Health and Safety for Electricians and Inspectors
A wide range of information is available to help us avoid getting injured or sick as the result of our work. I have summarized reports that I have reason to believe are unbiased but that you don't need to read in full; and I provide links to other reports that don't lend themselves to quick summary.
First, though, an excellent web site. The somewhat-cumbersomely named Electronic Library of Construction Occupational Safety and Health at http://www.elcosh.org/ offers papers on work hazards, product recall notices, and a host of other material categorized by the type of job you're on or by trade.
Saving Electrocution Victims
NIOSH published a report about what it has taken to revive someone who got zapped badly enough that his heart stopped. The answer is CPR within four (4) minutes, and then advanced support from a medic within eight(8). If you leave the victim lying there with their heart stopped much longer than four minutes without at least CPR, they may not survive when you might otherwise have saved them.
Prevent Electrocution from Backfeeds
NIOSH has looked at this one too. Lockout, tagout, safety grounding, testing; you know the drill.
Damaged outlets
Sometimes workers make do with deteriorated equipment. NIOSH published a report about people being shocked, even electrocuted, because they plugged a three-prong cord into something so badly damaged that the grounding prong made contact with an energized terminal. Your secretary thinks it's our responsibility to see that bad garbage deenergized.
Now for links to health/safety sites that don't lend themselves to quick summary:
Links
Here's a 92-page NIOSH manual for electrical students, teaching them about workplace hazards--but only the electrical hazards:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-113/.
For an overview paper on worker deaths by electrocution, which include statistics by occupation, age, year, voltage level, etc., see this link: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-131/.
As additional reliable links are vetted, they will be added. I don't need to tell you about UL or NFPA as resources.
========================
CURRENT NEWS
Seminars first, then meetings.
SEMINARS
For a while, thanks to the generosity of Wayne Robinson, we
included mini-seminars with our regular meetings. That series of
mini-seminars is over. Note, though, that a normal feature of every
www meeting is an educational program for which each member who attends
the full session earns between one and two CEUs.
We did periodically offer 10-hour seminars, although none has been
scheduled since 2009. However, online seminars are available through the association, a registered IACET provider. For information, visit WWW.IAEI.ORG or call 1-800-786-4234.
Here is a link to the extended obituary of
Art Hesse, our chapter's godfather--about seven times the amount of
information you read in IAEI News..
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:
Identifying and Dating Violations (November 2011)
UL's White Book, Listing and Labeling Issues (September 2011)
Pepco: Procedures and Plans (May 2011)
New Products and the Code (March 2011)
Some 2011 Code Changes (January 2011)
NEMA Services Overview and Stories (November 2010)
NEMA Lighting Systems Briefing (September 2010)
NEIS Update (May 2010--valuable session, but minimal report)
Generators--Installation, Consultation, and Inspection (March 2010)
2011 ROP Observations (January 2010)
Assorted
Code Topics (November 2009)
An unusual bit of
history (September 2009)
Meters
and electrical measurements (May 2009)
Grounding
and Bonding of Separately Derived Systems(March 2009)
Fuses
and Related Topics(January 2009)
Code
and standards changes over time(November 2008)
Photovoltaic
Installations: Code and Safety Issues (September 2008)
Primarily,
Extensive Deliberation Over Training Plans (May 2008)
Dimmers
and Other Lighting Controls (March 2008)
Two
hours of lively discussion revolving largely around slides of Code
violations (January 2008)
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)
MEETINGS
<
This section starts out with information about our next regular
local meeting, and then we have reports of previous meetings, going
back several years to Y2K.
Our next meeting will take place on January 17, 2012. The educational program will have two parts. The first will review 2011 Code changes affecting photovoltaic installations. The second will present material from the latest meeting of the American Council on Electrical Safety. This includes the application of two new standards, NFPA 790 and 791, plus other material on testing labs and the tricks of grey-market counterfeiters. The business program may include a surprising and important announcement by Jim Wooten, chapter president and Annapolis inspector. If we attain a quorum, it will also include a vote for our 2012 officers and representative and a vote on Robert Welborne's application for IAEI's Code-Making Panel manpool.
Previous Activities
Most Recent Meeting
Our November 15 meeting was unusual. Our president, Jim Wooten, never made it in; this is rare. (A subsequent check confirmed that he was okay; we just had our wires crossed (ooh, bad metaphor)). On the other hand, we had a better crowd than usual, 19: four inspector members, four associates and eleven nonmembers.
Chapter Business
We postponed most chapter business, in the hope that we would reach a quorum. Pete Bowers did talk for a few minutes about a licensing issue on which he wanted us to take a stand. However, lacking a quorum, we couldn’t vote to take a stand even if doing so were in accordance with IAEI policy, a point on which we were not clear. Pete said he will call Dave Clemens to inform him of the concern and get policy guidance. So we started with the educational talk, a bit past 6:30. This took about one and a half hours, earning two (2) CEUs for paid-up IAEI members. CEU certificates for our September meeting were printed by the International Office, and note that IAEI is an IACET-certified training provider. The same will be true for this and future meetings, so long as we get IAEI approval for the topics and presenters. (This requires that we apply about a month in advance.).
