particular meeting, such as the one at which we hold elections,
it might be a good idea to offer them to people attending Andy
Cartal and Bob McCullough's Code Change seminars. It would
provide a source of additional perspective alongside the IAEI
slides and books our presenters utilize. When informed of this,
subsequent to the meeting, Holt did not seem very happy with the
feedback, and apparently will withdraw the offer.
David's
fourth item concerned simplifying chapter's mailings. The
consensus that emerged is that in the future it will be quite
good enough to dispense with envelopes. We'll save both money
and effort by printing notices on one side of a page, addresses
on the other, folding, stapling, and stamping. Ed Holt also
suggested that we check to see if more people have become
willing to receive their notices by email. Please email
and let us know if you are willing to join those folks.
David's
final offering was a puzzle. He passed around a cheap,
Chinese-made luminaire and asked Inspector members,
particularly, whether they would consider its installation
acceptable. (He decided to stock luminaires in his truck because
he is asked so often to install ones whose temperature ratings
don't match customers' wiring.) The first problem with the one
he passed around was that, while the box was marked C (UL) US,
neither he nor the other chapter members could find any UL
marking on the luminaire itself. Our guest Gil Moniz, the
evening's speaker, resolved this problem, at least tentatively.
Pushing aside the thermal insulation inside the canopy, he found
UL stickers hidden on the inside (ceiling side) of the canopy.
Jim Wooten questioned whether this was legal, noting that he
would not see such markings when inspecting. The other issue
that David raised is that the manufacturer's name, Angelo
Lighting, is not among those on UL's web list of those with
certified products. The product registration number is assigned
to a company with a totally different name and location. U.L.
has opened an official field investigation. A summary of its
findings can be found at the end of these business meeting
minutes, before the month's program notes. Dick suggested that
David drive up to Mobern and get an American-made luminaire.
Ed
Holt brought two products for folks to examine: a Wago (TM)
solderless (push-in) wire connector and a push-in cable
connector. The wire connector was the subject of various
disparaging remarks concerning the unreliability of backstab
connections. On the other hand, Ed spoke highly of the cable
connector.
We
took more than enough time for this, and for a munch-and-chat
break, given the program we had before us. Gil Moniz, NEMA's
Northeast Field Representative, who had flown in to visit us
from New England just as war loomed, could have gone on for much
more than the two hours he gave us, and we would have gained
plenty. As it is, we all learned lots.
UL
response regarding suspect luminaires.
It
sounds as though everything we were concerned about is quite
legal. The questions and samples were forwarded to UL-Taiwan for
response, and I went back and forth with them to make sure I
didn't misunderstand anything. Here is our ultimate dialogue, in
brief, with UL's words in quotes:
1.
Putting temperature restrictions on an inside flap rather than
where they can be seen by purchasers from the outside of the
box. I presume you are saying that there is no requirement as to
where on that package they be located, so this is compliant.
"Our
response: Right now the Safety Standard UL 1598 states the
location requirement for supply wire temperature markings as
"Visible during installation and inspection of wire
connections, located near the supply connections" and "On
the smallest unit package or carton". We will bring your
concern to the manufacturer as where on the package/carton that
the supply wire temperature marking be located."
2.
Put UL stickers on the ceiling side of a canopy, where an
inspector normally will not be able to see them.
You
say "In the case of residential luminaires, the Listing
Mark may be located at the point where it will be visible when
making and inspecting the connections to the branch-circuit
supply wires. In any case, the location of the Listing Mark is
acceptable if the Listing Mark is visible after the removal of
the lamp, glassware, or a drop canopy is required for the
Listing Mark to be visible. It is recommended that the Listing
Mark be located on the exterior of residential luminaires when
practical."
The
inspector need not be able to see the mark without dropping the
canopy from the ceiling; although this is recommended, it is not
a requirement.
"Our
response: The UL Listing Mark may be marked on the ceiling side
of the luminaire where it is visible after dropping the canopy
from the ceiling, of course, the luminaire shall also comply
with all applicable requirements in the Safety Standard UL
1598."
3.
Use a UL number assigned to a company with a different name.
"We
have required every luminaire to be marked with manufacturer
identification, where the manufacturer identification could be
either company name, UL File number, trademark or other
acceptable identification registered in our Follow-Up Services
Procedure for the luminaries involved. So if a luminaire is
provided with the required manufacturer identification then it
is acceptable to us for the luminaire manufacturer
identification part, and it is the manufacturer's responsibility
to deal with other company if they want to mark other company''s
name on the luminaire."
Since
you say this is quite up to the company that registered the
identification, it appears that looking up a number on the UL
web site and finding an apparent mismatch between name and
number need not cause any concern.
"Our
response: As long as the luminaire is manufactured and marked in
accordance applicable requirements in our Follow-Up Service
Procedure then it is acceptable to us, and as previous
indicated, it is manufacturer's responsibility to deal with
other company if they want to additionally mark other company's
name."
Keith
Hsieh (Ext. 62183)
Project Engineer
Field Report Group
UL
International Services Ltd.-Taiwan Branch
Program
Gil
was a licensed electrical contractor in Massachusetts and Rhode
Island for 15 years, and Inspector of Wires, City of New
Bedford, MA for 7. He is an Alternate Member of CMP 1 and a
member of the New York City Electrical Advisory Board.
Gil's
program was a preview of changes likely to be adopted in the
2005 NEC. At least as interesting as the particular proposals he
had selected to discuss, though, are the insights he offered us
on the Code and on the Code-change process. For instance, he
noted that what is recorded at panel meetings are straw votes;
panel members' official votes are received later, by letter
ballot. He mentioned that if a proposal is rejected by CMP 2 in
particular, the proposer is assured an ample explanation of the
panel's reasoning.
To
begin, Gil pointed out that you get something added to the Code
by demonstrating that it will serve safety, and removed by
demonstrating that doing so will not diminish safety. In
response to an early question, Gil clarified that despite the
statement of purpose in 90.1(A), proposals do not need to be
limited to safety from electrical hazards.
To
get a proposal through, it helps to have a body count, but
documenting deaths, injuries, and fires is not the only form of
substantiation that works. For one thing, 'proving a negative"
that permitting a practice will not create a danger is
difficult, and generally a body count would blow your case. On
the other hand, there have been examples where a change has
successfully been promoted with the argument, "Look, it may
not be to Code but we've been doing it this way in the field for
20 years with no harm." He also emphasized that getting a
proposal through takes perseverance. There are proposals that
have gotten shot down and shot down Code cycle after Code cycle,
and then accepted without significant changes in substantiation.
He's seen that happen with at least one of his: the idea for
Article 525. When the article finally was accepted into the
Code, a number of his provisions were cut out--but added back
in, in subsequent Code cycles.
We
also learned some interesting and valuable facts having to do
with electrical materials that are not necessarily tied to
current proposals. The ones of most import concerned conductor
insulation. Gil raised two points.
First,
he reminded us of the furor raised when the requirement for
sunlight resistance was made explicit. Sure, it helped to know
that the conductors used in Service Entrance cable are sunlight-
resistant, but that information is not of value when a service
mast is employed, with individual conductors pulled through
conduit. Well, the following doesn't take away the problem, but
Gil noted that the material "carbon black" used in
formulating black insulation provides some degree of sunlight
resistance. Unfortunately, the amount used in a particular
conductor does not necessarily provide enough sunlight
resistance to meet the standard for the "Sunlight-resistant
designation. Even if it does, that fact is useless unless the
manufacturer chooses to have the insulation investigated and
marked as complying with the standard.
The
other point that Gil raised is even more interesting and far
more practically useful. It concerns THHN and THWN conductors.
Their nylon outer covering, he informed us, serves no purpose
other than mechanical protection. It makes pulls easier. It does
not improve thermal resistance and is not needed to meet the
dielectric rating. Therefore, if it splits due to cold
temperature as you're terminating a wire, or if it is gouged
during a pull without the underlying thermoplastic insulation
being injured, the conductor is perfectly safe, so long as the
nylon was protecting it during the pull. The difference in
temperature ratings between THW and THWN has to do not with the
nylon outer covering but with a difference in the formulation of
the thermoplastic underneath!
Gil's
handout included the 2005 NEC schedule, and 50-odd proposals,
some accepted, some rejected but perhaps worthy of discussion
anyway. We did not get to all of them. I won't review here all
of those he brought up, only those that elicited discussion.
On
to the proposals. A number of them show a real or apparent a
conflict between the actions of one panel and another. Some may
seem like good ideas but have troubling consequences. When Gil
prepared this work-in-progress, the correlating committee had
not yet acted; they meet at the end of April.
There
was an attempt to replace the term "equipment grounding
conductor" with "equipment bonding conductor"
throughout the NEC. Presumably because such a massive change
would be very disruptive, and 14 of the 19 CMPs shot it down.
The CMPs responsible for definitions and for grounding,
ironically, accepted it. One consequence of this change would be
that a swimming pool's supply conductors would henceforth
include an "equipment bonding conductor," not to be
confused (want to count on it?) with the swimming pool's 8 AWG
"bonding conductor."
Article
100 is to have one definition of "kitchen"; Article
210.8(B)(3) a different one, for "Commercial Kitchen."
The latter requires the presence of a sink. Both use the term,
"preparation" of food, without defining that term.
An
additional apparent conflict concerns AFCI requirements. An
exception to 210.12 for smoke detectors in residential sleeping
areas was shot down. The rationale for not exempting smoke
detectors includes the fact that they should have battery
backup, which will keep them functioning if ppower dies.
Besides, it seemed better to prevent a fire by killing an arc
than to let the arc start a fire and then sound an alarm. A
similarly-worded exception in 760.21 was accepted. Gil suggested
that CMP3's acceptance of the latter is irrelevant, because they
don't have jurisdiction over residential smoke detectors, as the
article concerns fire alarm systems. It was not clear to all of
us that this is the case.
Ed
brought up the exception to GFCI requirements in a basement for
a receptacle serving a plug-in fire alarm. Gil explained that
this rule is different, in that voltage spikes such as those due
to lightning could trip or actually damage Class A GFCIs,
rendering alarm systems plugged into them inoperable, perhaps
unnoticed. For an AFCI to trip requires either a much-higher
level apparent ground fault, or a 75 amp arc.
There
are a number of other proposals concerning AFCIs. Gil highly
recommends the information on AFCIs that can be downloaded from
UL's web site. Much of it can be found at this link . One
exception to the AFCI requirement that was accepted exempts a
bedroom receptacle that is marked as dedicated to life support
equipment. Massachusetts has experimented with local amendments,
here and elsewhere, whose impact provides a useful lesson. They
had required AFCI protection whenever a service was changed.
This was modified, though, when they realized that some existing
wiring, while safe, is not compatible with at least some AFCI
systems.
Section
210.12 got a lot of input. The CMP revised it to require that
the branch circuit be protected by a combination type AFCI, with
one other exception. It will be legal to install the AFCI
protection a maximum of 6' downstream of the overcurrent
protective device when a metallic cable or raceway is run
between the circuit origin and the AFCI. Gil knows of no
rationale behind the distance limit. Will it have to protect the
entire branch circuit? If so, how do we define protecting the
entire branch circuit? If it doesn't have to protect the entire
branch circuit, why require that the protection be located at
the origin, or within six feet of it? Comments are needed to
clarify this, and that means comments from you, if you have an
opinion. Gil reminded us that anyone can request a copy of the
Report on Proposals from NFPA.
We
probably will see an FPN defining the term, "Utility."
It will extend considerably beyond what the dictionary offers,
and will help in the application of Article 90 in the light of
utility restructuring, a.k.a. "deregulation." There
may also be a definition of "grounding electrode,"
though we looked askance at what is proposed, as well as
questioning the need to add a definition.
A
rejected IBEW proposal concerned color-coding of polyphase
conductors to indicate their nominal voltage. The requirement
had been removed in the 1962 NEC, and the new proposal's
substantiation included no concrete data to convince the CMP to
rethink it.
A
proposal for 210.8(B) elicited considerable discussion. The
proposal was to apply all the GFCI receptacle requirements
presently applicable to dwellings to all other occupancies.
Ultimately, the CMP backed off from so large an expansion of the
requirement. While additional GFCI requirements will be added
elsewhere, 210.8(B) merely got a section (4) adding GFCI
protection for receptacles outdoors at spaces used by (a
redundant term) or accessible to the public. One additional GFCI
requirement is for receptacles installed outdoors per 210.63,
for use by people servicing HVAC equipment.
Another
rejected proposal for 210.8 would have exempted cooking
equipment from GFCI requirements. Not only was this shot down,
but such an exception, for cooking equipment at carnivals and
the like, is being eliminated from 525.23(B). A number of
members at our meeting were troubled by GFCI protection for
commercial kitchens, because they are concerned that nuisance
trips can cause food spoilage. This concern is unwarranted; Gil
noted that the leakage current for properly-functioning cooking
equipment is way below the level that will trip a GFCI. Even
more to the point, the CMP has data showing that malfunctioning
commercial refrigerators and microwaves have been responsible
for serious shock.
There
was some discussion of a new permission for 225.31. It allows a
disconnect remote from a structure provided that it is within
sight. One concern was that "within sight" from does
not mean "easily accessible from."
A
cute little change to 250.146(A) says that the washer used to
keep a device screw from falling off in the package must be
removed if metal-to-metal contact is to be relied upon for the
device's grounding. A number of members did not realize that
this is not a new rule, merely one that is being written down,
in fact, because people are unaware of it. Gil added that while
UL's standard requires removal of both washers by installers,
the test they use requires that removing merely one such washer
is sufficient to ensure adequate contact. Some noted that it is
frustrating that compliance with this requirement never is
checked by inspectors. Others noted that the requirement is
irrelevant in installations that employ self-grounding devices,
or devices bonded using their green ground screws.
Another
proposed change that stimulated discussion concerned relocatable
power strips. A new Section 400.7(C) defines the "Attachment
Plug and Multi-outlet Assembly." Nothing about it makes
their use legal for more than 90 days, as a substitute for fixed
wiring, but this factoid is viewed with suitable cynicism about
enforceability. Gil noted that while the new section restricts
the overall length of the assembly to 8 feet, the UL standard
for these allows them to be manufactured up to 25 feet long.
Susan Flashman pointed out that if a computer manufacturer
supplies a power strip with the computer, somehow designating it
as part of the Listed assembly, it is exempt. Gil noted that in
New York City the strips are generally forbidden, and therefore
this would not permit their use in the Big A.
Section
314.23(B)(1) will have added text prohibiting screws from
passing through outlet boxes unless approved means are used to
protect conductors from abrasion. David was unclear as to where
this practice might be used, and John Homick suggested running
long, skinny wood screws in one side of a box and out the other
into a stud. Gil noted that "approved" means indicates
that it's a good idea to check with the AHJ, and suggested that
perhaps shrink tubing might be acceptable to some AHJs. Jim was
not enthusiastic about approving any such means.
One
rejected proposal was useful in that the panel's response to it
confirmed the legality of a practice about which some may have
been uncertain. Single gang "switch" boxes are
perfectly legal to use in ceilings for support of smoke
detectors, as they are for any fixtures weighing up to 6 pounds,
excluding luminaires. Ed noted that some smoke detectors are
designed so that if you mount one of them under a single-gang
box the wires lie outside the box. Others have not run into this
problem. Gil noted that the safety factor for electrical boxes
is four times their rating. For example, an 8B box that is
permitted to support luminaires weighing up to 50 pounds has to
be able to support a static load of 200 pounds in order to meet
the standard.
A
proposal for Section 430.7(A)(9) was a source of amusement.
Design E motors are to be removed from the NEC. It seems that
none were manufactured!
Section
445.18 has a problematic revision. It will permit generators to
be equipped with more than one disconnecting means. David
thought this was fine; why not allow people to kill power from
more than one location? Gil straightened him out, though. This
is not designed to make it easier to kill power but easier to
leave power on. If the proposal enters the Code, it could be
necessary to operate an unlimited number of disconnects in order
to kill all power from a generator.
Skipping
over several proposed changes that did not elicit discussion,
Gil rattled our cage a bit when he brought up a couple of
proposed changes to 517.18 regarding Listed tamper-resistant
receptacles or covers. Gil finds it ironic that pediatric
facilities, where supervision is relatively constant, require
tamper-resistant receptacles, but psychiatric facilities have
not since 1993. (It was removed then because a NEMA
representative, Mr. Carroll Burtner, pointed out that
manufacturers of tamper-resistant receptacles did not design
them to resist adults, only small children.) Gil noted that
"Listed tamper-resistant covers" do not exist, and
there is no standard to which they can be evaluated. This struck
some members as conflicting with what we learned at our last
meeting, which is that NRTLs usually can find a standard that is
suitable for evaluating any product. Yes, there are receptacle
covers with shutters that require two prongs to enter
simultaneously in order to open. These are not Listed as
tamper-resistant. Yes, bubble covers may be lockable; these too
are not Listed as tamper-resistant. Yes, as Garrie Shope
mentioned, there are locking covers that are installed over
switches to prevent access by the unauthorized. None of these
are Listed as preventing tampering by children or psychiatric
patients.
Finally,
as a giggle, Gil brought up a rejected proposal, #15-87, offered
by an apprentice. It would have required that metal poles used
by strippers in night clubs be grounded. Apparently, the
proposer was not able to convince the panel by . . . err . . .
"showing them the bodies." -END-
Next
Most Recent Meeting
The
following is the report of our regular meeting Tuesday evening,
January 21, 2003. Thirteen attended: seven Inspector members and
five Associate.
The
Executive Committee meeting, segueing into the business meeting,
covered a number of topics.
Chapter
President and Prince Georges County Chief Electrical Inspector
Wayne Robinson speculated that Smart Code may languish in
Maryland. Due to the State's budget deficit, while there is a
cabinet position for dealing with housing rehabilitation, it is
vacant presently. In Prince George's County, Wayne still
considers requests for variances from currently-adopted NEC
requirements on a case-by-case basis, under Chapter 9 of the
County Code. The clause covering waivers requires him to
consider financial burden in rehabilitation work. For instance,
Wayne noted, he generally will permit relaxation of 210.52's
spacing requirement to one receptacle per wall. Both he and Art
Hesse, Chapter Godfather and electrical consultant to Laurel,
MD, are required to offer people applying for permits the
opportunity to have their work performed and inspected under the
rehabilitation code, but soft-pedal the offer. They are so quiet
in offering it that no one has taken them up on the option.
Asked
about the actions of the County Electrical Board, Wayne said
that it is up to its full complement, but he hopes to see more
activity from it. Presently it meets every other month, and
skips January. Because of this, and because private testing is
not permitted, applicants for licensure have to wait as long as
three months for testing.
Asked
about progress toward having our meetings and seminars accepted
toward the required Continuing Education activity, Education
Coordinator Sir Dick Bissell told us that he mailed the letter
and supporting materials to Wayne right after our last meeting.
