In addition to general information on IAEI and our chapter, this page will offer you contact numbers, news of forthcoming meetings and seminars, minutes of previous meetings, and links to other electrical safety web sites.
What follows our logo is the brief general description. If you are in great hurry though, you can link down from right here to various portions of this site. One point, though. We are a gathering of colleagues serving similar goals. Therefore, I would hope that if you find any problem or error on this site you will take a moment to report it and explain what you believe will better convey the correct information.
Here we go with quick links:
George Washington Chapter Phone Numbers and Email Addresses
Useful web sites:Links and descriptions
Seminar descriptions, and an Index of meeting topics, each starting with the most recent or forthcoming: Seminars
Meeting minutes, starting with the most recent:Minutes, including details of presentations
Biography of the late Art Hesse, who revived our chapter in the mid-1980s:Art Hesse
Information about our postponed April 2008 Seminar:Info/Update
Our purpose is to further electrical safety, and in particular to foster electrical education and the uniform application of electrical standards. About a third of us are electrical inspectors, mostly working for local governments, but including quite a few third-party inspectors; the other two-thirds are contractors or their employees, consultants, and representatives of organizations that support IAEI. (The ratio of inspectors to contractors is reversed in our Canadian section; go figure.)
As of early 2008, we have about seventy local members, and we are growing slowly. We welcome others who might consider joining IAEI. Our meetings are held on the third Tuesday evenings of January, March, May, September, and November. We normally take care of chapter business and then enjoy an educational program. Our other chapter activity is to offer inexpensive seminars. Here's a link for our current agenda, at which location we also have a link to the extended obituary of Art Hesse, our late godfather. Shortened versions of our meeting minutes, found below, are published in the international magazine, IAEI News.
Use this link for the web site of IAEI Headquarters
If you have questions or comments about this web page, please call the Chapter secretary at 301-699-8833, 9 a.m. - 9 p.m.
If we're out, please use the voicemail. It is quite reliable except when there's any kind of outage. For other
local questions, contact either him or one of the other officers listed below.
Use this link to email the chapter.
=========================
George Washington Chapter Phone Numbers and Email Addresses
President: Jim Wooten, 301-262-0461
Vice President and Past President: Wayne Robinson 301-249-0066 <whrobinson@co.pg.md.us>
Our Chapter Honorary Member, Arthur Hesse, is no more. His body rests in Arlington National Cemetery as of October 24, 2007
Secretary-Treasurer: David Shapiro , 301-699-8833, 9 am - 9 pm; You can Fax, during business hours only, please, to 301-699-8830 (though faxes are checked somewhat irregularly) or email to <gwiaei@davidelishapiro.com>
Education Director: Harry Langway < langwayelectric@hotmail.com>, 1-866-990-WIRE
Membership Director: Robert Welborne < rdwelborne@msn.com>
These are a few web sites that may be useful to people looking for answers to questions on the NEC, IAEI, or our chapter:
http://www.iaei.org -- the International Office -- includes membership information, a bulletin board for Code and other questions, jobs ....
http:/www.gwiaei.org -- links to this very site, with our chapter's news, including meetings, seminars. . .
Various electricians and consultants have sites with useful information, including lots of links to Codes and Standards organizations. They include the following:
========================
Seminars first, then meetings.
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.
Our next seminar, reviewing changes in the 2008 NEC, was to be taught by Wayne Robinson on April 19 and 26 for five hours each day, and to earn 10 hours of Continuing Education credit.
Unfortunately, insufficient registration required us to postpone it. No new dates have been set as yet. We will discuss plans at our May 20 meeting.
In mid-April 2004--yes, it's been that long--we enjoyed a very fine seminar on important changes in the 2005 NEC, featuring the celebrated team of Andre Cartal and Bob McCullough. The gentlemen are both delightfully knowlegeable and entertaining.
An excellent free workshop, co-sponsored by us and the Washington, D.C. chapter of NECA, was enjoyed November 3, 2004. One focus was home generators, and the other fire alarm systems. NECA is redoing the National Electrical Installation Standard (NEIS) for home generators, and that guide was one leg of the program. Former IAEI Education Director Michael Johnston (now with NECA)came to town to present it, and attendees received Continuing Education credit.
The following meeting reports are presented in fullest form here, the most recent first.