Presentation
Another unusual aspect of the meeting was the degree of interaction. Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro showed 15 field shots of violations, but the evening’s program was far from a one-way monologue.
With each slide, David asked the audience to identify any violations, any problems in what they could see. Once we agreed on those–and some of them took a good bit of discussion–he asked for explanations of why they were violations. “It’s not to Code” is a bare minimum. He challenged the group to identify what danger each one violation represented. If the guidance in proposing a Code change is to “show the bodies,” when we enforce the Code we should generally be able to say why compliance is important.
Next, he asked people to name the Code sections they might cite. This too took some back-and-forthing, with people busily flipping through their Code books. If we can’t identify the Code wording–assuming we had the time to do so–“do this” sounds awfully like “do the job the way the inspector likes it to be done.”
Finally, we looked at the question of grandfathering. How long had the violations we identified in fact been violations? What could we say if someone claimed they had been part of the installations all along? As Pete Bowers pointed out, the last person to get his hands on the work being inspected tends to be the one who faces the blame. There’s a natural tendency to say that work must have complied at the time it was installed. David had looked up the history of each rule, and supplied dates when they had first appeared. In many cases, he was able to present an image of the original Code page.
We enjoyed a good bit of tussling, giving each slide all the time it deserved. (Wouldn’t it be nice if inspections could proceed that way, rather than being so rushed!) Along the way, people made interesting points.
One picture showed armored cable in an indoor wet location. David noted that had the cable been ACL, it would have been suitable for the environment. Because quite a few less-experienced people were present, he described the BXL/ACL he’s seen, which contains a lead sheath inside the armor. Pete told us that around 1965 he was installing BXL that had the lead sheath on the outside of the armor; it turned his hands silvery.
Pete was far from the only person speaking up in response to the pictures. Harry Langway identified suspicious-looking, apparently substitute screws in a picture showing a panel cover. This was not one of the pictures that David had selected to illustrate that particular violation. Joe Panizari identified one violation by Code citation without even looking it up. So did Robert Welborne and others. Nigel Nesbith, a former member, was pretty handy with his Code book. Another visitor, Matt Begley, was one of the bravest attendees, in his willingness to take a shot at the questions David posed about the rules’ history. One of the younger visitors saw a picture with a rubber-and-cloth insulated grounded conductor made up tight inside a cabinet with a sharp right angle, and asked whether this was a violation. If he hadn’t asked, he wouldn’t have learned that this is in fact legal.
Final Business
All together, we had looked at and discussed 15 slides by a little after 8 PM, when we took a break. When we came together again, David invited those attending to help themselves to CDs of the 2010 White Book, which we were able to distribute thanks to a special effort on the part of UL’s John Cangemi. John has been giving out the current edition, but we had a special need for the 2010. Because local jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C. still enforce the 2005 NEC, John was kind enough to obtain CDs of this earlier edition of the White Book, whose indices correlate to the 2005 and the 2008 NEC.
After this distribution, David invited those who hadn’t faded away during the break to vote on whether to continue with the last 10 images, whether to have Vice President Robert Welborne lead a discussion of a couple of Code issues that interested him, or whether to shut down for the evening. The third choice carried, by a small margin. In addition to some other program material that has not yet been selected, Robert will prepare some discussion of the two Code issues for our January 17 meeting. We will also be voting on our 2012 officers, and on Robert’s application for the Code Making Panel manpower pool–if we attain a quorum.
Next Most Recent Meeting
September 20th’s meeting was unusually protracted. Our speaker, the estimable John Cangemi, came bright and early, despite being misled by his GPS. He was met before 6:30 by our president, Jim Wooten, and Ed Bihlear. (Ed had been up since 3-something, but stayed the course.) Vice President Robert Welborne and Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro slid in more or less on the dot at 6:30, and that was it. Finally another five members showed up, and Jim formally opened the meeting around 7:10 with five inspectors and four associates.
Chapter Business
After Jim opened the meeting, he asked for chapter business. David reported that our executive branch is missing an important element. Because we lack a Programs officer, no one sees to it that various local jurisdictions accept our continuing education programs. While David submits programs to the International Office for approval, that does not automatically take care of local licensing authorities.
No one volunteered to take on the responsibility, and no one brought up any other chapter business, so we proceeded to Code matters. After making sure that everyone had a 2011 White Book to hand, John set out by emphasizing that he was here to serve us, to answer our questions, wherever that might lead, and as long as we cared to go. He was every bit as good as his word, and we kept him till 9:30.
Presentation
To get us rolling, John talked for some time about water-exposed electrical equipment. He went beyond just electrical equipment. He described a case where the contents of a ceiling were scattered, but then were gathered up for reuse. However, fire-treatment for blown-in ceiling insulation is water-soluble, so once it got wet it lost some fire protection. Ed commented that an EC&M article had noted that in five years normal humidity can damage insulating board.