Wayne, however, never received them. Fortunately, Dick had
brought another set with him to this meeting, and so was able to
get copies into Wayne's hands immediately. We have hopes that
this will result in such credit being granted, and that that
will in turn encourage greater participation in Chapter
activities.
The
next item raised was an attempt on the part of the Commonwealth
of Virginia to totally delete the AFCI requirement in 210.12.
Wayne proposed that we urge them to retain it. Prince George's
County, he noted, enforced the AFCI requirement contained in the
1999 NEC, affecting receptacle circuits only. Discussion
included the fact that Virginia members are represented by a
different IAEI chapter, in fact a different Section. Wayne
rejoined that many of our contractor members do carry Virginia
licenses. A proposal that we send such a letter passed by
acclamation.
Wayne
subsequently shared this URL, where you will find a further
overview of the proposed changes: <
.">http://register.state.va.us/vol19/welcome.htm.>. .
. .All responses are due back to the Department by January 31,
2003.
Mike
Baldwin of MET Laboratories, Inc., talked up the twice-annual
meetings of the American Council of Independent Laboratories, in
Baltimore. Every inspector member is welcome to attend. There's
always lots to learn.
In
the course of the discussion, we learned that the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is proposing for the 2005
NEC-with powerful supportive documentation of shocks and
deaths--that many, many more circuits be GFCI-protected. The
proposal covers all residential receptacles except for those
that are inaccessible, dedicated, or feeding equipment for life
safety, fire protection, or suchlike, and also many receptacles
in public places, including outdoor circuits in locations such
as schools. As of this writing, word is that the Code-Making
Panel did not look favorably on expanding the residential
requirement but did favor the additional non-residential
requirement. Safety advocates may need to weigh in on this at
the comment stage. The CPSC is also hoping that AFCI
technologies for compliance with 210.12 will not be limited
unduly, so that, for example, circuits added to an older home
served by a panelboard for which AFCI circuit breakers are not
available can be protected with AFCI receptacles (ones that
provide some upstream protection) without unnecessarily
expensive restrictions for which there is no documented
necessity.
Chapter
Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro circulated some mail we'd
received. One piece described a newly-Listed fixture seismic
support clamp. A number of people spoke up about how fire
departments do NOT want luminaires secured to T-bar. Even D.C.,
Wayne pointed out, insists on #12 ceiling wire for fixture
support. When (subsequently) informed of our discussion, the
manufacturer's rep, John Vehlewald of AGI Manufacturing, wrote,
"A Fire Official was on the ICBO committee that developed
AC 184."
A
letter announcing a new Listed AFCI tester was received with
interest but some skepticism. There was general agreement that a
genuine AFCI tester would be valuable, and that inspectors
should be carrying one. However, a previously-advertised
purported AFCI tester turned out just to test the GFCI or, if
you will, GFPE circuitry in an AFCI. Fox Meters' literature
accompanying this one, however, does indicate explicit,
separate, testing of devices' arc-fault circuit interrupting
function.
Ed
Holt, our Membership Co-coordinator, and electrical inspector
for the Architect of the Capitol, mentioned that Mike Holt will
be in the area offering a half-day grounding seminar. Wayne
opined that half a day is not long enough to cover the topic
adequately. Even giving it a day, people agreed, does not leave
much room for questions.
Based
on an inquiry at our last meeting, a copy of last meeting's
minutes was present, for those lacking internet access. No one
took advantage of its presence, so this may not be repeated.
Dick
mentioned a forthcoming blood drive co-sponsored by the Knights
of Columbus and the Beltsville Lions Club. The Red Cross
normally runs short of blood in the summer, with people going
out of town. This year, however, the shortage has lasted through
the Fall and to the present.
Chapter
past-president and Annapolis electrical consultant Jim Wooten
commented on the rise in IAEI dues. He was concerned that the
rise had not resulted from a general membership vote, and even
more concerned that it will have an effect quite the opposite
from that intended, causing a drop in membership, which would
also mean a drop in income. A number of people have told him
that they intend to drop out rather than paying the increase.
Other members reported hearing the same thing.
Finally,
someone mentioned that Old Electrical Wiring: Maintenance and
Retrofitnow is available through NFPA's web site. David had not
known this about his book.
That
took care of old business, new business, everything but our
election and program. David read the present roster, and no one
new volunteered for an office. Moreover, Dick informed us that
he would like someone to take over as Education Coordinator, and
that Susan Flashman no longer wishes to share responsibility for
Membership. Unfortunately, there was no volunteer to take Dick's
place HOW
ABOUT YOU??;
fortunately, Ed Holt is willing to continue by his lonesome as
Membership Coordinator.
With
those emendations, the slate was voted in almost by acclamation
(one opposed). The officers for 2003 are:
Prez:
Wayne Robinson
Veep:
Mike Raffael
Second
Veep: Roland Fridell
Sec'y-Treas:
David Shapiro
Membership:
Ed Holt
Education:
Vacant
At
Large: Sam Levinrad
Past
Pres: Jim Wooten
Godfather:
Art Hesse
After
the vote, we took a brief break for tasty but unhealthy snacks,
and then returned for the main feature.
Program
Mike
Baldwin, Director of Field Operations for Met Laboratories, Inc.
presented an illustrated discussion on product safety. Mike is
responsible for world wide operations of Field Services
including Field Evaluations and Follow-up Inspections of
products listed by MET Labs. At MET since 1971, he is an
Inspector Member of the IAEI and a member of the electrical
section of NFPA.
He
compared Listing and Field Evaluation, as well as discussing
other issues such as CE marking.
First,
some history of the very first Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory to be certified by the Department of Labor. Maryland
Electrical Testing was founded in 1959, offering acceptance
testing, such as grounding evaluation, and other field services.
Over time, they opened other offices around the country, and
changed their name to MET Laboratories. Then in 1992 the branch
that does HiPot and GFCI testing split from the laboratory
divisions to form Met Electrical Testing, now a totally
different company.
Besides
Mike's Field Services, focusing on product safety, MET
Laboratories has three other groups, dealing with product
performance: Telecommunication products (performance
certification to FCC standards), Electromagnetic Compatibility
(emissions and immunity), and Environmental Simulation such as
temperature and vibration.
The
first major point Mike made is that the OSH Act affects only
workplaces. Products for use in the home are not covered, if no
employees are present to deal with them. The second point is
that manufacturers, sellers, and installers are not responsible
for product compliance; it is the owner of the building where
the product is installed who is charged to comply.
(Incidentally, the product doesn't have to be hard-wired to
require compliance.) The third point was that there are not
nearly enough OSHA inspectors to check workplaces generally.
What happens most commonly is that an accident occurs and only
then does OSHA descend. If they discover that the accident was
associated with the use of unListed/unLabeled product, then they
come down on the owner. The fine can amount to $70 000 per piece
of equipment.
This
is why, Mike says, it is very much worthwhile to get equipment
labeled, especially in non-residential settings.
Field
labeling, Mike emphasized repeatedly, only should be done by
someone performing a field evaluation. If a label falls off, or
is left off when a product leaves the factory, it is
inappropriate to send one out to be attached later. How is the
lab to know whether the product they are certifying sight-unseen
has been modified? It's done; they refer to the practice as
"Lick 'em and stick 'em." However, if you report such
occurrences to the laboratories whose labels are used, it may
very well turn out that it violates the contract they have had
the manufacturer sign, in which case they will take serious
action. This certainly is how MET Laboratories operates and how
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. operates.
Field
evaluation is quite different from the sort of product
investigation given to samples from production lines. MET
Laboratories's other groups engage in rigorous, potentially
destructive testing. They then empower the manufacturer to apply
their certification mark during production, unsupervised. They
do show up unannounced four times each year to inspect
production, using a copy of the listing report.
In
contrast, Mike's Field Inspectors have the expertise and
creativity to generally leave equipment unharmed. For example,
they will not megger insulated components using AC, but rely on
DC, which is far less destructive. They look for any recognized
or Listed products that are part of the equipment being
investigated, but on the one hand that is not enough to make
equipment qualify for field labeling, and on the other hand, the
presence of non-Listed components does not necessarily make
equipment fail. The primary concern is the safety of the
specific application of this equipment at this location. When
they-and they cannot authorize anyone to act in their
stead-apply the certifying mark, that's what it covers.
They
look at shock, fire, other electrical energy hazards,
mechanical, chemical, and radiation hazards. Standards for some
critical equipment may add something by way of performance. For
example, nurse call stations are tested to make sure the patient
will be able to summon the nurse again and again without
failure.
Here's
the bad news, in a sense: products tend to fail inspection,
first time around. If a product is compliant, a final report is
issued (with a copy to the AHJ) and a label applied. If it is
non-compliant, a Construction Issues Report is issued, detailing
what's needed. Obviously, if an actual field test was failed,
something needs to be changed so it will pass next time. There
can be other requirements. It might be that new or changed
safety markings need to be attached to the equipment. It might
be that an electrician or other competent soul needs to be
brought in to make specified changes, test or no test.
Additional information may need to be obtained regarding
questionable components. Some of this work may also require
modifying the schematics before reinspection. Based on a
sampling performed some years ago, fewer than one in eight
inspections passes the first time. See the chart of inspection
results, below, reproduced by permission of Met Laboratories.
The
work takes a lot of creativity, but there are basic critical
components that always merit attention. These include power
supplies, overcurrent protection, enclosure materials, and
isolating components such as transformers. They are looking at
the equipment as a system, though, not at components in
isolation.
As
an example of possessing Listed components and failing, Mike
mentioned equipment that had nearly everything right except for
the conductors going to a motor: 14 AWG wiring that would have
to carry maybe 45 amps! Closed equipment that contained a
non-Listed transformer, which, if it burned up, might damage the
equipment itself but would not create a hazard, instantiates the
opposite, which could receive a field label.
This
discussion caused Mike to bring up an important distinction
between Listed and Recognized components, because knowing that
the parts that go into a piece of equipment are okay certainly
can simplify an investigation. Listed items can be used without
any restriction aside from that intrinsic to the Standard. In
contrast, each Recognized Component has a report specifying the
conditions limiting its acceptability. This information is not
contained on the mark itself, and is not standardized.
Therefore, to evaluate whether such a component has been
employed appropriately and safely without subjecting it to
testing all over again, it is necessary to obtain that report.
Even
under OSHA statute (29 CFR 1910.399), Listing by a NRTL is not
required everywhere. If states have alternate systems in place,
those are permitted to serve. At least one state sends
jurisdictional inspectors out in the field with product safety
standards. They themselves are expected to evaluate compliance
of installed products. Washington and Oregon accept labeling by
laboratories other than NRTLs. They evaluate laboratories
themselves and maintain their own lists. More on that next.
It
took 17 years and two lawsuits to get the Department of Labor to
create NRTLs. The rules for using Listed products in employee
workplaces were created in the 1970s. Until then, anyone could
call themselves a product certification laboratory. States
developed programs and limited who could certify products for
use in their jurisdictions, but there was nothing national. MET
requested that the Department of Labor investigate and certify
them as a product certification laboratory, but to no avail. In
1981 they demanded it in court. Still nothing. In 1988 they sued
again, demanding that the Department comply with this aspect of
the OSH Act, and this time requested a huge financial penalty.
This time the judge gave the government a deadline for
compliance.
The
Department of Labor quickly adapted the accreditation criteria
that had been used for years by Washington, Oregon, and North
Carolina, and went to work. MET was the first to receive
accreditation, in 1989, with UL and FM following in a few years
(but grandfathered until then).
One
consequence of the present system of multiple NRTLs is that
competition has cut costs. A new product investigation that used
to cost $20 000 a couple of decades back might cost $5000 today.
Follow-up investigations at a factory might cost $1000 a year.
There
are a number of reasons to favor our NRTL Listing system.
Europe's C.E. marks can be applied by the factories themselves,
without any third party involved. Admittedly, they have to
maintain technical files on the products, and falsifying those
can result in jail time. Every East Asian country has its own
testing system and mark. There was a brief discussion of Chinese
counterfeits. John H. Homick, President of Total Electric
Service, noted that while we are about to have five Harry Potter
books in publication, in China there already are seven.
David
raised a sticky question. If product labels only are valid when
products are unmodified from the time they are investigated in
the field or at the factory, what about repairs? Do repairs
invalidate the marking? Mike couldn't provide a cookie-cutter
answer. The safest bet, he suggested, is calling in a NRTL.
Obviously, though, doing so will not always make sense.
For
more information about NRTLs, visit <
www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html > The site offers
lists of currently-recognized NRTLs, their scopes of practice,
their typical marks, and lots of other information.
Previous
Meeting
The
following is the report of our regular meeting Tuesday evening,
November 19, 2002. Thirteen attended: five Inspector members and
seven Associate.
We
started off with President Wayne asking for a reading of the
minutes of the last meeting. Secretary David did not comply, not
having them with him. It turned out that Wayne was not terribly
serious. After all, the minutes appear both on this web site
and, in abbreviated form, in IAEI News.
After
this, David showed around a certificate we received from the
Eastern Section acknowledging our membership retention. He then
passed three sets of papers to the Membership Committee, Ed and
Susan. One was the certificates of appreciation for long-term
members who have not shown up at our meetings to receive them.
The other two were the current mailing list and the latest
membership list. Our most recent mailing was the last meeting
notice a few people will receive; our mailing list has close to
50% more names on it than our membership list. Susan will be
comparing the lists, contacting some lapsees, and informing
David which names that are not on the new list should continue
to receive mailings nonetheless.
Next
David shared an article sent by Sam Levinrad, who apparently was
unable to make it to the meeting, still recovering from his
bypass surgery. An editorial from October's Building Design and
Construction titled "Disabilities Revolution Hits Home,"
it talks about major penalties paid by builders who overlooked
accessibility requirements. It says, in part, ". . . most
architects, owners, and contractors confuse the Fair Housing
Act, which covers new multifamily residential construction, with
the Americans with Disabilities Act, which covers nonresidential
buildings." A builder who had complied with all city and
state rules ran afoul of the Federal requirements. He had to
retrofit 227 noncompliant apartments in a 283 unit structure,
noncompliant because of problems such as thermostats mounted too
high for persons with disabilities to reach. He also had to pay
civil penalties, the plaintiff's legal fees, and more than the
sum of those fees into a fund to help renters with disabilities.
There
was brief discussion, with Wayne noting that these rules do not
apply to single-family dwellings, and a comment that
disability-access issues are usually addressed in plan review.
We voted to send Sam a get-well card. David briefly displayed
and discussed a couple of other articles, one on the requirement
for no-tamper fuses and the other on the requirement for circuit
lockout. His reason for bringing them up was to serve as
ammunition should attendees face people who never heard of these
requirements; the articles were, respectively, from 1941 and
1938.
Finally,
David brought in four items from the Eastern Section meeting.
One is the list of future section meeting dates and locations,
including next year's 75th Anniversary week in Orlando. Another
is the surprisingly-extensive cross-reference list of UL
Classified breakers offered by Eaton Corp. The third is the list
of questions and answers from the Code Breakfasts. (No one
expressed interest in looking them over.) The fourth is a notice
from NEMA clarifying that there is no requirement that
anti-short bushings be used with MC cable. Wayne challenged
this, however, expressing considerable reservation about
trusting such a statement from NEMA as opposed to a NRTL.
Wayne
talked very favorably about the sense of openness he experienced
attending the Southwestern Section's meeting. It felt less
structured and friendlier than some other meetings he's
attended. Even the wives were introduced, at the first sit-down.
H. Brooke Stauffer pointed out that there were only 60-70 people
at that meeting, and it took place at the extremely nice, and
nicely-situated, Waikiki Beach hotel.
After
this business, all present introduced themselves, and then we
took a munch break preceding the program. After the
refreshments, we took care of one more business item. We voted
to contribute $100 to a scholarship fund set up in the memory of
Kurt Gordon Tassche, a local electrician who died on November 2
as the result of a switchgear explosion. (Your contribution may
be sent to Prince Georges Community College Development Alumni
Office, Kurt Tassche Fund, Room A303, 301 Largo Road, Largo
Maryland, 20774.)
We
then proceeded to enjoy a double slide presentation by the
estimable H. Brooke Stauffer, member of CMP 1, Director of Codes
and Standards for NECA, point man for the National Electrical
Installation Standards (NEIS) program, and widely-published
author. Before he began, out came the goodie bag. Each person
attending received a copy of a November supplement to Electrical
Contractor Magazine titled, NECA Guide to Changes in the 2002
National Electrical Code and a copy of NECA 400-1998, the NEIS
offering Recommended Practice for Installing and Maintaining
Switchboards. Then off went the lights.
First
he talked about NFPA's Comprehensive Consensus Codes (C3 codes),
primarily NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, the
building code that came out in September, 2002. The slides,
incidentally, were provided by NFPA's Robert Solomon, P.E.
<rsolomon@nfpa.org>, who Brooke recommended as very
helpful and knowledgeable. At present free access to the entire
text of NFPA 5000 is available online to the general public at
<http://www.nfpa.org> (If you want to go there now, you
can simply hit this link. ) What is striking about this is that
even NFPA membership does not confer online access to the
general body of NFPA codes without paying a substantial extra
fee.
Brooke
acknowledged that NFPA 5000 was developed in response to the
International Code Council (ICC) Electrical Code. Brooke
described the latter as a slender booklet that adopts the NEC,
but with a few amendments-amendments that failed when submitted
as NEC proposals. There are no electrical industry
representatives on the ICC Electrical Committee.
NFPA's
Solomon added the following comment subsequent to Brooke's talk:
"NFPA determined that if NFPA determined that if
jurisdictions wanted to have a coordinated set of codes for the
built environment, it was important for NFPA to put together a
set that utilizes key documents like NFPA 70, National
Electrical Code and NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code among
others. More importantly, since NFPA's mission is directed
towards the broader goal of public safety, NFPA did need to
establish a building code that address other perils and hazards
besides fire and electrical safety."
When
BOCA, SBCCI, and ICBO merged their codes into the ICC, one
justification for including their own electrical code was to
have one that harmonized with the building codes. NFPA has
turned around and taken that as a reason for developing NFPA
5000. Brooke quoted NFPA's Mark Earley forecasting an increase
in FPN-type cross-references among different NFPA codes;
however, Solomon advised eliminating that quote.
NFPA
points to its open consensus process as another reason to
consider NFPA 5000 in preference to the ICC Building Code.
Brooke had the impression that some jurisdictions were indeed
engaged in adopting it. A final point in its favor is that none
of the other building codes have been submitted for ANSI
approval, as have NFPA codes such as the NEC and NFPA 5000.
Solomon wanted us to emphasize that ANSI requires broad input on
both contents and decision-making processes.