Shortened versions can be found in
IAEI News. If you simply want to read about the programs featured at our meetings, you can jump
to that part of the minutes, going back a few years. Here are the links, by topic and date:
Dimmers and Other Lighting Controls (March 2008)
Two hours of lively discussion revolving largely around slides of
Two hours of information on generator selection and maintenance(November 2007)
Representatives from UL and NEMA talk about forthcoming NEC Changes.(May 2007)
Thermographic cameras plus some new devices(March 2007)
Chitchat (January 2007)
Wide-ranging Notes loosely on Section 110.3 (November 2006)
Scattered notes on a miniseminar covering various aspects of grounding(September 2006)
Code Calculations(May 2006)
Firestopping Systems(January 2006)
Communication Cables, Flamability/Smoke Characteristics, and Codes (November 2005)
Manholes and handholes(May 17, 2005, #1)
Circuit Integrity Cable (May 17, 2005, #2)
Surge Arrestors(November 9, 2004)
Wiremold products and related Code Issues (September 14, 2004)
The Importance of Knowing UL's General Information Directory
(January 2004)
The Skinny
on Sheaths and Insulation: CMP member Dave Mercier talks about the
uses, evaluation, and repair of cables and conductors.(November 2003)
A manufacturers' representative and various members share information about testers and materials.(September 2003)
A LITERAL VERSUS APPLIED NEC; judgment calls on the rules for support of fished cables, and for multiwire
circuits.(May 2003)
This is not actually the report of a chapter meeting's program, but of what took place at the American Council for Electrical
Safety in April 2003.
2005 NEC changes; a sampling of those proposed, including some accepted by Code panels and some that were rejected,
plus information on the process(March 2003)
Testing Laboratory product evaluations (January 2003)
NFPA's other codes, in particular NFPA 5000, their building code (November 2002)
Code enforcement in D.C. and in Annapolis, with special reference to Maryland's "Smart Code" September 2002)
OSHA job site regulations and enforcement activities (May 2002)
AFCIs, a disputation between experts on their effectiveness(March 2002)
Personal Protective Equipment (January 2002)
Electrical codes competing with the NEC(September 2001)
CPSC activities, including research (January 2001)
NEC rules for low-voltage wiring (November 2000)
This section starts out with the details of our next local meeting. After this, we have reports of previous meetings, going back several years, to Y2K.
Our next meeting will take place as usual at 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at # 9201 Basil Court, Largo, in the basement lounge. (Take Route 202 to McCormick Drive. After you turn onto McCormick, Basil Court’s the first street to the right; then 9201 is the first driveway on the left.) There’s an important reason for people to try to arrive early and socialize. The building is locked (at least officially) at 6 PM. We do try to keep someone upstairs by the doors to provide access for some while after 6, but these folks may disappear downstairs before the stroke of 6:30.
Bring ‘em in and show them off. I’ll show you mine but I want to see yours–your old tools, that is. What a treat this should be. I’m bringing a fully charged camera, plus my tripod (yeah, yeah, they’re modern)–and my Kett drill. We’ll see how many of your goodies IAEI News can fit in. If you want to write up the story of your tools, great; tell us about them, fine; just let us look at them and maybe even try them out, that’s cool too. “Look but don’t touch”: well, that’s okay.
Wayne Robinson has stepped in with a rescue. After our scheduled speaker bailed, Wayne was contacted at the last minute and agreed to offer a presentation on Article 680: pools and suchlike. Those of us who were so very disappointed when the recently scheduled seminar had to be canceled will have a chance to learn from the man for an hour or two this evening.
Whatever other business our members bring up, one thing that’s essential is determining what seminars we will offer during the remainder of this year and when. It is quite a shame that after Wayne made all the arrangements to present a two-Saturday Code-change seminar, coordinating with the college, and even extending the deadline, we didn’t get enough sign-ups to make it do-able. Yes, we scheduled it and got word out with rather short notice; probably more important, there was a scheduling conflict with an IBEW seminar; nonetheless, this shouldn’t happen. Not only did it show Wayne a lack of appreciation, some people who signed up were awfully disappointed. In fact, three of the faithful asked that we hold on to their checks and credit them toward future scheduling of his seminars.
OFFICERS' REPORTS and MEETING NOTES
This is the report of our meeting on Tuesday, March 18, 2007. 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.
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, 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
~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.
~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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ProposalsWayne 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
This is the full report of our May 2006 meeting.
26 attended: about 4 nonmembers, 17 Associate members, and 5 inspector members.
President Jim Wooten surprised secretary David Shapiro by not asking for a reading of the minutes.
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.
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.
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 ahea