NFPA
5000 is one of C3's key documents. The C3 body of codes will
include some other codes and standards written by partner
organizations working with NFPA for harmonization. These include
IAPMO, ASHRAE, and the Western Fire Chiefs. NFPA will be
offering free training and certification to building officials
in jurisdictions that adopt NFPA 5000. Brooke had thought this
might be temporary; Solomon clarified that it is not.
Their
plans include developing an NFPA 5000 Handbook and an evaluation
service for code-related criteria and components albeit
apparently not structural components. NFPA 5000's layout is
based on type of occupancy, an approach that is familiar to
users of the NFPA Life Safety Codes. One element that may be
unfamiliar is that the annexes, whose adoption is optional,
contain mandatory rules.
At
present, like the NEC and many other codes and standards, its
rules are prescriptive; while it does offer choices, it tells
you what to do in each case. Because NFPA products increasingly
are adopted abroad, the rules may increasingly become
performance-based, telling users what must be accomplished and
leaving the means to them. Brooke gave the Neher-McGrath formula
as an example of the latter. NFPA 5000's Chapter 5 presently
allows the optional use of performance-based criteria in
building design and layout.
Wayne
told us that he welcomes NFPA 5000, because his particular
bugbear is BOCA officials trying to take over electrical safety
without any knowledge in the field. Aside from this, there was
little discussion of the C3 presentation, so Brooke moved on to
the NEIS program.
There
are 18 NEIS in print, and many more in process. Many have been
produced in concert with other organizations, such as the
Illuminating Engineering Society. They have done very well in
the ANSI approval process, with some 90% adopted as American
National Standards-far better than many other organizations'
standards. While at first the Independent Electrical
Contractors, Inc. tended to blackball NEIS in the ANSI approval
process, they are now accepted as neither union nor
nonunion-simply as guides to good work. A number of
jurisdictions have adopted these into law or are in the process
of doing so. Others consider them enforceable in evaluating any
job that references them in the contract documents.
Chapter
godfather Art Hesse brought up the fact that some contractors
have complained about the NEIS. They say that if these are to be
enforced, it means everyone needs copies, and that means
significant expenditure. Brooke responded that he recognizes
that it can be costly. On the other hand, other organizations
charge considerably more for equivalent publications. The NEIS
cost $25 apiece for some years, and will go up to $30 apiece in
2003. NECA members get a 50% break, and NECA chapters can
arrange quantity purchases. Perhaps, he suggested, we could
enquire whether our local NECA chapter would be generous enough
to contribute copies for our use.
The
suggestion was made that people can defy NEMA's copyright
protection and make personal copies of a single NEIS purchased
by another. One member rejoindered that the labor involved in
doing so prevents this from offering a real saving.
[This
was not brought up at the meeting, but NEMA's $57.- OS3-2000,
Selection and Installation Guidelines for Electrical Outlet
Boxes, can be downloaded free in pdf format from
<:http://www.nema.org>. (If you want to go there
now, you can start on your way by simply hitting this.]
After
Brooke had finished and been applauded, we addressed two or
three more items of business. Education Director Dick Bissell
took note of a safety video that impressed David strongly at the
Eastern Section meeting, titled, I Was Comfortable. We hope he
can borrow a copy from the NJATC. He and Wayne also talked about
future educational activities and Continuing Education (CE)
credits. Wayne is hoping to get a copy of the PowerPoint
presentation for teaching the Soares grounding course, and then
teach it for our chapter using the facilities offered by the
Town of Laurel. People noted the value of publicizing any
continuing education activities through MEECA and the Electric
League.
Wayne
talked about the 1/1/03 deadline for license renewals without
proof of continuing education. He suspects that there may be
thousands of master electricians who have not garnered evidence
of continuing education, and who therefore will not be able to
renew their licenses right away when they expire. CE
certificates must be submitted with renewal applications.
Courses whose providers are not on the pre-approved list-other
than home study courses-may well be acceptable as sources of CE
credits, but attendees must submit applications for their
acceptance before attending the courses. The applications can be
obtained by calling 301-731-0313.
Dick
is hoping to get NEMA's Gil Moniz down here to give a
presentation at one of our meetings. Dick is going to provide
Wayne with a copy of the letter he had sent the electrical board
requesting Continuing Education credits for attendance at our
meetings, based on the information we gain from the
presentations. Wayne is going to hand-deliver it.
Finally,
we made note of the fact that our January 21 meeting will
constitute our official Annual Meeting, where Inspector members
will vote in our slate of officers for the remainder of
2003.-END-
Yet-Previous
Meeting>
This
is the report of our meeting September 17, 2002 at the Prince
George's County offices in Largo, MD. We had a
numerologically-appropriate 17 attendees.
General
Meeting
The
business meeting began somewhere between 6:30 and 7 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer David Shapiro reminded attendees of the
forthcoming, nearby, Eastern Section meeting, and invited them
to look at the materials he brought describing it.
Wayne
Robinson displayed a sample of his invention, the "Kenny
Clamp Compression Connector," which he named after his
father. He discussed the different ANSI standards used in
testing lugs and connectors for normal circuiting applications
versus for grounding and bonding. He asserted that the Al-Cu
lugs often accepted for grounding use should not indeed be
approved for the purpose. There was some general discussion of
how to bond transformers for separately-derived systems, and
conduit sleeves used to protect and support heavy-gage grounding
conductors that are too large for the lay-in lugs used with
bonding bushings.
Ed
Bihlear distributed copies of two Hagerstown Letters to the
Editor conveying complaints from people who would rather not be
bothered by inspection: "It's none of your business what I
do in my building." He also passed out copies of three
articles showing that California is enforcing rigorous statewide
certification for electricians, starting in 2005, and one
indicating that the California State Attorney General stopped a
local jurisdiction, Pasadena, from accepting wiring in
accordance with the International Code Council's rules in place
of the NEC.
Sir
Dick Bissell, Education Director, asked what possible seminars
interested people. There was little response: one or two
interested in 2002 Code Changes, one or two interested in
grounding. He was asked about CEUs, and informed us that Prince
George's County, which now requires ten hours of continuing
education for license renewal, does not include IAEI in its list
of CEU providers. It also okayed our last seminar for CEUs, but
overlooked or ignored our request for CEUs for attendance at the
educational component of our regular meetings. He will resubmit
the application.
In
further discussion, we learned that Maryland has offered
reciprocal licensing for Virginia and Delaware electricians for
the last two years. Only about a third of Maryland test-takers
pass on their first attempt, so there is a proviso that
prohibits Maryland residents from skirting the Maryland test by
getting licensure elsewhere and seeking reciprocity here.
Program
After a break,
we launched into our educational program. We had two, count
them, two speakers. First, the well-dressed, soft-spoken Robert
H. Brock-Smith talked about the many changes in the District of
Columbia. He is a D.C. electrical inspector, as well as a
DC-VA-MD master electrician, but until about a year ago worked
for the District as a fire system specialist. In addition, he
serves as both an electrical and a fire safety consultant for
engineering firms. At DCRA, he works as the assistant to Acting
Chief Mohammed Ali, and supervises the other electrical
inspectors.
Following up on
the previous discussion, Robert mentioned that Washington, D.C.
reciprocates with no jurisdictions. The rationale, he reported,
is that as the nation's capitol it could not easily reciprocate
with some and not with others.
Moving on to
his main theme, he acknowledged that the District has a history
of corruption and inadequate supervision. They're trying hard to
change this, with nine full-time electrical inspectors on staff
currently. Mr. Ali is putting in long hours, and when the budget
freeze ends he would like to hire special inspectors just to
handle the backlog of complaints.
Peter Bowers
mentioned that about eight years ago, his contractors' group
approached both the D.C. and the P.G. governments, inviting them
to raise permit fees, and promising no opposition, so long as
the increased revenue were used to hire additional inspectors.
Both jurisdictions, he complained, accepted the invitation to
raise fees, but both simply threw the additional revenues into
their general funds rather than taking any steps to improve
inspection.
Even some
people in DCRA, Robert noted, have been unaware of some
requirements in the DC Code. A problem that they are fighting
very hard, and that led to his being invited to address us, is
unlicensed work. The 1999 D.C. Register, Volume 46 #47, Section
126 # 1.5 contains the licensure requirements. While there is no
requirement for contractors' vehicles to be marked, even summer
help on an electrical job needs to carry a license and, at the
minimum, has to be enrolled in an apprentice training program.
The only exception is the sort of laborer who does not use hand
or power tools. Employees must carry not only licenses but also
company picture identification. Working without a license is an
infraction that can be punished, on a first offense, by a fine
of up to $300 or a prison sentence of up to 90 days. The
guidelines for writing up the infractions are found in DCRA
Occupational and Professional Licensing Electrical Regulations
Title 17, Chapter 2, Section 208.8. If the contractor is not
available, the owner can be held responsible.
Robert gave us
a fair bit of contact information. To get a book and information
package concerning licensing, call 1-877-258-9215. D.C. uses the
1996 NEC, with amendments. (Eventually they will advance to the
1999.) To get hold of the current D.C. Code, call the Office of
Documents, 202-727-5090, and ask for Volume 46 $47 of the D.C.
Register. You can pick it up at 441 Fourth St. NW Room 5230. He
warned that some people have been misled by relying on older
versions. People interested in learning what's involved in
starting apprentice programs can contact the director of the
Apprenticeship Council, Lewis P. Brown III, at 202-698-5099.
The problems
that they are catching most commonly are illegal heavy-ups,
primarily but not exclusively residential. One 24-unit apartment
building, he mentioned, was upgraded so ignorantly that it
started a fire. On the positive side, the electrical fire
brought inspectors in, and they discovered gas leaks, water
leaks, and various other problems that could have been
calamitous. D.C. inspectors are being cross-trained, so an
electrical inspector, for example, is likely to catch at least
some other types of violation.
There are
contractors who are on their way to losing their licenses. The
news carried one story in June. One electrician performed a job
upgrading a 12-unit apartment building, gulling the owner into
thinking he was working legally by flashing his D.C. license. He
failed to mention that his license was in the process of being
suspended, and of course never pulled a permit. When this was
discovered, the contractor who "took over" the job and
pulled a permit actually turned out to be fronting for the first
fellow. DCRA demanded that the latter contractor bring the job
up to Code. He tried to fight this by professing willingness,
but setting a price the customer would not pay. However, since
he had pulled a permit for the work, backing out put his license
in jeopardy.
Another
heavy-up error Robert observed did not result in a fire, but
nearly caused a different type of tragedy. A heavy-up, with a
meter by the front entrance, used taped bugs that were left
accessible-and that children at play started untaping!
Robert said
that D.C. is trying to make it easier to comply with their
regulations.
Third Party
inspectors will be taking some of the burden off D.C.
inspectors, but the roster of approved agencies still is being
developed. For now, they are being selected on a case-by-case
basis. Full-time inspectors will spot-check work they have
inspected. One already has been removed from the list. A 100 amp
service at one building was jumpered to a second using 12 AWG
conductors! This was red-tagged by a D.C. inspector, and a
third-party chap had the effrontery to recommend the utility
restore power.
Wayne, our
Chapter President, and Chief Electrical Inspector for Prince
George's County, interjected that he learns of about three
unlicensed electrical jobs a day. Over the last six months, he
has revoked the licenses of four contractors. If they're from
out of the county, though, he can do almost nothing. Information
about unlicensed work is shared between Maryland counties. Wayne
also mentioned that there are frequent electrical fires in the
County, but you do not see them mentioned in the newspapers.
Clint Pratt,
Chief Electrical Inspector, City of Annapolis, mentioned that
when he discovers this sort of problem, he writes a civil
citation, like a driving ticket. It can result in a bench
warrant, if ignored. Wayne said Prince George's County cannot
enforce the law that way, because out of 30 inspectors, he is
the only one possessing the authority to write citations.
After Robert
sat down, Clint took over, discussing what "Smart Codes"
are like for him in practice (following up on our discussion of
last November). To give a little context, he has been with
Annapolis for ten years. Annapolis is small enough -nine square
miles-- that all inspection elements are able to work together.
Moreover, should councillors think of challenging Clint's
proposed safety rules, they tend to back down when he encourages
them to come up with alternatives-and take responsibility for
any fires that result.
The Governor
has demanded that all jurisdictions develop programs to
implement this, lest they lose the associated grant money.
However, such threats have not been carried out as yet. It is up
to local politicians to decide where this should be applied.
Clint started out skeptical of the rules, formally known as the
Maryland Rehabilitation Code, but now is enthusiastic. He does
believe this complement to the (1996!) NEC encourages
neighborhood restoration, and works effectively in conjunction
with efforts to reduce urban sprawl. He applies it every day.
Wayne chimed in
that in P.G., you have to opt for Smart Code at the time you
pull a permit. If you overlook that option, your work is
inspected to the 2002 NEC. Wayne rather expects Smart Code to
die, as funding runs out. Clint pointed out that it does not
have to rely on rehabilitation grants. The State could threaten
to withhold other grant monies to encourage counties to play
along.
One of the most
interesting and lively aspects of the presentation and
discussion concerned inspector judgement. Fortunately for
Annapolis residents, Clint requires inspectors to have ten years
of experience in the trade and to have earned Master Electrician
licensure. He acknowledges that it is hard to attract inspectors
willing to work for the money he can pay. (Representatives of
other building departments echoed this concern.) Work he
certainly does. A screwdriver and a plug-in tester do, not, he
emphasized, constitute adequate tools for an inspector, as
you'll see below.
Smart Codes
rely considerably on inspector discretion, but at the same time
offer guidelines that, it is devoutly hoped, help make
inspectors' decisions more consistent. This, after all, is a
major goal of our organization. Annapolis has a Board of
Appeals, and if contractors don't like an inspector's call, they
can challenge, if they are willing to go to the trouble.
Some
jurisdictions, Clint pointed out, stopped considering
installations grandfathered when changes reached 50%, some at
80%. This Code supplies definitions to reduce vastly reduce such
uncertainties. It has seven sections, including, repair,
renovation, additions, changes of use and occupancy, and
historic buildings.
What should you
do about an old house that has knob-and-tube wiring? Clint asked
and answered this question. While the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission recommends that you derate it, Clint simply
says that you can continue to use it, and even replace devices
fed by it, with certain provisos. You cannot extend it, and you
cannot insulate around it. He pointed out that neither the City
Of Annapolis nor he is trying promote the use of antiquated
wiring systems. However, if knob-and-tube wiring systems do not
violate any section of the Annapolis Electrical code and are
deemed safe by a qualified electrical inspector they can remain
in use. To quote him, "Discretion is key; every job is
evaluated individually based upon the site conditions."
He was asked
how an inspector is to know whether someone has poured
insulation into a wall. He carries a ladder on inspections, and
pokes his nose into things. He also carries a pricey clamp-on
ground resistance meter, which he uses to make sure that
grounding electrode conductors offer less than 25 ohms to
ground. During a drought, where the soil is sandy, even two
ground rods six or ten feet apart may yield a system with way
too much ground impedance. Because of these special conditions,
he does not accept installations with two ground rods as a
substitute for low impedance, trumping the permission in NEC
Section 250.56 with the statement of intent. He's willing to go
to court on this, though he acknowledges that a local amendment
probably is called for. A ten-foot length of 3/4" copper
pipe laid in a trench, he notes, often reduces impedance
satisfactorily. There was additional discussion of measures one
can take to improve grounding.
Fires give
inspection departments muscle with the politicians; this is one
theme that kept coming up. Clint talked about a "safe
voltage" near-meltdown at O'Brien's Restaurant in
Annapolis, due to the use of a Listed low-voltage transformer,
albeit one without secondary overcurrent protection. A number of
ten-foot tubes of colored LEDs were hooked up in series, and the
transformer was replaced with a beefier and a beefier one, to
make the colored lights shine brightly enough. The insulation on
the 12 volt 18-2 thermostat wiring from the transformer to the
lights melted all the way back. It was smoking, it was resting
against combustibles. . . but had not ignited them when Clint
and the Fire Department investigated.
Wayne threw in
the information that Comcast is not required to pull permits and
get inspections for its installations, and the installers commit
sins such as installing independent grounding systems.
OTHER MATTERS
We broke up
some time around 9:30. Before closing, Journeyman Susan Flashman
reminded people that her charitable group, PAWS, has a
fund-raising gala coming up and is seeking sponsors and
attendees. David reminded people of the project for which he is
trying to find out what Code rules puzzle people.
********************************************************
Reports
of our previous meetings follow, but have been trimmed down to
the discussions and program reports.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This
is the report of the program at our meeting May 21, 2002.
Two
long-time members, Ed Bihlear and Membership Co-coordinator Ed
Holt, both of whom have invested long hours to train on OSHA job
site requirements, volunteered to give the rest of us a taste of
what they have learned. When asked, Ed Bihelar told us he took
the OSHA course as part of his ongoing education. He has taken a
class every Fall for the last 20 years. Ed Holt told us that as
the sole electrical inspector for the Architect of the Capitol,
he volunteered to take the training. They needed someone with
the knowledge, as the Architect agreed to get their physical
operation in compliance with various codes on exceedingly short
notice. Having a high accident rate for a government agency,
their management had good reason to strive for that
hard-to-achieve goal. They did in fact vastly improve their
safety statistics in Fiscal 2001.
First
we heard from Ed. Then we took a munch break, after which Ed
took over the presentation. The following report mixes the two
shamelessly, or at least unabashedly. To begin, Ed passed around
and discussed an extensive handout, explaining that he used it
in place of projected images. A take-home, it includes both
phone numbers and text copied from OSHA publications, which he
notes are in the public domain. OSHA's inspection are made in
keeping with the following priorities, listed in descending
order:
Imminent
Danger. Where there is reasonable certainty of hazard that
cannot be eliminated, they attempt to show up within 24 hours.
Catastrophe.
Whether or not there is imminent danger now, things had gotten
bad enough that three or more people were hospitalized or died.
Employee
complaints, credible ones.
Programmed
high-hazard inspections. These are requested by the contractor,
not initiated by OSHA or called in by a concerned or disgruntled
employee. Their purpose is to provide the contractor with
consultation that will eliminate the risk of having to pay a
fine because the contractor gets to correct the violation
without an OSHA inspector issuing a citation. The down side to
programmed inspections, an Ed noted, is that if an OSHA
inspector shows up later and the violation has not been
eliminated or has reappeared, it can be cited as a repeat or
willful violation. This carries a heftier penalty.
Mike
noted that if an OSHA inspector simply shows up on your job
site, you can refuse him or her admission. But they'll be back.
. . . More to the point, you have the right to accompany the
inspector during the rounds, and of course to contest any
findings.
Our
speakers bandied about numbers such as $7000 a day for failure
to abate violations, $5-7000 a day for willful violations, and
up to $70 000 for repeated violations. They noted, though, and
audience members confirmed out of their experience as
contractors, that OSHA commonly dickers the fines down on
appeal. The audience stories did make this out as rather a game
in their experience. Jim and Mike both had been fined for
violations that struck them as trivial, such as workers not
wearing their hard hats on a job with nothing above to pose the
danger of falling on their heads. Rather than treating these
violations as de minimis, meaning negligible and thus not
requiring payment of a penalty, OSHA set, in one case, a $500
fine. By spending the time to go through the appeal process, our
colleague got the penalty reduced to $250.
Regardless
of any bureaucratic game-playing, OSHA's purpose is to save
lives and reduce injuries. The top four hazards in their records
are falls, accounting for about a third of injuries and deaths;
"struck by" incidents; electrical injuries, accounting
for 18%; and "caught in-between" violence, sliding in
next at 17%. Over the last few decades, electrical injuries have
moved down from the second most common form of accident to the
third.
Sam
recalled, from his days on a Code-Making Panel, that NFPA 70E,
the electrical safety standard for employee workplaces, was
created at OSHA's behest. They came to NFPA asking for a
consensus standard that they could reference. NFPA acceded,
creating a six- or seven-page booklet (using small type) of
material lifted directly from the NEC.
The
existence of OSHA does not leave companies helpless at the hands
of the average worker. OSHA considers employees to have the
responsibility to learn and follow OSHA and company safety
rules. Every job site, for example, is supposed to have an
emergency plan. Susan pointed out that contractors can take a
step to get themselves off the hook by requiring employees to
sign off on company policies as new hires. Workers subsequently
are required to sign off on forms acknowledging the training
received at all safety meetings they attend. Supervisors and
foremen are on the spot, too. They can be charged, in both civil
and criminal court, if seen as responsible for employee
injuries.
Like
the NEC, OSHA has a definition of the competent person. A
competent person does have the right to decide whether a job
site, or a portion of it, is safe or not. If not, though,
heading home is not the appropriate response. The competent
person does not have to put up with unsafe conditions, but does
have to inform management; if the unsafe conditions are not
corrected, hr or she can request reassignment to work under safe
conditions. One member mentioned an electrical crew that waited
three days before going up to work on a roof, because they
insisted on handrails being installed first. Ed mentioned work
rules requiring two people to handle even a single 10-foot
length of rigid raceway. The reason is that this keeps both ends
of it under control. Jim noted that the City of Annapolis
outfits inspectors with steel-toed shoes rated to withstand 600
volts.
On
the other hand, Jim cast doubt on the power of workers to insist
on safe conditions and practices. Where work is hard enough to
get, he argued, people will do whatever the boss asks of them.
Ed countered by saying that injuries raise workmen's
compensation rates. Ed followed on his heels by pointing out
that some customers and general contractors will refuse bids
from subcontractors with poor insurance histories.
The
presentations were enlivened by various stories, beginning with
the gripes about trivial write-ups. Jim asked, rhetorically,
"What happens when the OSHA inspector causes harm?" he
proceeded to tell of an OSHA inspector whose hard hat fell off
his head and landed on a plumber one or two stories down. As the
plumber stormed up, Jim said, "You never saw an inspector
leave the job that quick!" Another member mentioned a Fire
Marshall who inadvertently set off a false alarm. Then Ed nudged
Ed to tell about the electricians who began suffering serious
memory loss (sober). According to his story, it turned out to be
the result of lead content in the plastic insulation that they
chewed on after stripping it off conductors.
A
couple of members talked about Assured Equipment Grounding
programs. One solution to the need to keep up with the
associated requirements was to wrap colored tape on every piece
of equipment, indicating the timing of its testing update.
Another application of color-coding is the use of four-color
stickers on buildings indicating the types of hazard present for
firefighters. There was some discussion of the standard
color-coding of piping systems to indicate water (blue), gas and
oil (yellow), sewage (green), electric and fire alarm (red),
etc. Some engineers apparently specify the admixture of red dye
in the concrete in which electrical lines are encased, in
addition to the warning ribbons installed above service raceways
to warn excavators.
Members
talked about the need to follow instructions, rather than trust
in safety factors. Someone mentioned 320 pound electrician who
collapsed a Type 1A ladder, which is rated for a maximum of 300
pounds. Ed mentioned the need to wear a safety harness whenever
working at a height that raises your entire body seven feet
above the surface.
Besides
accident prevention and abatement, OSHA means recording and
communicating. Any company with eleven or more workers must
record work-related injuries and illness, and keep the records
for at least five years. Any incident resulting in a fatality or
in three or more hospitalizations must be reported within eight
hours. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) must be kept for many
years, because toxin-caused illnesses can take so long to
develop. Information must be shared with employees. OSHA posters
must be mounted where they can be seen, as can any notices of
OSHA citations. Failure to post can result in a $7000 fine.
Ed
noted that reforms were instituted in 1995, intended to reduce
the paperwork associated with OSHA compliance. There's still
plenty. Susan mentioned some experiences she's had as job safety
officer. You do need a hazardous materials book of MSDSs on the
job, and if it's lacking you will be cited. She has actually
tagged every container of every hazardous chemical on the job
site. She did point out that OSHA inspectors do not go through
the book to check that there is a MSDS for every chemical on the
job. Other members pointed out, though, that having the wrong
MSDS is citable. This includes having a data sheet on hand for
the same substance, such as PVC cement, but from a different
manufacturer. This rigid conformity requirement is not limited
to MSDS. Power tool training, similarly, cannot be generic.
Being certified as competent to operate one manufacturer's
powder-activated tool, for example, may not qualify you to
operate another's safely.
We
heard a couple of different stories of the impetus for OSHA's
creation. One member named the deplorable frequency of deaths
among roofers. Another remembered five non-English-speaking
Chicago workers who died cleaning out a chemical tank. In the
1970s, out of 90 million U.S. workers, each year 14 000 died and
2.5 million were injured as the result of work accidents, and
300 000 came down with occupational diseases. Nowadays, OSHA
looks out for most workers. The main groups not covered by OSHA
regulations are the self-employed and farming families.
The
audience was quite impressed with our speakers' work. They were
not alone; Ed Holt spoke highly, during and after the meeting,
of Ed Bihlear's careful preparation.
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This is the
report of our meeting March 19, 2002 at the Prince George's
County offices in Largo, MD. We had sixteen attendees, aside
from our presenter: ten inspector members, two nonmembers and
one lapsed, and three associate members.
President
Wayne Robinson was absent, teaching, so Vice President Mike
Raffael chaired. The business meeting started around 6:45 pm.
General
Meeting
Secretary-treasurer
David Shapiro brought up the question of whether there would be
an advantage to our seeking a domain name and using a forwarding
service, so people looking for the chapter's web page have less
to type in, and a more-intuitive address. He reported that this
would cost the chapter $18 a year, noting that we'd be "riding
the tiger," albeit not a voracious one; it would be awkward
to stop using a forwarding service. There was minimal
discussion, but the consensus seemed to be that simpler access
would be worth the cost.
David
contacted Phil Cox subsequent to the meeting, to make sure there
would be no awkwardness associated with our registering a domain
name containing the name "IAEI." Phil said that the
international executive committee is working on the issue of
coordinating Chapter and Section web sites with the
international organization. Therefore, David decided it is best
to hold off.
Larry
Griffith of the Central Pennsylvania Chapter encouraged members
of the George Washington Chapter to attend the Eastern Section
meeting, which his chapter is hosting, the closest it has ever
been located. This unusual opportunity will take place the first
full week of October 2002.
After
introductions, we proceeded with the program.
We
were anticipating a less-than-sanguine perspective on the
protection provided by circuit breaker AFCIs, supported by a
live demonstration. What we got, which kept us talking far
longer than many another program, was more than we had
expected.The presenter was consultant Bernard Schwartz, P.E., a
Fire Protection Engineer formerly of the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission. He was ably assisted, and opposed, by
Clive W. Kimblin, Cutler-Hammer's Manager for Applications and
Standards. It was not a catfight, but it certainly was lively.
Rather
than present all the back-and-forth-ing, I will try to lay out
what we learned. There was much more information on which the
two experts agreed than on which they disagreed.
Here
are the main points that Schwartz raised:
AFCIs
interrupt parallel arcing faults, and do so much more quickly
than would normal circuit breakers operating in their
instantaneous range. Bring a hot and a return conductor together
and there's will be a BANG! from the arc as current flowing
through the gap trips a standard circuit breaker. Bring the same
two wires together and there will be a mere pop from the arc as
current flowing through trips an AFCI circuit breaker.
Unfortunately, there is no predicting how much life and property
protection they can provide, even though they work exactly as
they are designed to work. Many people, including, as was
demonstrated, many people attending this meeting, presumed that
they are designed to interrupt all sorts of arcing and even
glowing faults, and do so right quickly. Not so. They are
designed to interrupt parallel arcing faults that reach and
sustain a flow of 75 amperes. Glowing faults and series arcing
faults may last indefinitely without tripping an AFCI, as
Schwartz demonstrated, even while sparking repeatedly, and even
when sustaining sufficiently high current flow to ignite
nonmetallic conduit.
Many
of those who are unhappy with the AFCI requirement, in the
meeting and out, are concerned about this fact. Montgomery
College instructor Cleveland Tyler worried that homeowners might
be outraged to have been misled, by the devices' name, into
thinking they are receiving more protection than AFCIs provide.
Larry Griffith, who teaches Code classes nationwide, was
concerned that those of his students who don't study the Code
and product standards carefully can end up with the same false
idea. He is going to start making the distinction very explicit.
Contractor and Electric League Officer Buddy Friedeman was
relieved when Kimblin assured him that AFCIs will interrupt
faults at aluminum terminations. Buddy estimated that 75% of
aluminum conductor terminations at refrigerators are dangerously
defective, especially when nonmetallic boxes have been used. He
has measured more than 200 degrees Fahrenheit at these outlets.
David challenged Kimblin on this assertion, confirming that
AFCIs will interrupt these arcs only after they melt or burn
enough to cause ground faults. People then seemed less
reassured.
So
AFCIs only interrupt a certain subset of arcing faults. Why,
then, the did U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission encourage
the development of this technology, and its adoption into the
NEC? Woefully incomplete information seems to be responsible.
Whenever a fire truck is dispatched to a fire, Schwartz told us,
upon its return the driver has to check off the cause of the
fire it attended on a "run sheet." Among the causes
from which this fire officer, who is not trained as an
investigator, must choose, there are ten electrical options: one
is an overheating electric-discharge ballast; the other nine are
all phrased in terms of arcing. This is the basis for the
national data reports attributing nearly nine percent of home
fires to arcs, and this is why arcs are the problem that was
proposed for solution.
How
about capturing data on the real causes? There's no money. In
Montgomery County, Maryland, for instance, a fire investigator
goes out only if a fire causes $10,000 worth of damage or loss
of life. Other jurisdictions have similar restrictions, due to
resource limitations. Therefore, using actual fire
investigators' data would bias results-in some unknowable
direction.
Schwartz
concludes that there are no good data to indicate whether a
significant proportion of fires would be prevented, because they
can be attributed to the arcing faults that AFCIs are designed
to interrupt. Therefore, their worth falls, in his view, to a
judgement call based on personal experience and opinion. He
strongly suspects, based on his decades of fire investigation,
that the vast majority of electric fires are the result of the
heating caused by a lower level of current flow, through
resistance; not the result of high-current parallel arcs. Fire
in the permanent wiring occurs, in his experience, due to
overheating at the termination points. He believes that it is
extraordinarily rare for a staple to be driven through NM-B
cable hard enough, and at just the right angle, to cause a
parallel arc from the hot to the return conductor. AFCIs are not
designed to interrupt overheating, and he suspects that AFCIs
will not help much to prevent such fires through indirect means.
Therefore, while not questioning the ability of AFCIs to do
their job, he questions the degree to which they are worth the
investment. He believes the manufacturers that urged that AFCIs
be required do not spend enough time talking about their
limitations.
Here
is where Kimblin differs. A couple of Code cycles ago,
representatives of the Electronics Industry Association and the
CPSC urged that the instantaneous-trip settings of circuit
breakers be lowered, to interrupt large faults more quickly.
Manufacturers fought this, to avoid nuisance tripping. AFCIs, he
believes, provide a superior solution.
He
focused on the fact that as much as a billion dollars of
property damage annually is attributed to electrical fires,
nearly 400 deaths, and many more injuries. However much (or, one
is polite enough not to say, little) of these costs could be
reduced by utilizing AFCIs, he believes, doing so will be well
worthwhile. They interrupt sputtering faults, both hot to
grounded conductor and, he asserts, hot to grounding means, that
would never trip time-delay circuit breakers, and other
low-level AC arcs tend to self-extinguish at the zero-crossing
point, making them highly unlikely to start fires. Furthermore,
he emphasized the fact that the AFCIs presently on the market or
planned for marketing incorporate 30 mA ground fault circuit
interrupters. He talked repeatedly of AFCIs as protecting
against other than parallel faults. His logic is that if a
series or glowing fault does not burn through enough insulation
to become a high-current parallel fault, in modern wiring it
will burn through enough insulation-even, he asserts, at
receptacle terminations--for 30 mA to flow to ground.
That
is the meat of what we heard. Here is some more background. The
Consumer Product Safety Commission got this project rolling
originally because it is concerned about the dangers associated
with older wiring, defined as 40 years old or older.
(Unfortunately, as Kimblin acknowledged, AFCI requirements are
not retroactive, and furthermore electrical systems going back
to the 1960s and earlier may not have grounding means available
to trigger the 30 mA protection.) They named 14 fire precursors,
and entertained a variety of proposals from people and
organizations offering means to identify them and interrupt
power. None of the means proposed could do the complete job, but
the best, AFCIs, caught six.
Kimblin
made a number of points in favor of AFCIs' worth:
First, he
appealed to authority. The Code-Making Panel (CMP) was not
blindsided with the AFCI concept; they have considered it for
two Code cycles. Furthermore, word on field performance has been
available. AFCIs have been sold commercially for more than three
years. Schwartz has had the opportunity to bring his arguments
up with the CMP, and they voted down his objections
eleven-to-one.
Kimblin pointed
out several advantages of AFCIs over circuit breakers in
protecting against arcing faults, even faults somewhat above the
circuit breakers' instantaneous-trip range. First, as Schwartz
had noted, they are faster. Bring two wires together and there
will be significant arcing as current flowing through the gap
trips a standard circuit breaker. Bring two wires together and
there will be far less arcing as current flowing through trips
an AFCI breaker. Second, many arcs sputter, making and breaking:
high current, then off; high current again, then off. The
intervening "off" time will prevent a standard circuit
breaker from tripping, but not an AFCI.
He also argued
for the efficacy of AFCIs in stopping fires that occur beyond
the fixed wiring. Two-wire zip cord also can sustain arcs from
one conductor to the other, and they can carry well over 75
amps. This will trip an AFCI.
What
about series arcs, which AFCIs cannot stop? Both Schwartz and
Kimblin agreed that there is no commercially-available
technology that hopes to identify them and distinguishes them
from legitimate loads. (Schwartz said that, to his knowledge,
there is no such technology even in the works.) If there are
dangers associated with arcs occurring at wiring terminations on
devices or at splices, their characteristics may be
indistinguishable from the arcs drawn by thermostats or
switches. But Kimblin downplayed their danger, which Schwartz's
demonstration might have caused the audience to see as major. He
said,"It is essentially impossible to get a series arc by
drawing two pieces of copper apart up to100, even 200 amps, past
the half-arc [the zero-crossing point]. It will be very
difficult for it to start a fire." In Europe, Kimblin
noted, with standard utilization voltage of 220 or 240 volts,
the risk that a series arc, whose current is limited by the load
being fed, will not self-extinguish is greater than it is here.
He named UL 1699 as a standard that requires includes protection
against possible series arcs in NM-B (but not apparently, other
cables such as ACHH, SEC or SER). Any series arc in a conductor
that is broken inside its insulation must self-extinguish before
a flame can leave the cable sheath. This is his basis for
arguing that, in any grounded cable, the 30 mA ground fault
protection will interrupt power, thanks to contact between the
damaged conductor and the grounding conductor, before a fire can
be started. Further, the ground fault interrupting
characteristics provide some "glowing connection"
protection at receptacles.
Larry
Griffith asked Schwartz and Kimblin where AFCIs are likely to be
required in the future. The speculations included additional
residential circuits beyond bedrooms, and higher voltage
circuits. Later, Kimblin explained that inherent in all our
discussions was the expectation that
most residential
dwelling unit circuits will eventually be covered. He added that
the impact on the fire statistics (dealing with whole house)
will be limited if only bedroom outlets are protected.
Larry
asked whether AFCIs are likely to be useful in hazardous
locations, to protect against arcs around explosives. Kimblin
was uncertain on this issue. After all, an explosion may take
just one spark, and AFCIs interrupt arcs, they don't prevent
them. However, he asserted that a hazardous circuit location
would be safer with AFCI protection than without. On the other
hand, he talked of aircraft fire or explosion prevention as one
application that is being investigated seriously for AFCIs. Even
though AFCIs are not a reliable means of preventing explosion,
and jet fuel is highly explosive, there are thousands of feet of
wiring per aircraft, including lots in the fuselage, which is
not a hazardous location. It is so expensive to upgrade the
wiring that it can be cheaper to build a new aircraft.
Larry
also asked about the requirement, new as of January 2002, that
room air conditioners be supplied with AFCIs. Kimblin explained
that while functionally they are being supplied with such
protection, technically the mechanism is different from that
used in AFCI circuit breakers. The equipment's cable is covered
with a grounded sheath, and provided with inherent ground-fault
protection.
Membership
Co-coordinator Ed Holt asked Kimblin for speculation on the
cost-benefit analysis of installing thousands and thousands of
AFCIs, noting that while life safety is important to all of us,
the reality is that cost must be considered. Kimblin demurred.
Buddy suggested waiting to see whether insurers lower the cost
of insurance on a house with AFCI protection. He pointed out
that Allstate already asks for an electrical contractor's
certification of the safety of any electrical system more than
40 years old.
David
pursued the cost-effectiveness question, asking whether adding a
few smoke detectors to a home, for the price of an AFCI, might
not increase life safety as much or more. Both Schwartz and
Kimblin responded that while smoke detectors are valuable, there
is a world of difference between preventing a fire and detecting
a consequence of fire. Schwartz warned that you can be left with
only a minute and a half to get out of the house once a smoke
detector goes off. He said that a smoke detector that is
properly installed, and functioning in accordance with the UL
standard, can wait two to four minutes after the fire begins to
go off.
David
asked why the 75 amp trip level was set for arcing faults, and
the 30 mA trip level for ground faults. Since the arcing faults
are unique waveforms, wouldn't lower be safer, making
suppression come earlier? Since their ground fault interruption
is designed to step in after major breaches of insulation,
wouldn't it be better for the 4-6 mA Class A GFCI level be
incorporated?
With
regard to the AFCI setting, Kimblin responded that at least 75
amps of fault current is available at all branch circuit outlets
tested, with average available fault current more like 200
amperes. Therefore, the present setting will-not should, but
will--result in tripping. A lower setting would require
identifying the signatures of many more benign loads that may be
present on branch circuits. These are loads that do not need to
be differentiated from apparent arcs when using the 75 amp trip
level. A 10 amp motorized appliance can draw 100-150 amps as
inrush current; a fluorescent ballast can draw 75-100 amps.
With
regard to ground fault protection, Kimblin speculated that the
Class A GFCI setting probably would not significantly increase
safety from arcs over the present, GFPE, setting. Schwartz
speculated that combination AFCI/Class A GFCI equipment will be
chosen increasingly in the future, explicitly for the added
shock protection.
Larry
expressed concern about false tripping of Class A GFCIs, listing
various circuits that he prefers not to protect from ground
faults. Schwartz talked about the research based on home
inspectors' reports indicating that many GFCIs die over time,
especially in high-lightning areas. Kimblin mentioned that the
GFCI standard, UL 943, is undergoing change right now. Past
President Jim Wooten expressed concern over the possibility of
false tripping of AFCIs. Kimblin responded that while there are
waveforms similar to those associated with parallel arcs, for
example inrush currents and the spikes associated with
incandescent lamp burnout, these can be distinguished from
parallel arcs.
Finally,
David asked why the 2002 NEC requires protection for that part
of the circuit upstream of the bedroom outlets themselves.
Kimblin's response was that this bit of protection is "free,"
by which he meant this it is both important and a bonus.
Schwartz's was that a wide range of knowledge is represented on
any Code-Making Panel. Some of those present are there to vote
for their organizations' primary interests, and do not
necessarily familiarize themselves with the details of some
proposals. It takes three to five thousand dollars a year to
attend committee meetings, so pretty much everyone on a CMP has
a sponsor with an ax to grind. Kimblin disagreed with this
cynical analysis.
Subsequent
to the meeting, Square D Engineer Alan Manche offered a number
of comments, condensed to the following:
"As
far as the fire data, we gathered the historical information
available to the industry, from numerous sources, in order to
understand whether AFCI would provide an answer to concerns
voiced and documented by the CPSC, UL and EIA. A number of
manufacturers, alongside the CPSC, UL, and EIA, arrived at the
conclusion that AFCI technology was the answer to reducing a
large portion of the potential ignition sources from the
electrical arc hazard. Reporting forms can always be enhanced
when you're looking for very specific information, and a debate
over the statistical significance of the data will always arise.
. . .
"NAHB
held the only negative position on AFCI as a participant on
CMP-2 during the 2002 NEC process.
"I
noticed that Larry asked about AFCI being used in hazardous
locations. The AFCI product and product standards that are
currently available have not included a review of hazardous
location issues, and therefore it should be made clear in your
article that AFCI is not an answer for a hazardous location and
should not be applied or relied upon as a safety device for such
a location. . . Clive may have turned his engineering hat on
with a spirited intent that maybe this application needs to be
reviewed and might help. My stance is that no such evaluation
has been performed and I did not want anyone to carry away that
AFCI is an answer to protecting circuits in a hazardous
location.
"As
far as the LCDI and AFCI for window air conditioners, the LCDI
led the way and the introduction of AFCI technology into the NEC
provided another means to protect the cord from the document
incidents so Clive's comment obviously reflect that he is an
AFCI manufacturer and that LCDI is an alternative. Either will
get the job accomplished using different technology.
"You
indicate that 'both Schwartz and Kimblin agree that there is no
commercially-available technology' ([for direct] series
detection) - but the series detection discussion is where the
industry is currently engaged.
"Note
that UL listed a receptacle that was evaluated at the 5A series
condition, but as you say it is not yet commercially available
nor will it meet NEC 210.12 "to deenergize the circuit,"
but it does demonstrate a move toward the 5A series level.
Square D listening to the pulse of the industry discussion
thought that industry was demanding 5A series protection in AFCI
technology, so Square D submitted a proposal to the UL 1699
product standard that would require AFCI technology to detect
the 5A series condition. Industry, the UL STP (balanced
committee) in this case, rejected the 5A series performance
requirement to the AFCI technology. So, as an AFCI manufacturer,
I'm wearing the white hat here, we attempted to give the
industry the 5A series protection that we thought was being
demanded from the discussion as found in your meeting. . . .The
5A detection is a series evaluation. How should I say. . . the
industry is divided on this issue, not even all of the
manufacturers are on the same side of the fence here. . . I
would recommend you go directly to the horse's mouth such as UL,
or an inspector member of the STP, to get the bulletin of
proposed changes to UL 1699, voting and comments from the STP
members on the AFCI topics."
In
case you did not receive the flyer for our May 2002 meeting, it
contained some follow-up information available to those with
internet access. You'll find Schneider/Square D's latest
position paper on AFCIs. it, in PDF form, at
http://www.squared.com/us/products/circuitb.nsf/DocumentsByCategory/BF5E276292443C7685256BA00052EAE8.
Read it, then see what's at WWW.UL.com/regulators/afci
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This
is the report of our meeting January 15, 2002 at the Prince
George's County offices in Largo, MD.
General
Meeting
A number of us
shared concerns about the adequacy of electrical inspection in
various jurisdictions, and the limited policing of illegal work.
Laurel, MD has qualified inspection, and contractors whose
electrical employees on a job don't have licenses-including
journey- and apprentice-level workers--are warned that they had
better be able to show licenses, or at least evidence that they
are in the process of obtaining them, on the next inspection
visit.
We
learned that in Montgomery County, a master electrician is
permitted to take responsibility for jobs at two contracting
firms. We also were told that one private inspection agency,
M.D.I.A., has a single man assigned to cover 30-50 jobs in one
county. This was decried as an impossible assignment for anyone
to fulfill adequately.
This
outcry led into a discussion of standards of practice for
inspectors. Chapter godfather Art Hesse, retired Chief Inspector
for P.G. County and presently Inspection Consultant for the Town
of Laurel, mentioned that a predecessor, Jim Novack, had begun
recording the length of time required for different kinds of
inspection and computing averages. However, those records have
not been kept. It was generally agreed that management ought to
do this. Secretary-treasurer and noodge David Shapiro
respectfully emphasized that what we want to know is how much
time a good inspector takes, not just a haphazard average.
Perhaps Art will develop ths information, utilizing his own time
sheets.
From
the discussion, it would seem that Prince Georges County does
not actively enforce its safety requirements for electrical
work. There are jobs with more than 50 electricians at work, and
not one license-holder present supervising the work. The work at
Bowie Town Center, we were told, employed 500 or more
electricians at times, with nary a license-holder present to
take responsibility for supervising them.
The
consensus seemed to be, as so often is the case in these
head-shaking discussions, that enforcement with teeth will come
about when the public sees the need for protection, as the
result of some tragedy. Member Paul Nunley, of GHE Electrical
Services, suggested that it might be time to again bring
pressure, perhaps by alerting the public to their danger through
sending out a press release. David mused that since insurance
underwriters are said to be adjusting rates upwards in response
to losses associated with September's attacks, maybe we could
find leverage there. If someone could come up with a way to
bring the public danger associated with unqualified work and
inadequate inspection to the attention of insurance companies,
they probably could swing some clout.
The
Prince Georges County Electrical Board apparently is
non-functional, and there have been cases where electricians
would have been brought before the Board for disciplining, had
there been a Board. We were told there was an incomplete board,
but that subsequently Wayne clarified the matter; vacancies
supposedly have been filled, but the Board was not yet operative
as of this writing. It seemed to him to be a matter of lack in
motivation.
There
is a new rule in force in at least the Town of Laurel requiring
that split-bus panels be removed when service cable is replaced.
David brought up a concern about the rule; split-bus panels are
not intrinsically wrong. Art confirmed that the intent of the
rule is that there be a single main disconnect. If one were
installed ahead of the split-bus panel, the panel could be
deemed in compliance, presuming that issues such as floating
grounded conductors/ making sure a neutral bar is not bonded to
a subpanel cabinet are addressed.
Program
Our program,
presented by the very-knowledgeable and earnest Ben Bird, of
Certified Insulated Products, covered NFPA 70E, OSHA
requirements, Personal Protective Equipment (P.P.E.), and arc
flash and arc blast. Ben can be reached at 1-800-443-1196, or
<insulatedtools@aol.com>.
He
told us that that OSHA wrote an electrical safety code in the
early 1980s, but it was only published as law on August 6, 1990.
Even so, it was not till 1996-1997 that interest among U.S.
contractors in insulated hand tools, which, as you will see
below, often are required, began to pick up momentum. Europe has
been way ahead of us with respect to use of Personal Protective
Equipment and insulated tools, requiring their use since the
early 1970s. Canada, on the other hand, adopted such rules only
two years ago, putting them about a decade behind the U.S. In an
aside, Ben mentioned that Ontario Hydro is one of the few
outfits on this continent equipped to test and certify arc
protective clothing.
For
years, Ben pointed out, apprentices were taught the "Left-hand
rule." No, it had nothing to do with coils and magnetic
force fields; it was the poor excuse of a "safe" work
practice that was the best we knew. You stood to the right of a
panelboard, looked away to protect your face somewhat, and while
doing so removed the cover with your left hand. Not good enough.
The
fourth leading cause of death and injury in the maintenance and
construction fields is electrocution, he told us, and electrical
injuries lead to more than 3500 hospitalizations a year. Ben
said skin starts to burn when exposed to a flash with energy of
1.2 Calories per square centimeter. That is roughly equivalent
to holding a finger right over a cigarette lighter for a full
second. And that's nothing to the arcs available on commercial
jobs. "Damned few people are dressed to handle 30
Calories," he warned, "They're going to fry!"
The
NEC requires that panelboards in commercial and industrial
occupancies be marked to warn people of the possibility that
they may be exposed to arc blast, meaning mechanical blows, and
arc flash, meaning light and heat. It does not require that the
amount of danger be marked on the panelboards; no standard does.
However, a Fine Print Note to NEC 110.16 references NFPA 70E,
the standard for workplace electrical safety. NFPA 70E requires
that the degree of danger be estimated, if not precisely
calculated through a formal Flash Hazard Analysis procedure, so
that appropriate protective measures can be taken. The NFPA
standard simplifies matters by rating jobs at specific levels,
so protective measures can be selected from a chart with danger
corresponding for example to 25 kA or 60 kA available fault
current. However, the standard does not require that the
results, even of these rough ratings, be marked on the
panelboard.
David
suggested that this might be a good thing. His reasoning was
that available fault current, one of the key elements in the
hazard calculation, is an uncertain number. Art Hesse pointed
out that utilities are quite willing to specify the current that
they potentially (if that term can be used for current, as
opposed to voltage) can supply to the service disconnect. David
argued, though (to general agreement, including Art's and Ben's)
that available current can change as utilities modify their
systems, and they do not necessarily notify customers of such
changes. Therefore, relying on a formerly-accurate calculation
that has been posted on a panelboard could dangerously mislead
someone trying to determine how to work safely.
Ben
asked us to speculate about what safety standards call "High
Voltage." No one got the number right: it is anything over
50 volts. The rule says that in non-residential work, where the
available energy is likely to be significant, you need to stay
at least one foot away from exposed live parts at 51 volts,
unless you use insulated gloves and tools, at a minimum. The
numbers go up in systems that exceed 600 volts to ground.
Someone
asked him whose responsibility it is to comply with this rule.
It is the employer's responsibility to provide the Personal
Protective Equipment and insulated tools, and the employees'
responsibility to use them. It is not necessary for a
jurisdiction to specially adopt NFPA 70E for it to be operative.
Besides being a generally accepted standard of practice, it is
likely to be adopted by OSHA within the year, Ben said. There
are other, corresponding developments as well. A protective
clothing standard developed by the American Society for Testing
and Materials should be adopted by around April 2002. All flame
retardant clothing sold after March will have to be marked with
the Calories of flash against which it will protect wearers.
Past
President Jim Wooten, currently an electrical inspection
consultant for the City of Annapolis, talked of being flung out
the door of a building some years ago by a blast, when working
as a volunteer firefighter. Because of his protective gear,
though, he survived quite unharmed.
The
rules do not just apply to contractors. Up to a few years ago,
employees of private inspection agencies were covered, as well.
Three years ago, pointed out member Ed Holt, who is both a
private electrical contractor and an inspector working for the
Architect of the Capitol, the rules changed. Since then even
Federal agencies have to comply with OSHA standards. State and
local AHJ inspectors too must be provided with full P.P.E.
commensurate with the energy to which they may be exposed.
OSHA
is involved in a number of ways. They are funding apprentice
training, consisting mainly of consciousness-raising regarding
the need for Personal Protective Equipment. OSHA employees
generally do not yet have the training to evaluate the adequacy
of protective measures they find employed on the job. There is
so much they have to cover; they are somewhat in the position of
Home Inspectors, or multi-hat jurisdictional inspectors: they
just cannot be qualified as much as one would wish in every area
they need to cover. Ed talked about recently completing an
intensive 30-plus hour OSHA course that covered perhaps 10% of
the content in the handbooks containing the material he is
supposed to know.
OSHA
inspectors generally show up only after an accident, in part due
to resource limitations: OSHA does not have unlimited personnel.
The penalties they levy for violations that may have led to the
accident are less important than other consequences, even from a
dollar standpoint. If someone gets hurt on the job, the
associated dollar costs are so high that the contractor often
loses insurance coverage subsequently, and must self-insure.
Ben
corrected a misunderstanding David had been given when working
on an article concerning safety programs. Ben said that if a
company calls in a contractor or subcontractor, and someone
working for the latter gets hurt, the fact that the contractor
or subcontractor was not closely supervised by the company for
whom the work was being performed does not exempt the company
from liability. Who pays in the hands of the lawyers.
We
went back and forth on how reasonable it is to expect companies,
especially shoestring operations, to buy suitable protection.
Speaking of "suitable," Ben spent most of the evening
with a suit rated for protection against at least 50 Calories
per square centimeter, over his regular clothing, and didn't
break a sweat. Fire-Resistant cotton may be heavier than Nomex,
but it can protect against 50 Calories per square centimeter,
and it breathes and allows you to stay cooler. Even regular
cotton or other natural-fiber clothing offers a certain degree
of protection.
The
equipment is not only much less uncomfortable than we expected,
but also not inordinately expensive. A screwdriver rated for one
kilovolt-and tested to withstand 10 kV!-costs maybe $15, a pair
of similarly-rated gloves $30 (and $10 every half-year to year,
depending on whether they're used or just stored safely, for
retesting). A standard kit that protects against Flash of 11
Calories, a kit that includes a fire-resistance treated cotton
jacket with a parka hood, gloves, and a shield, might run $200.
(NFPA 70E talks of wearing a ski mask to bridge the gap between
torso to head, but Ben believes that a parka hood serves quite
as well, and that the omission of that option was just an
oversight.) A full suit such as Ben modeled for us, including a
nuclear-worker type hood and shield that can withstand 50
Calories, would be required for work on metal-clad switchgear
running a kilovolt or more. Now that gear might run $1000.
The
equipment is not hard to take care of, either. The clothing can
go through your washing machine. While fiberglass hot sticks
must be wiped down with approved solvents, insulated hand tools
simply must be kept clean, without any extraordinary measures.
The
protection now available puts measures such as "the left
hand rule" to shame. As recently as last year, the
polycarbonate face shields used for arc protection were rated
for protection against the violent force of a blast, but would
melt against your skin from any significant flash; exposure to
one or two Calories could result in a calamity. Then, in
mid-2001, fortified polycarbonate shields that protect against
eight times as much heat became available, scratch-resistant and
retailing for maybe $40.
Blast
and flash take different protection. People wearing rubber
gloves, for example, need leather not only to protect the gloves
from damage that would impair their excellent dielectric
qualities, but also to protect their hands and arms from arc
flash that could melt the rubber to their skin. There are many
other misconceptions. For example, long coats, such as
laboratory coats, are not appropriate protection against some
types of arc. The problem is that the blast available in NFPA's
Risk category 3 or 4 can knock you back, and then scrap, perhaps
even molten metal, can blast up under your lab coat's skirt.
Hard hats, "protective caps," are only suitable for
use in high-energy electrical work if they are "Type G"
or "Type E." Their protection is reduced by paint or
stickers, however patriotic or otherwise impressive the
sentiments they express.
Ben
had some horror stories, such as that of a daughter who felt
embarrassed about her father's appearance at her wedding,
because his face was so badly disfigured by an arc flash. On the
other side, he said, "We're getting stories coming in,
'Thank god we did it, [shelling out the money for the PPE]."
Coors thanked Riviera Electric, for example, for having the
right gear on site when there was an accident, so that no one
was injured. If Coors employees had been required to do the work
themselves, they would not have been equipped with the necessary
protection.
Ben
generously provided insulated screwdrivers as "door
prizes"-enough of them to go around! Even more important,
though, were his handouts. One was his catalog of safety tools,
including clothing. Another is a sample poster, marked
"Warning-Arc Flash," with one space to list the
incident energy level and another to mark the hazard/risk
category. Then, below, it has pictures of the types of clothing
required in three different hazard/risk categories. On the back
are excerpts from the NFPA 70E standard briefly describing the
simplified, two-category, flame-resistant clothing system, and
talking about the types of tasks for which each category of
clothing is suitable.
Even
better are the Electrical Safety Guidelines he handed out, a
six-pager that he provides when he briefs people on this
passion. Consisting in part of excerpts from NFPA 70E, it is
immensely valuable, and I strongly encourage people who did not
make it to the meeting to contact him for this information.
November
20 Minutes
We
touched on a number of items from this year's IAEI Eastern
Section Code Workshop. President Wayne Robinson, for instance,
mentioned that NM cable no longer will be acceptable in Type 1
and Type 2 buildings. He then talked about having attended a
demonstration of the ineffectiveness of branch-circuit type AFCI
circuit breakers at interrupting many common fire-causing
faults. Before seeing this, he had not been aware of the AFCIs'
75 amp calibration. He did point out that a 75 amp instantaneous
trip level is some improvement over the approximately 300 amp
instantaneous trip level that he understands otherwise is found
in standard inverse-time breakers. Secretary-treasurer David
Shapiro put in a plug for combination AFCI circuit breakers,
which will have a much lower trip level.. . .
There
was some wailing and gnashing of teefs (that's what teeth sound
like when they've been gnashed a lot) over the shortage of
professional electrical code enforcement in Maryland, especially
for residential work, and especially in Prince Georges County.
There seemed to be a consensus that this tendency will last,
fueled by rapacity, until public outcry gets it turned
around--after catastrophic fires.
David
Shapiro brought up two Code queries. One was about what
constitutes fishing, and the consensus was that if you can crawl
into a space, cable installed there has not been fished. How
about if you can crawl only partly in? We did not address that.
The other was about what violation if any is created when a
loadcenter is set behind wood paneling, with a door that does
not open fully, or whose framing blocks the edges of the panel.
If you can get at the cover plate screws by using a stubby or
angling your screwdriver, and get the cover off by wrassling it,
can the cabinet be considered not accessible? Opinions started
out mixed. Wayne Robinson, however, came up with a clear section
violation to cite: 110-26. Access there may be, but the required
clearances are lacking. (What we left unsaid is the fact that
this violation could be levied at any installation that recesses
a panelboard.)
We
had expected to feature Johns Hopkins of Maryland's "Smart
Codes" program. There might have been fireworks as we
examined some of the issues that come up with regard to the
system of multiple electrical codes, which is now LAW throughout
Maryland. Its scope extends way beyond other states'
"Rehabilitation Codes." However, Mr. Hopkins left
voicemail that morning for Dick Bissell, saying that he would
not be able to make it to our meeting from an appointment he was
attending elsewhere earlier in the day. We regretted Mr.
Hopkins's leaving us without a speaker on nearly-zero notice;
however, we still would welcome an opportunity to talk with the
man.
We
discussed SmartCodes a fair bit. David Shapiro handed out the
text of the legislation from the Maryland Register, and read out
the URLs and numbers for information and the Handbook. Wayne
Robinson talked about how the new rules will be enforced. Now
that the Maryland State Fire Marshal has adopted the 1999 NEC,
it seems that it will supplant the 1996 in reference by
SmartCodes-including the requirement for AFCI protection of
sleeping area receptacles.
Previous
Meeting
Our
September meeting had to be postponed due to the tragedy.
However, the last thing we wanted was to let murderous zealots
stop us from pursuing our work of furthering people's safety.
Therefore, the meeting was rescheduled as quickly as possible.
We were glad that a normal complement managed make the time
available on relatively short notice, as the meeting took place
Tuesday evening, September 25.
We had an interim
executive committee meeting in August, at which no
business
was transacted as such.
A number of us shared concerns
about the adequacy of electrical inspection
in various
jurisdictions, and the limited policing of illegal work. We
learned that the combination inspectors in Prince George's
County, who are responsible for all residential inspections,
continue to suffer serious
training deficiencies, and there
are serious constraints on the resources available to them.
Enforcing authorities do not have the power to issue stop-work
orders; all must be approved by the Director's office. Without
such authorization from the very top, the maximum clout that can
be wielded is to write a $100 civil citation. The strongest
pressure in favor of pulling permits and completing
installations legally comes from a utility. The Southern
Electric Cooperative will cut in power temporarily on an
installation or upgrade. However, if there is no final sticker
from an inspector within 30 days, they notify the customer,
power will be shut off.
The
following is the report of our meeting Tuesday evening,
September 25, which was rescheduled from September 11.
Other
Business
David
briefly discussed the National Association of Home Builders'
Residential Construction Guidelines. These were adopted by the
last session of the Maryland legislature, as well as by a number
of other states, into law. These are now an implicit part of
every contract if no other warranty language is present for
guidance in a dispute between a builder and a customer.
Wayne
reported that he is getting many applicants for journeyman
licensure. He is not yet leaning on workers whom he founds on
the job without licenses in hand. Art speculated about means of
determining whether workers are making good-faith efforts to
obtain licensure.
A
rumor was circulated to the effect that D.C. is beginning to
enforce licensure laws. Also, that they are permitting
third-party inspection-including reciprocal inspection by
various contractors. This concept disturbs members.
Wayne
and Art talked about the rationale behind homeowners' permits.
They are not allowed to apply for service work, but authorities
figure that they are going to do branch circuit work anyway and
it is better to get it inspected. It does, however, take twice
as long to inspect homeowner wiring as professional work.
Program
When
is "the electrical code" not the NEC? If some parties
have their way, jurisdictions may end up using a code that was
not derived through an open consensus process like the NEC, CEC,
and NESC to govern all their wiring. Codes and Standards expert
secretary-treasurer Brooke Stauffer ( Brooke@necanet.org) talked
about where this is going, and what those who respect the NEC
are doing to fight the International Code Council (ICC)'s
candidate for an electrical code.
Brooke
has been following this process from the beginning, and working
very hard to support our standard of electrical safety-which
means he has been fighting efforts to dilute or substitute away
the NEC.
The
International Code Council has done good work in reducing the
confusion created by so many conflicting building codes.
However, in their effort to provide a single set of codes to be
adopted by all U.S. jurisdictions, they have trod on territory
where they have no business trespassing, by trying to take
authority for an International Electrical Code. They have fallen
on their faces in the attempt, although it is not clear whether
they have faced up to the fact. While New York State, for
example, has adopted the entire set of ICC codes, most areas of
the country have adopted them without the ICC Electrical Code.
The
problem is twofold. First, ICC members lack electrical
expertise. Second, they do not share the consensus process that
the NFPA employs. With the NFPA, anybody can become a member,
come to meetings, and vote; all it takes is money. Membership in
NFPA's Code-Making Panels is not nearly as open, but the panels
do represent considerable electrical expertise. Appeals of NFPA
decisions at the highest level can be made by anyone who coughs
up sufficient funds for that ($2500). With the NFPA, anyone can
submit a proposal in writing, going on at whatever length they
choose. Anyone can obtain copies of proposals and submit
comments, of any length they choose. Any member can stand up at
NFPA meetings and comment at length in floor action. With the
ICC, only Building Code officials can vote, and outside
comments, whether to propose amendments or comment on them, are
limited to two minutes per person.
Here
is what they tried. Number One, they labeled their product "The
International Electrical Code." This had two problems.
First, their materials are not used outside the U.S., unlike the
NEC. Second, the title had been copyrighted by the NFPA. Number
Two, they were and are not about to engage in the major effort
of creating an exhaustive electrical code. Their 25-page
document is subtitled "Administrative Provisions."
Initially,
between 1997 and 1999, they had negotiated with NFPA regarding
the possibility of adopting, and selling or perhaps even
publishing, the NEC as part of their body of standards. This is
a family of harmonized structural, plumbing, and mechanical
codes. However, those negotiations fell through. Instead of the
NEC, they sought to adopt the equivalent aspect of the Canadian
Electrical Code (CEC), CEC Part 1, by reference. (The CEC's Part
2 corresponds to our UL standards.) Brooke has not gotten the
number of the behest; he does not know whether this was at the
behest of the ICC or the CEC people. One consequence of the
associated ill feeling is that the efforts to harmonize the NEC
and the CEC further have been abandoned.
The
ICC attempt to adopt the CEC by reference has been abandoned, at
least for the present. The retitled 2000 edition, "ICC
Electrical Code: Administrative Provisions" presently
references the NEC. However, there are major concerns. First,
there is no assurance that it will continue to do so. After all,
the NEC is daunting to people outside the industry. Brooke is a
member of the usability subcommittee, but he acknowledges that
we have a long way to go in making it user-friendly even for
electricians. Second, while the booklet offers procedures to
adopt and enforce an electrical code, the NFPA used to have a
document serving just this purpose, NFPA 70L. As of 2002, we
will have NEC Article 80 to fulfill this function. Third, the
ICC document does more than just set forth means of adopting and
enforcing the NEC as written; it modifies the NEC. This bypasses
the open, consensual, Code-change process that is key to the NEC
and other NFPA codes. For example, the ICC Electrical Code does
not include the NEC's 2002 requirement for AFCIs. For another,
it explicitly requires that smoke detectors not be on their own
circuits but include local lighting. There are labeling
requirements for the doors of electric rooms. Clearly, not all
of the rule differences are bad; but the means of creating them
is less trustworthy.
Why
is the ICC doing this?
As
mentioned above, this opens the door to replacing the NEC, so
that the ICC writes all the building codes. The NFPA has the
NEC, NFPA 70. (The Residential Electrical Code, NFPA 70A, which
offered no contradictions, being a subset of the NEC, no longer
is published; it was available for those who didn't care to wade
through quite so long and complex a document.) The ICC already
offers a separate International Residential Code, based on the
obsolete NFPA 70A. However, an ICC electrical code could be
simpler yet, demanding less of building officials who, in
Wayne's opinion, don't care to put forth the effort to learn the
NEC.
Another
aspect is that the International Council of Building
Officials(ICBO), which is a member of the ICC, has an electrical
inspector certification program. It might give them more clout
to have their own code.
The
Canadian Standards Association might still have hopes of getting
the CEC substituted for the NEC, giving them as product
regulators greater access to the U.S. market. They are presently
making no headway with products NRTL-Listed CSA/US , whereas
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. is penetrating the Canadian
market with products Listed to UL/C.
The
ICC's approach could mean an enforcement nightmare. The 1999
verison of the ICC Electrical Code permitted use of the NEC,
CEC, or International Residential Code "as applicable,"
with "as applicable" left undefined. This language
could result in "pick-and-choose" wiring and it could
result in arbitrary enforcement. Brooke gave the example of a
large, custom house built with a swimming pool and an elevator.
The house would be wired to the International Residential Code,
which offers the simplest provisions. This does not, however,
offer any guidance on pools or elevators. The pool would be
wired in accordance with the NEC, as could the elevator.
However, perhaps the CEC would have some less-expensive
provisions for wiring the elevator. If the AHJ permitted "code
shopping" all three Codes could be applied on the one
project -a plan review and code-enforcement nightmare. The mere
existence of multiple electrical codes means that as a
contractor goes from today's job in one jurisdiction to
tomorrow's job in an adjacent locale, the rules may change
radically. Local amendments, and adoption of different editions
of the NEC, are sufficiently confusing even now, and there is a
strong movement among IAEI members and others encouraging
uniform adoption and enforcement.
There
are a number of problems with changing codes, even if the issue
of multiple codes could be dispensed with. Most of these have to
do with retraining. Apprentices have been taught the NEC;
contractors and electricians and inspectors and plan reviewers
would require far greater retraining than are periodical NEC
updates require. This means unbudgeted expense, and expense that
the ICC cannot underwrite. This might be a boon to professional
trainers, but to no one else. NEMA will produce products to any
standard that is in place. UL and other NRTLs will Classify
products to comply with them. UL's Bob Johnson noted, however,
that UL is a supporter of the of the NFPA and the NEC, and far
from eager to undergo the major expense of developing new
standards that might be required to confirm compliance with
different codes.
If
complying with the CEC becomes an option, products Listed to CSA
will compete with products Listed to UL standards. This could
confuse purchasers, and products could easily end up misapplied.
Furthermore, we heard from a number of very-knowledgeable
members that in some cases products passing CSA investigations
to Canadian standards would fail investigation for compliance to
UL standards. We had no lawyer at the meeting, or at least no
one who admitted to being a lawyer. Still, it seems plausible
that all this could mean increased liability when cases of fire
and shock and other failure do come to court, if enforcement of
new, relatively-untried, and more forgiving standards can be
blamed.
Building
codes routinely come up for re-adoption, and without a vigorous,
vigilant effort to protect our safety standard, the ICC
Electrical Code could be slipped in without public officials
even realizing that a radical change is being introduced. The
electrical industry is united is supporting the NEC and opposing
the ICC's alternative. Like NEMA and the IAEI, UL is not in the
forefront of fighting the ICC Electrical Code. NECA and the IEC
and the IBEW are; in most areas, IEC chapters are somewhat more
active in this fight than IBEW chapters. Brooke has had
extremely limited success in making connections with engineering
groups that could support this effort.
The
electrical industry requested in mid-September, on The
Inspection Initiative's letterhead, that the ICC withdraw the
ICC Electrical Code. This was based on the fact that in August
2001 the President of the ICC was quoted as being unaware of any
"formal" request that the document be withdrawn.
The
ICC effort may in fact be closing down. On the one hand, a June
ICC press release indicated that they have no intention of
replacing the NEC. On the other hand, they continue to promote
"The ICC Electrical Code: Administrative Provisions."
What will tell the tale, in Fall of 2001 (given that their codes
are on an annual cycle), is whether they initiate a new revision
process. Meanwhile, we can look with interest at what comes of
NFPA's effort to create a full set of codes using its open,
consensus-driven process. The draft of NFPA 5000, their first
general building code, is presently out for review, and has a
planned publication date in 2002. It has the support of the
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials
(IAPMO) and the Western Fire Chiefs Association.
Our
previous regular meeting took place Tuesday evening, January 16.
Our speaker presented global perspectives on electrical design,
installation and inspection.
In
pre-meeting chat, President Wayne Robinson talked about the
requirement for apprentice and journeyman licensure. Tests were
administered in Prince George's County (PG) starting last
October, and starting June1, any electrician found on the job
without a license is subject to a $100 fine. At this point, only
about 80 apprentices and journey-level electricians have PG
licenses, compared to about 800 in Montgomery County.
Wayne
called the meeting to order at 6:45, when Past President Jim
Wooten arrived. The first New Business was brought up by Sam
Levinrad, retired engineer, inspector, and Code panelist. He
circulated a letter from the manufacturer of a type of MC cable
whose fire performance approximates that of MI. Its sheath is
continuous copper, albeit with a corrugated look. Around the
insulated conductors inside it is a flexible silicone covering
that turns into a ceramic if baked by fire. Wayne had a sample
of the stuff, which he fetched down from his office upstairs.
Like MI, its installation would take special fittings, tools,
and training. Opinions were mixed, but there was some
inclination to trust MI cable a whole lot more than this. On the
other hand, there was a suggestion that it is much cheaper than
MI. There is some pressure to adopt a requirement for this or an
equivalent-something with a two-hour fire rating--for fire alarm
use, as Type FPE cable lasts less than a minute in flame.
Next,
Secretary-Treasurer David Shapiro mentioned mail received from
Lyncole Industries addressed to the chapter but specifying,
"Current Electrical Inspector," a term that does not
include him. From his brief glance, it appears to promote
products including the company's chemical-leaching grounding
electrode system and their training seminars. No one expressed
an interest in looking at the materials.
Jim
brought up concerns that smoke detectors often are disconnected
because of nuisance alarms. He seems to see considerable
differences in sensitivity. Sam responded by talking about the
relative advantages of photoelectric versus ionization
detectors-David had not realized that photoelectric detectors
are still being sold-and by warning that detectors need to be
kept away from sources of moisture, and insects. Wayne chimed in
about how cockroaches love smoke detectors.
After
a break, we reconvened for our program, featuring Consumer
Product Safety Commission engineer Ed Krawiec. Ed has been an
IAEI member continuously for 27 years, and a CPSC engineer for
22 years. Before joining the CPSC, he worked for UL for 9 years.
At UL, he worked on aluminum wire, both on the development of
improved alloy and on Co/Alr devices. He also worked on the
development of FCC (undercarpet) cable.
One
concern that grew as Ed worked for UL is the degree that
standards development is marked by compromise. As a CPSC
employee, one thing he has been able to do is collect data to
supplant the prejudices and presumptions marked by people on
every side of disputes about safety. In addition, the CPSC has
been able to galvanize important developments.
Arcing
Fault Circuit Interrupters, for a very important example, came
to market when they did in good part as a result of a CPSC
initiative. In 1987, one engineering company came up with a
module that could be incorporated into circuit breakers for AFCI
or various other cutting-edge purposes, but manufacturers saw no
need to invest in it. An independent inventor came up with a
breadboarded, semi-functional prototype AFCI mechanism in the
early 1990s. Circuit breaker manufacturers' Research and
Development staffs had played with applicable concepts too.
However, none of the big players seemed likely to invest in
bringing something like this to market without some kind of
prodding.
What
then? The CPSC put out a contract for bid, won by UL, to examine
any kind of proposal for enhancing electrical safety. As
anticipated, AFCI concepts were highlighted in UL's 1994 report
as being among the most promising contenders. In response, major
manufacturers moved forward with AFCIs, so that they would not
be left behind when their competitors brought AFCIs to market.
By 1996, AFCIs were for sale. Ed considers them the first major
improvement in home electrical safety in 30 years.
Ed
gave us a very effective overview of the CPSC and its operation.
Despite the fact that it has fewer than half the number of
employees that it had when Ed joined, it accomplishes a lot. I
will not reproduce much of Ed's description, because the web
site, www.cpsc.gov, can do the job better.
The
CPSC operates under some peculiar rules. Alone among government
agencies, they are required to verify the accuracy of
information that they gather before passing it along. This
sounds like very much a good thing. However, as Ed demonstrated,
it can be a bad thing in the hands of lawyers. For instance, Ed
had occasion to test the operation of a certain breaker design.
All ten of his samples failed to meet the standard and operate
as intended. However, the CPSC could not put out a notice saying
that the breakers are no good, because the manufacturer could
successfully argue that 10 is not a large enough sample for a
blanket statement. The resources to test a much larger sample
simply were not available given the CPSC's personnel and budget.
The
CPSC collects complaints about products, and information from
lawsuits. There even is a rule, "37E," requiring that
companies subject to a certain number of product liability
claims within a relatively short period must report them to the
CPSC. What can the CPSC do with this? Mainly they persuade
companies to make some sort of voluntary amends, for the sake of
public relations. The CPSC also can propose standards, in cases
where there are no voluntary standards, thoroughly inadequate
voluntary standards, or voluntary standards that are roundly
ignored. Mostly, though, here too their obligation is to work
with organizations that publish voluntary standards, seeking
amendments that will accomplish their safety goals.
This
can take time.
According
to the National Center for Health Statistics, electrocutions
have dropped markedly. Ed is clear that this is thanks to the
use of GFCIs, double-insulated tools, and similar improvements.
A CPSC report that Ed circulated indicated that electrocutions
most frequently involve small appliances such as toasters (24%
of cases); then large appliances such as air conditioners (19%);
then power tools (14%); then household wiring (13%); and then
lighting of various kinds (9%). What we focused on, therefore,
is the question of electrical fires.
The
CPSC uses data from the National Fire Incident Report System
(NFIRS) for statistics on fire causation. The NFIRS estimates
that they are sent information on 60% of fires that result in
Fire Service calls. Cooperation with varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. CPSC statisticians worked out ways to extrapolate
true numbers form those incomplete data. (Ed suspects that the
numbers still are low.)
It
was not long before we started giving Ed grief. "It's easy
to call a fire 'electrical.'" "Fire investigators tend
to have no electrical background." "Even an
electrician has little chance of figuring out what caused a
fire, without forensic training."
Ed
had ready answers. First, he agreed that non-electrical fires
are mislabeled as electrical. However, feisty fellow that he is,
he not only emphasized that the reverse happens, he underscored
it with a couple of stories. Here's an example:
An
obese paraplegic woman burned to death in her bed. It was
presumed that her nurse surreptitiously smoked, and that the
victim surreptitiously took some sigs from the nurse and, when
the nurse was gone, snuffed herself by smoking them and then
snuffing them out on her mattress because she had no ashtray.
Ludicrous? It sure sounds that way to me, yet that's the fantasy
that the investigator wove, without any physical evidence to
support it. Some better-trained investigators went back and
discovered that there were three small appliances sitting on the
bed, their cords feeding into a receptacle with the mattress
jammed against the plugs. Every time the obese victim shifted in
bed, the mattress ground against them. Eventually, the mattress
ignited, right at that spot. Bad wiring? Not exactly. But
definitely a fire of electrical origin.
Good
story, eh? (If sad.) But stories do not disprove the idea that
it is easy and comfortable to blame fires on bad wiring,
especially if you are outside the electrical industry. Ed said
that the CPSC has tried to get around that by collecting data
from around the nation, and looking at consistent trends. Whew,
did this get him some grief. When he further clarified the
procedure that he was talking about, though, we saw that it was
potentially worthy of respect.
"Fires
in Ten Cities" is the name of the project that the CPSC ran
to get reliable data on what really causes fires that are
presumed to be of electrical origin. The report can be ordered
from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Springfield, VA 22161, using Order #PB84-159789 , or read
online-but it's 60-odd pages long--at
<http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire83/PDF/f83002.pdf>
Here's
what they did, in briefer, if not brief, form. They started out
by recruiting a seasoned forensic investigator, the San
Francisco Fire Department's Lieutenant John Ricketts, and
bringing him to Washington for United States Fire Administration
training. They trained him to their standards, and then sent him
to 10 cities to provide training in forensics to reputable
electrical contractors who were hired to be on call for fire
scene investigations. 114 cases were gathered, investigated by
these electricians or CPSC personnel, items evaluated by
forensic laboratories as needed, and the causes tabulated. After
eliminating four cases for which reports were inadequate and
five cases that "second-stage analyses" concluded did
not have electrical origins, 105 were reviewed. The
proportions-especially for the category "Equipment Involved
in Ignition"--pretty well matched nationwide FRIS numbers.
True,
these investigations resulted from Fire Services calling the ten
investigators and saying, "We think this fire has an
electrical origin," knowing that the assertion was going to
be reviewed very, very closely. The report was willing to
attribute differences between national FRIS estimates and study
numbers to "artifacts of the case selection process,"
but assumed that where there was little difference between the
two the study's agreement meant that FRIS estimates are valid.
Ed goes along with this interpretation. He chooses to consider
the match as supporting the idea that when fire investigators
report, "I'd say it was from such and such an electrical
cause," in normal circumstances, they are pretty much as
likely to be right as they were in these 100+ special cases. In
other words, the CPSC believes that aggregating fire
departments' opinions comes up with useful data about fire
causation, not merely about firefighters' folklore or
prejudices.
On
to our featured presentation. What we expected Ed to talk about,
what we originally tried to schedule him to talk about months
ago, is his current project examining "residential quality"
loadcenters, apparently investigating the possible oxymoronic
qualities of the term "quality" in this context.
Because the CPSC has so very much on its plate, and so few
resources, the last time it had a chance to look at panelboards
was in the early 1980s, when it commissioned the study
documenting the inadequacies of the Stab-lok design.
Ed
talked about how much more vulnerable panelboards with aluminum
busbars are than those with copper busses, and those with
plug-on circuit breakers than those with bolt-in breakers. A far
more important change going back, similarly, to the late 1970s,
is the use of thermoplastic between the busses and the cabinets
as a substitute for the earlier thermoset plastic stand-offs,
because under fault or fire conditions thermoplastic can soften
and allow the bus to contact the cabinet.
Ed
wants to hear from people-and this means people reading this
report--who know of panelboard failures that caused, or could
have caused, fires external to the cabinets. He also wants to
know of problems that electricians have had working in
panelboards and suffering injury or near-misses, perhaps because
of equipment being ready to jump out and bite as soon as anyone
laid a finger on it. He can be reached at
This
leads to the question of what constitutes a panelboard problem.
How about corrosion? A survey by the American Society of Home
Inspectors found serious corrosion in about a quarter of
residential panelboards. Ed asked, "How does the corrosion
get in?" He noted that the standards for weatherproof
connectors and for SE cable allow enough play that one really
should add a bit of duct sealant after installing SE using a
gland-ring type connector. He also noted that weatherheads are
evaluated for installation within a few degrees of vertical, and
may not keep water out if installed at too much of a slant.
With
this out of the way, Ed talked just a little more about AFCIs.
He expects them to develop further, in response to market demand
and competitive pressures. Since any equipment could go bad, he
would like to see more failsafes incorporated into their design.
For instance, they contain tiny solenoids; if these remain
energized for any length of time, they burn out. Ideally, future
AFCIs will periodically run self-tests without any human
intervention, shutting down automatically if they failed the
tests.
Ed
compared the development of AFCIs with that of GFCIs, which led
to a number of challenges and questions about GFCIs. Initially,
the beasts were rather flighty, with nuisance tripping that
really was unnecessary. The reason, Ed explained, is that the
original standard specified a maximum leakage level but did not
set a minimum. Hence they could interrupt power at as little as
1 or 2 mA leakage, rather than the current (as it were) 4 mA.
How about radio frequency sensitivity? Some claimed that RF
interference tripped GFCIs, and that on construction sites, for
example, their sensitivity should be cut way, way down. IN 1977
or 1978 OSHA investigated this charge, and concluded that it was
unfounded.
The
last point Ed chose to make is that while GFCIs save lives, they
have limitations. They don't protect everyone. They limit the
duration of exposure to shock, but do not limit the amount of
current flowing during that brief period. Furthermore, while 98%
of healthy adult males should survive a shock when protected by
a properly-functioning GFCI, on 91% of healthy adult females
would be expected survive, and even lower percentages of the
disabled, the young, and the elderly.
-END-
PREVIOUS
MINUTES
The
following are the minutes of the George Washington Chapter's
meeting that was held on November 21, 2000 at the Prince
George's County offices in Largo, MD.
Correspondence
David
passed around some materials sent to our chapter by Dr. Jesse
Aronstein, a consulting engineer. They helped us expand on the
perspective regarding Federal Pacific (FPE) circuit breakers
that was provided by an article in May/June 1999's IAEI News. A
reprint from Business Week magazine of July 21, 1980 described
the Fall, 1979 deListing of FPE's entire circuit breaker product
line. It said, "...the real problem was not the failure of
circuit breakers to gain UL approval but 'deception' in
obtaining certification over a long period of years. . . ."
Aronstein indicated that the IAEI News article was written by an
executive who, at the least, was on FPE's staff at the time FPE
engaged in what Business Week refers to as deception, and
pointed out the contradiction between the author's statement
that the breakers "have been continually listed since the
1950s" and Business Week's description of their deListing
in 1979. Finally, Aronstein sent a copy of a would-be reassuring
letter from UL indicating that FPE breakers manufactured since
the deListing are in compliance, adding a note pointing out
that, unfortunately, most FPE breakers in use today were
manufactured prior to the deListing -- a deListing which did not
lead to a product recall.
He
also passed around a note sent to our chapter as follow-up on
this, from a home inspector and writer whose web site was
alluded to in the article. It read:
Subject:
FPE breaker info source
I
have summarized all public info I can obtain on the FPE question
at
"http://www.inspect-ny/fpe/fpepanel.htm"
You'll
find various public documents including SEC filings, FPE PR
statements, CPSC information, and Aronstein's own research
documents, as well as photos of failed equipment, burnouts,
overheating of this equipment.
While
it does not represent a new statistical analysis, I also point
out that since the inception of this web site I've received a
steady stream of field reports of overheating, burnouts,
failures-to-trip, and some fires due to malfunction in this
equipment.
It's
an unfortunate issue since it's clear that not only was there
fraudulent product listing as an issue, but the product fails to
perform in the field, putting consumers at risk.
Dan
Dan
Friedman, American Home Service / American micro Publish
Construction Inspection & Consulting/Professional Writing,
Editing, Publishing "mailto:dfriedman@inspect-ny.com"
David
also shared some correspondence from Alan Nadon, Chief
Inspector, Elkhart, Indiana:
"I
was at a job where there had been a fire and the electrician
wanted to get the power back on to run the furnace since it has
turned winter here, and they didn't want the pipes to freeze.
The electrician said that they had a 100 amp panel. Usually this
is a no-brainer, just strip the panel of circuits that go to the
damaged part of the house and set a GFCI receptacle for repair
and another circuit for the furnace. Then shut off or disconnect
all the other circuits. When I looked at the outside I saw an
old, three separate wire drop from the utility, not triplex. The
connection to the house was with split bolts, wrapped with tape,
no permanent splices, and the meter socket was an old round
style usually indicating a 60 amp. service. Taken all together I
declared that it was an illegal conversion from 60 to 100 amp.
just by looking at the outside. When we looked at the panel
inside I was justified when we saw that the 24 circuit panel was
a Main Lug Only panel with no Service Disconnect or "Main"
breaker.
"I
said I would not re-meter the house. The money they saved 30
years ago with interest could pay for what they needed now. The
alternative would be to set a temporary on a pole and run a
circuit to the furnace and provide outlets for repair."
[When
David asked whether he could reprint this email for our meeting,
Alan responded]:
"No
problem. I am open to the public and have taken the heat. That's
why inspectors get the "big bucks," and I'm not
talking about deer hunting.
"This
is the kind of thing that the chapter meetings should have,
restricted to inspector members, 'I've got this jerk' or 'I've
got this situation'; 'don't tell me how I should handle it or
tell me how the lawyers would handle it, tell me how you would
handle it, and have you ever done it?'
"Did
you end up in court? What was the result ? Do your electricians
respect what you did or do they laugh at you ? That, in my
opinion, is what the IAEI should be about 'cause it gets very
lonesome out there sometimes and you can't be sure if you are
making a jerk of yourself or doing what is right. I have 163
licensed electricians out there and I have to ask them
sometimes, names and places deleted, if this was what was
happening and this is what I did, do you think I did right or
are you just saying that?"
Wayne
kindly ran upstairs and made sufficient copies of these letters
to go around. There was some head-shaking, but we did not take
the time for general comment on these communications, as our
speaker had arrived.
Program
Brooke
Stauffer talked to us about how to perform, and how to pass,
low-voltage inspections. Brooke, who served for a short period
as our chapter's secretary, is a former consulting engineer who,
before coming to NECA, worked for other organizations such as
NEMA and NAHB. He still wears many hats. He is Director, Codes
and Standards, for NECA, coordinating The Inspection Initiative,
the National Electrical Installation Standards (NEISs), and
other programs, and representing NECA on a number of boards and
committees.
Because
Brooke was kind enough to provide the secretary with a hard copy
of his slides, we are able to share a complete outline of his
presentation: Code Requirements for Installing Low-Voltage
Systems. It is nothing like what those who showed up received,
free, but it can give readers some sense of the subject's scope.
His
first points concerned people's relative unfamiliarity with
low-voltage inspections. In most of the Code, rules are divided
into those applying to installations under 600 volts and
installations running 600 volts and more. So "low voltage"
tends to mean under a thousand volts, or under 600 volts. Thus,
the low-voltage systems of Chapters 7 and 8 seem almost outside
the scope of the NEC, feeling like an afterthought. Furthermore,
as we see in Section 90-3, the rules in Chapter 8 are
independent of the rest of the NEC, except as specifically
referenced. However, Brooke underscored, low-voltage systems are
covered!
What's
the point of enforcement? There are any number of reasons to
inspect low-voltage systems. Audio voltages can reach 70 VAC;
telephone ringing voltages can reach 90 VAC. When not properly
separated from line wiring, low-voltage wires can have any
available voltage to ground impressed on them, especially if not
properly grounded. There has been explosive growth in the use of
low-voltage systems. The NEC covers telephones, including those
relied on for audio or Internet-mediated lifelines, cable
television, community access television, video, nurse call
systems, factory automation, computer local area networks, and
security systems, including access control. Utility
restructuring has resulted in new categories of installers. NEC
training and, in general, quality control, may be lacking.
Code-compliant installations, Brooke asserted, are more
functional, and inspectors add value to projects by ensuring
that the low-voltage systems are inspected as professionally as
power systems.
"Low
voltage" and "limited energy" are terms that are
used but not defined in the NEC, Brooke noted. A peculiar area,
this: fiber optic cables are addressed by the NEC even though
the basic cable carries no voltage, and is non-conductive. It's
not always clear what rules are suitable. The NEC does not
address Local Area Networks explicitly, but installers should
apply the rules in Article 800. Similarly, there are not rules
for closed-circuit television, indeed for any coax uses other
than CATV. Therefore, we were told, the CATV rules of Article
820 are the ones to use. Then, going a step beyond the NEC's
rules, Brooke recommended that installers apply the rules in
Electronics Industry Association/ Telecommunications Industry
Association (EIA/TIA) 568-A, the Commercial Building
Telecommunications Cabling Standard.
We
were offered a list of "lost," meaning relatively
unfamiliar, NEC articles: 411, 504, 530, 640, 720, 725, 760,
770, 780, 800, 810, 820, and 830. While he could not discuss
them in detail, we were offered some highlights and given a
chance to ask questions. Before going over the "lost"
low voltage articles individually, Brooke brought together some
more widely applicable rules. The general rules in Article 110
apply to Chapter 7: 110-2, 110-3(b), 110-11, 110-12, 110-14,
110-16, 110-17, and 110-26. They may not apply to Chapter 8.
Three different chapters reproduce the requirement that their
cables be separated from other types of wiring that could
contribute dangerous energy.. Protection such as a barrier is
required, with some exceptions, by Sections 725-54(a),
800-52(a), and 820-52(a).
Now
Brooke whirlwinded through the highlights of the orphan
articles. Summarizing Article 411, Low-voltage Lighting, he
noted that a system must be Listed, fed by an isolating power
supply whose secondary output is a maximum of 30 volts and 25
amps, and that concealed wiring must comply with NEC Chapter 3.
However, exposed wiring can use bare conductors.
Article
504, Intrinsically Safe Systems, are applied in hazardous
locations classified as Class I, II, or III. Acceptable wiring
methods include some special cables. Article 530, part G, Movie
and Television Studios, permits a special separately-derived 60
VAC system that minimizes electrical interference. The
associated safety provisions include clear identification of
components fed by the secondary, and GFCI protection for 15- and
20-amp receptacles. Article 640, Audio Equipment, references
Article 530 Part G. There are special restrictions on audio
systems installed near bodies of water. Boats, Brooke reminded
us, are exempt from the NEC. Although most don't realize this,
depending on equipment characteristics audio equipment requires
Article 725's Class 1, 2, or 3 signal wiring. (This does not
mean that inspectors concern themselves with your stereo's
speaker wiring.)
Systems
at Less than 50 Volts, covered in Article 720, are now very
uncommon, as all the 32 volt farm lighting plants were installed
before rural electrification extended the national grid. Article
725, on the other hand, covers a variety of wiring.
Power-limited Class 1 circuits are not common. Other Class 1
wiring follows the rules of Chapters 1-4 and can carry up to 600
volts. Class 2 wiring can carry up to 30 volts and Class 3 up to
100 volts. Both Class 2 and Class 3 can carry a maximum of 100
VA, and can utilize Types CL3, CM (unshielded twisted pair), or
PLTC wiring. Section 725-8 requires special physical protection
for remote-control circuits that operate safety equipment.
Article
760, Fire Alarm Systems, is the subject of a National Electrical
Installation Standard (NEIS) in progress. Article 760 Part B
covers Nonpower-limited systems, which can utilize Chapter 3
methods or exposed NPFLA cable. Part C, power-limited systems
can utilize Chapter 3 wiring or exposed FPL, CM, or MP (coaxial)
cable.
Article
770, Optical Fiber, is the subject of a published NEIS. In
summary, there are three fiber optical (F.O.) cable types,
conductive, nonconductive, and composite; and three versions,
general, riser, and plenum. F.O. cables face few restrictions.
They are permitted in hazardous locations, and nonconductive
F.O. cables do not need to be separated from power cables,
nonpower-limited fire alarm cables, or medium-power broadband
communications cables. Section 770-52(a)'s rules on mixing F.O.
with other cables were expanded in the 1999 NEC. A new rule in
Section 770-6, allows the use of Listed nonmetallic optical
fiber raceways.
While
more and more F.O. cable is being manufactured and installed,
Type NMS Cable, the subject of Article 780, no longer is made.
The only reason the article is still in the NEC, and the cable
is still available, is for servicing existing Smart Houses.(TM).
A stiff, wide, flat cable containing power conductors, coax, and
twisted pairs, it was terribly labor-intensive to install. A
miniature chain saw was needed to slot studs in order to pass
the cable through walls.
Article
800, Communications Circuits, covers telephone, computer
networking, and outside wiring for fire and burglar alarms.
While the Article generally is independent of the first section
of the NEC, as of the 1999 NEC, Section 800-4 explicitly
references Section 110-3. Another new rules in Section 800-48,
permits the use of Listed nonmetallic communications raceways.
Article 800 includes the use of Types CM, MP, and fiber optic
cables, which are available in general, riser, and plenum
versions. Category 5E UTP is the most common cable used. A new
Federal Communications Commission rule requires that all new
construction utilize Category 3 cable, at a minimum, starting in
2001. In response to a question, Brooke acknowledged that
high-end cable, and even Category 3, serves little purpose in
any but the most high-tech homes. Cables running between
computers are not treated uniformly by the NEC. Those in the
walls are Article 800's telecom wiring; dedicated cables running
between computers outside the walls are covered in Section
725-41(a)(4): they must be Class 2. While Article 800 covers
regulatory requirements, performance requirements will be
addressed by five NEISs, standards outside the NEC. The flagship
document is TIA/EIA 568A-1995, and a second standard, NECA/BICSI
568-2xxx is working through the ANSI approval process. Regarding
NEISs, Brooke mentioned that one Florida jurisdiction now
requires compliance with them, and a couple of other
jurisdictions are considering doing the same.
Article
810, Radio and Television Equipment, covers antenna systems,
including, as of the 1999 NEC, satellite dishes. It emphasizes
mechanical protection and grounding. Article 820, CATV and Radio
Systems, covers Radio Frequency cable uses, which require coax
or UTP. Use of coax for telecom and LANs is covered in Article
800. Article 830, Network-Powered Broadband Communications
Circuits, is new in the 1999 NEC. It covers cables such as
hybrid fiber/coax, delivering power on a center conductor and
providing entertainment and Internet services. Article 830's
low-power and medium-power circuits are similar to Article 725's
Class3 circuits. Familiar cables types, CM, CL3, and MP can be
used, and there also are newer cables designed for this purpose:
Types BL and BM.
Brooke
closed with a summary of 1999 changes found throughout the Code
that affect installation and inspection of low-voltage wiring.
In response to utility restructuring, a new Part D of Article
370 incorporates communications cabling requirements for
manholes. Section 410-15(b) defines metal lighting poles as
raceways, eliminating the option of dangerously mingling
low-voltage conductors with the power conductors inside the
poles, to serve equipment such as security cameras and
loudspeakers that might be mounted on the poles. Article 770
Brooke
showed us quite a few slides of real-life installations as well.
We say communications racks that were neat and workmanlike,
complying the EIA/TIA standards, as well as slovenly and
unprofessional. We saw a Telecommunications Main Grounding
Busbar. We saw a floor penetration with a junction box
half-buried in the floor, and with firestopping clearly omitted.
Finally, we saw conduits used to sleeve telecommunications
cables, with a common bonding jumper.
Wayne
asked him about that slide. Was 10 AWG a minimum required size?
As these are not Code-required safety conductors, Brooke
suspects that the NEC does not specify a minimum. He looked it
up for us later, and reported, "TIA/EIA-607-94, 'Commercial
Building Grounding and Bonding Requirements for
Telecommunications' (ANSI), paragraph 5.1.3 states: 'All bonding
conductors shall be insulated and copper. The minimum bonding
conductor size shall be a No. 6 AWG.'"
Brooke
mentioned that the EIA/TIA standards have been checked carefully
for conflicts with the NEC.
Wayne
mentioned that he gets calls every month from people who are
dismayed to learn that a permit is required to run a plug-in
cable from a computer in one room to the computer in another
room.
A
firefighter asked Brooke about the legitimacy of draping coaxial
cable on ceiling tiles. Yes, he agreed, it adds to the fuel
load. He agreed with the questioner that it can be a problem
when a load of cable, some perhaps even abandoned, resists
lifting a tile to look for fire spread, or tumbles down when you
remove an acoustical tile. It is conceivable, Brooke said, that
a forthcoming Code change will limit the problem, by forbidding
more than one cable to be draped on any tile.
Brooke
generously distributed two NECA publications before leaving:
1999 National Electrical Code Tables, and the Guide to
Low-Voltage and Limited-Energy Systems, by Mike Holt, which
covers much but not all of the territory we had looked at in our
evening's tour.
_______________________________________________________
Background
Art
Hesse was familiar to, and appreciated by, a great many members
of this chapter.
Until
the mid-1980s, people who are enthusiastic about consistent
enforcement of the rules supporting safe wiring, and education
that helps in understanding them, had to travel to Baltimore in
order to attend regular meetings of the International
Association of Electrical Inspectors . There we were welcomed as
guests by the Chesapeake Chapter. However, the trip was too much
for many who might have attended more-convenient meetings. Art
Hesse changed this by resurrecting the George Washington
Chapter. Throughout his life, he was a person who took on the
work that needed to be done.
Arthur
W. Hesse was born in a small town in Wisconsin. His father was a
good-hearted carpenter, who died when Art was 9 or 10. Helping a
neighbor try to save his barn in a snowstorm, the elder Mr Hesse
fell to his death through the roof. He left Art and his brothers
in the care of their mother. She had no easy life. As the boys
were growing up, she brought in $300 a year taking care of a
church, and her brother contributed some hog meat. She didn't
allow her sons guns, but they had a good dog, and hunted
squirrels and rabbits. Art and his brothers took on every odd
job they could, to help her cope.
She
had had to leave school as a young teen when her mother died, to
help take care of her three younger siblings on the farm. She
developed a lifelong interest in flowers, but never was able to
return to school and go beyond the interrupted sixth-grade
education. She did, however, instill in her sons the message,
"If you go to school, that's something they can't rob you
of." Art became an inveterate reader.
Everyone
I've met who knew Art saw that helpfulness he inherited from his
father: "He's one of the good ones," a contractor told
me when I said Art was dying. A deacon at his church talked
about how Art's availability could be relied on when need arose:
"He was always there on standby." His pastor
appreciated the standards that went with Art's work ethic:
"Whenever called on to consult, if he didn't have the
knowledge to perform according to his high standard, he wouldn't
do it."
The
intelligence and love of learning also are clear. You may have
heard him share a "Ya know, . . ." in the certainty
that you would enjoy learning some choice fact just as much as
he did. Then there is the way he showed appreciation for the
information he gets from seminars, even seminars on subjects he
himself could have taught. There was almost always something.
Even if you have had neither of these experiences, you'll see
how proud he must have made his mother when you learn his
history.
Art
was not shy of making commitments and taking on responsibility
even as a young man. He met his future wife, Charlotte-15
then--at a dance in his home town before he entered the
University of Wisconsin at 19. She shared Art's unpretentious
background. She and the older brother with whom she came to the
dance were the only two in her grindingly-poor family of seven
kids that found the resources to make it through high school-
her wealth being two pairs of clothing that she could alternate.
Soon
after the dance, she received her first of many letters from
Art. Once he was in the Air Corps, he stopped by to visit her in
Milwaukee every time he came home on leave.
He
wasn't at the University of Wisconsin a year when he was drafted
into the Army Air Corps, enlisting to become-who'd have
guessed?--a meteorologist. They sent him to Reed College in
Portland, Oregon to study meteorology for a year and a half.
Graduating, he studied another nine months in another program.
When World War II ended, he was given a choice of assignments,
and chose communications. He was sent to Yale for nine months to
study the electronic systems that were used in navigational
aids, and left as a Second Lieutenant.
His
first assignment, from July 4, 1945 to December, 1947, was
Alaska. He started with a year on a remote air base in Alaska,
followed by two in Anchorage. He demonstrated an interest in
power wiring that first year. The base in the Aleutians relied
on barrels and barrels of diesel fuel. One day they were having
trouble with the generator, and Art offered to
help-successfully. Recognizing his fascination with the base's
stand-alone generation and distribution system, the command
encouraged him to focus on that. He pointed out that he couldn't
do it full-time, as he was there to work on their navigational
aids. He gave the power system what time he could. Then they
requisitioned another man to work on the communications system,
so that he could devote all his time to their power generation
and distribution.
He
had a fine time weekends in Alaska. His Charlotte agreed to
marry three years later, down in Texas, after he gained his
commission in 1945 and she had turned 18. A loan from her
brother paid her way up to Alaska, and they managed to get
quarters a block from the base. When the weekend came, they
often would go into the mountains, skiing, enjoying the remote
environment.
In
Anchorage, living conditions sometimes were challenging for this
young wife. The wind regularly blew hard enough to fling open a
door or window. One time she was frightened by a pounding on the
door. It proved to be a rowdy alcoholic. Art led the man away
and around the neighborhood till he found the home where the man
belonged.
Following
the Alaska tours, Art was sent to the Air Force Institute of
Technology in Dayton, Ohio for a two-year program leading to a
BSEE equivalent. He aced it. Graduating, he was assigned to
inventory office furniture in Texas! Well, this didn't last
long. He informed his EE prof of what he had been sent to do,
and quickly was brought back to Dayton, where this recent
graduate now was assigned to teach at the Air Force Institute of
Technology. This lasted for the next three years. (Although he
did not realize it at the time, while in Dayton he crossed paths
many times with the man who would hire him decades later to work
for Prince Georges County, Maryland.)
Art
loved to teach, and he didn't take the work anymore lightly than
his other jobs. Preparation took so much time that his wife was
concerned with the lack of down time. When students went home,
they were not just carrying assignments that they could handle
or flub. If there was anything he could do to make sure they
understood the material, and deserved to pass, he would do it.
As a neighbor said, from her own context, "Art never made
you feel small for asking a question." He enjoyed teaching
through the Air Force, through Community Colleges, and in less
formal settings. IBEW member Dick Bissell notes that Art was the
first to come forward to serve on their Code panels, and he
would always speak up, if only to offer quips. He also was one
of the early members of the ad hoc committee that became the
Maryland Uniform Electrical Examination Committee
After
Dayton, he requested and received an assignment to study at
Stanford University, one of 12 Air Force officers selected-and
the one who earned the highest grades. He earned his MSEE
(qualifying for his PE), and continued on, taking post-master's
coursework before the Air Force decided that a year and a half
was enough schooling-they needed to put him back to work.
From
1954 on, he served as a Staff Engineer, managing satellite
communication research, heading the Air Force's electronic
countermeasures development program, completing tours of duty at
various air bases and at the Pentagon. This work is where he
gained his experience handling all the various aspects of
management, from politics to logistics. After he left
Wright-Patterson's electronic countermeasures program, he was
assigned to the Advanced Research Projects Agency ARPA (a.k.a.
DARPA), from about 1968-1972, before his final assignment at
Andrews Air Force Base. He was at DARPA toward the very end of
the Vietnam War.
One
of the projects he supervised at DARPA created color photographs
out of black-and-white prints sent back from Vietnam by
projecting them through three gratings, corresponding to the
primary colors. A second involved the creation of a stealth
dirigible, with a Wankel engine driving a helicopter blade. In
electronic countermeasures, the research he supervised included
contracts to prevent enemy radar from locking on to our F4s.
Art
invested a lot of himself in his work. Meanwhile, for 20 years
he and his wife made do with a 27-foot house trailer, not
leaving Wright-Patterson and the trailer till their son, Scott
Andrew, was a year old. When they came to the Washington area,
though, things were not immediately better. They moved into
their brand-house just as soon as it would accommodate them. How
well it was set up for family life was another matter. At
move-in, the only water supply was the neighbor's garden hose,
the only toilet a tar bucket, and the kitchen facilities a hot
plate. This was not good enough for raising a one-year-old.
Fortunately, a neighbor from Dayton they had come to know as
"Grandma" took in mother and baby till the house was
ready-meaning the utilities had been installed, and now it was
ready for her to paint!
Colonel
Arthur Hesse retired on January 1, 1975, after 33 years of
service. One night he ran in to an old friend who worked at the
Central Services Division of Prince Georges County, Maryland,
the county where Art lived. After talking a while, he encouraged
Art to apply for a position as a contract manager. He became the
contract officer overseeing work being done at Prince Georges
Hospital, including the addition of a new wing. After he was
there about six months, problems with the County's electrical
inspection led to the retired of the chief electrical inspector.
They now advertised an opening for this position. With some
uncertainty, Art applied for the position. The head of the
building department had no uncertainty about Art, being anxious
to hire him for the job.
All
his years of management experience stood him in good stead, and
he found a ready welcome from his staff. Inspector Larry
Randall, area supervisor Walter Smith, and David Weiner all
shared backgrounds as hands-on electricians, and all were there
for Art to call on. After his first day, his secretary, Lorraine
Clun, who had been with the county for 15 or 20 years, told Art,
"Mr. Hesse, you're not going to have a problem if I have
anything to say about it."
This
proved to be the case. Art told me he experienced the utmost
respect from the electrical contractors in Prince Georges
County, with three or four exceptions, and he enjoyed his 20
years there. He did not find scofflaws, installers who only
cared about getting the job done and were not interested in what
the Code says about doing the work safely. Only one contractor
lost his license in all those years, for consistently showing
such a cold-blooded attitude.
I
grilled Art about this, because in my very limited experience as
an inspector, as well-meaning as I believe myself, and as
helpful as I try to be, my experience has been less positive.
True, this may be affected by the fact that I'm a third-party
inspector. This means that I serve at the pleasure of the
contractor, and may sometimes be called upon by installers who
are less patient, perhaps also some who are less confident of
their ability to pass inspection. Nonetheless, I have
encountered discouragingly many contractors (and landlords) who
don't seem to care about safety nearly as much as they focus on
doing the least they can get away with. In our talks, Art kept
getting back to his belief, and his experience, that if you
treat the person being inspected the way you would want to be
treated, it works out okay.
For
many years, I relied on Art as one of two local inspectors I
could call on for help interpreting the Code, whatever the
jurisdiction in which I was working. (Arlington's Ron Kotula was
the other.) It is not that I liked his answers 100% of the time,
but I respected him, and he always was willing to help me clear
up my understanding.
Frank
Casula was another person who learned to rely on Art. As a
county councilman, he would come to Art when a constituent was
having trouble. This was not about trying to bend the rules for
fat cat campaign contributors, or he wouldn't have earned Art's
respect, which he did. Frank had a much better reason for
relying on Art. When called on, Art managed to sort things out
peacefully, whether there was some misunderstanding with permits
or poor communication between contractor and inspector.
After
20 years, though, the climate changed. Over Art's protest, the
decision-makers chose to economize by closing down the
commercial electrical inspection department and having
third-party inspectors take over. Art decided that it was time
for him to retire.
He
wasn't going to settle back into any kind of retirement, though.
At this point, Frank Casula had become mayor of Laurel, and he
asked Art to help them set up an electrical inspection program.
Art replied that he really wasn't interested in more full-time
work, after retiring from two careers. "Just set it up,
please, we'll find people to do the work." After a year of
part-time work, Art had things pretty well set up. The new Code
had been adopted, forms and a permit process were in place.
However, Frank had not managed to find someone to take over. Art
was not prepared to push hard, at that point. People were too
kind. Then after a couple more years, Frank developed liver
cancer, which killed him. So for ten years after his second
retirement, Art served as the Town of Laurel's consultant.
Consultant? He was not even merely supervising but actually
performing their electrical inspections. At this age, and this
point in his career, he certainly did not need to do it for the
money. He did it because he enjoyed the people. He figured he
knew almost all of the contractors by their first names. Even
though he didn't live in Laurel, Art felt like a member of a big
family up there.
He
wasn't shy of physical labor either. He was past 80 when a shed
roof on his church's property needed repair, and he climbed up
there to hammer shingles.
Despite
his zest for contributing, Art had not intended to continue
inspecting there just as long as he possibly could. He found Jim
Wooten as a candidate for his replacement. However, while Jim
was interested in the job, he wanted to perform it as an
employee, not a consultant. Still, when Art wanted a break, he
was able to call on Jim, once an inspector under Art and now
performing part-time inspections for the City of Annapolis. Art
talked to me about the possibility of my gradually taking over
his work in Laurel. Then suddenly the choice was taken from him.
(Laurel inspections passed temporarily into the capable hands of
Pete Bowers.)
In
late Fall of 2006, he developed a lump on his ear, near where
doctors had removed a benign lump over a decade earlier. By the
time the doctors sorted things out enough to take a biopsy, it
was quite swollen, and there were a number of other suspicious
growths. This called for surgery. It was major surgery
particularly because of all the nerves passing through the area
being dissected. A six-hour operation on his ear and neck at the
beginning of January necessary got rid of all visible tumor. The
tube down his esophagus during the operation did leave him with
an extremely sore throat for 10 days, and as of the end of
February he continued to have some trouble with his shoulder.
This was not the most troubling part. The cancer specialist was
clear that such surgery would not remove all the tumor cells,
and the only reliable answer was to burn out any that remained.
He prescribed seven weeks of radiation therapy. The very ugly
potential side-effects were extremely threatening. Art was quite
troubled at the prospect. The chance of these was smaller than
had faced people undergoing radiation therapy in the past, but
the possibility was still there. Fortunately, subsequent
meetings with the doctors were reassuring; there are plenty of
things to do to minimize pain and there are good reasons for
some disturbing aspects of the procedure. When something
bothered him, Art kept asking. The Johns Hopkins's Lombardi
Cancer Center in southern Maryland is a short distance from
Art's home. Art received a brief dose to his neck there five
days a week from early March into mid-April. They fired a linear
accelerator at his tumor location from a dozen different angles.
When
this course of treatment was completed, they thought they had
gotten all the cancer, but it was not so. Very soon a lump
reappeared on his neck, and he had a great deal of difficulty
getting them to treat it. First they thought that his EKG
indicated a history of cardiac trouble. He knew better, and he
jumped through the hoops necessary to document the healthy
condition of his heart. Then they found his blood counts too low
for him to withstand an operation, and gave him transfusions.
The restored levels did not last; and he learned that he had
leukemia. Art faced this squarely, and while the shock was hard
for his immediate family, they too showed strength: his wife of
62 years, with whom he still drove around on errands so long as
he was getting transfusions, and his son, a computer scientist,
who lives in Fairfax with his wife and their two children. He
continued for quite a while to receive transfusions and carry
on, but he could not survive this. As of early August, he was on
home hospice care. This meant no more transfusions to prop up
his blood's ability to carry oxygen. He became lethargic,
spending most of his time lying down. This lifelong reader no
longer could find enough interest in a book to keep him reading
more than a few minutes. He faced the horrific knowledge of
imminent death with the hope that he would die peacefully,
painlessly, after simply losing consciousness. By the second
week, he lay back and relied on his mild prescription opiate to
wipe away the remaining pain. This kept him dozing most of the
time, as he awaited the end. When he was awake, though, and his
wife had a question for him, he was still sharp! Still, his wife
was agonizingly aware that he would go very soon. He cancelled
the hospice arrangement in order to be eligible for transfusions
once again, but in short order gave them up so as to avoid
prolonging the end. He died on the morning of August 10, 2007.
Until the day before, there was very little pain, and he was
able to swallow the opioid pills that were the only recourse
permitted. After two viewings and a private funeral the
following week, Colonel Hesse was slated for full military
honors and burial in Arlington National Cemetery on October 24.
An appreciation of Art appears in the September issue of IAEI
News, the magazine of the association he served so well for 29
years. As Art had attained Life Member status with the Institute
for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, having belonged to
that organization a good deal longer than even to IAEI, Robert
Colburn, IEEE's Research Coordinator, also requested this fuller
story for the archives in IEEE's History Center at Rutgers, New
Jersey. Obituaries also will appear in the Washington Post and
the newsletter of the Electric League of Maryland, ~~~~
Edward
J. Holt, the electrical inspector in the Office Of The Architect
Of The Capitol, says, "I've dealt with Art for probably 20
years or better, and he was always helpful and loaded with
knowledge. His common sense in situations made life a lot easier
at times." JD Grewell, Standards Chair and ex-president of
the American Society of Home Inspectors, said, "He was an
asset to everyone. He cared not only about his profession, but
about the impact it has on everyone, every day. Very few
individuals serving as the Authority Having Jurisdiction
demonstrate such caring and concern. This rare attitude
contrasts sharply with the alternative, which is so
disheartening to those of us who see the negative consequences
on a daily basis."
Kim
Lambert, the Hesses' former daughter-in-law, says, "I will
always remember his warm smile, gentle hugs, his generous
laughter." She talks about how this hard-working gentleman
always was coming around to help out in all sorts of ways,
whether around the house, with yard work, with the dogs-even
after her divorce from their son. Only once Art had sat down to
dinner would Kim see him not busy at getting something
accomplished.
-END-
If
for some reason you want to go to Secretary-Treasurer David
Shapiro's personal
web
site (which has links to his business sites), that's
http://www.davidelishapiro.com