We moved on to the 2011 White Book, which came out at the end of June. To make it easier for us to deal with the effects of NEC renumbering and other revision, it has two indices relating products to Code sections. One list correlates product categories likely to be suitable for uses associated with Sections of the 2011 NEC and one matched them up with Sections of the 2008 NEC.
Because local jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C. still enforce the 2005 NEC, subsequent to the meeting John was kind enough to obtain for our chapter members CDs of the 2010 White Book, whose indices correlate to the 2005 and the 2008 NEC.
In addition to the guide information and indices, there are marking guides in the back of the book, for several types of equipment.
From here, we moved on to discuss assorted products.
What do electricians do when they come across an antiquated system that fused the grounded circuit conductor? Some cut a piece of copper plumbers’ tubing to take the place of the cartridge fuse, or inserted a penny behind a plug fuse. Others lift the grounded line and load conductors from their lugs and splice them. However, John noted, Bussman used to make Edison-base solid brass bypasses, and still makes cartridge-type bypasses. Utilities used a nonmetallic equivalent to keep circuits in vacant apartments disconnected. We were amused at utilities’ confidence.
John next talked about new and upgraded lighting, alerting us to potential retrofit problems.
The first is that people typically miss a requirement that comes with a new fluorescent ballast regarding the maximum permissible distance between the edge of a lamp and grounded metal. When going from T12 to T8 lamps--even more the case when going to T5--lampholders may need to be changed for shorter ones. Instructions, he emphasized repeatedly, are part of Listing.
Here’s another potentially problematic retrofit. A cheap way to increase light output from a luminaire is to add in a reflector. Mounting a reflector using arbitrarily placed zip screws could violate installation instructions. For one thing, they're sharp and can damage conductors.
Under the 2008 NEC, luminaires must be listed. How about retrofits? UL's retrofit program allows a retrofit product to specify that you can start with any listed product meeting certain specifications, or to specify a single listed product.
There are unlisted LED retrofits on the market that bypass the ballast to feed 120V to lampholders, and the kit, drivers, lamps and all are in a tube that expects to be supported by the lampholders.
Joe Panizari commented that so many problems are due to a homeowner buying at Lowe's or Home Depot. John quoted a study which found that homeowners tended to read instructions and connect conductors to terminals more appropriately than did contractors. There are many stories of contractors being lazy about checking for line vs load conductors when installing GFCIs. That was one reason for the 2006 standard change.
John’s answers to questions from members on other topics:
Any fitting with “Suitable for direct burial” designation is automatically concrete tight.
Only some compression fittings can be used with EMT in wet locations. Without a functional o-ring, they'll leak. Look for the marking on the box of fittings.
Why not make the presently voluntary markings on MC cable mandatory? A manufacturer’s color code indicating voltage system CAN mislead. The Code doesn't require it be used only there--the cables are all listed for 600V, and an installer who ran shy of the 120/240 cable could easily have installed some of the 277/480 cable that he had on hand.
How hard-headed is New York City? Contrary to rumor, NYC permits NM and plastic boxes in 1-2 family dwellings. They're using the 2008 NEC with about 60 modifications, or, till December 31, 2011, the 2005 NEC with a greater number of local amendments.
GFCI protection is required for all temporary power during repair, remodeling, refurbishing, . . ., including use of a power tool in a fully wired room. So if you’re on the ladder using a drill, and it’s not battery-operated or hand-driven (other ancient members may remember “egg-beaters”), you need a GFCI with your extension cord. John joked (?) that you need the GFCI at the female end of the extension cord; where he comes from, if you plug a long cord into a GFCI adapter, you’ll lose power suddenly. . . when the GFCI walks.
Getting back to the issue of listing requirements including manufacturers’ instructions, John commented that if one manufacturer is especially liability-shy and adds in restrictions beyond what the NEC requires, we’re free to buy a different manufacturer’s listed product.
How about the September/October IAEI News article claiming that there are much better ways to prevent electrical fires than we now use? John had not seen the article, but he noted that one manufacturer offers a listed “glow point” receptacle that senses overheating and shuts down in response. However, it is listed simply as a receptacle. If the manufacturer had asked UL to investigate its extra, added ability, they would have come up with suitable tests. There are STPs, Standards Technical Panels, covering all kinds of products.
Asked about installing receptacles with ground up versus down, John confirmed once again that there is no requirement or preference associated with the standard, even though there is always a proposal.
How about installing a USB connector in the same box, or even receptacle, as power? It could be done, but the barriers would be investigated for suitability before it would receive listing.
Jim mentioned having turned down a restaurant that wanted to use machine made with UL components but with no overall listing. John commented that an "RU"-marked recognized component will specify conditions of acceptability. Even Listed products need to comply with temperature, spacing, performance requirements. So, if an assembly of listed or recognized components is very simple, an AHJ can accept it, but if it includes unknowns, or needs testing, he would be taking chances which he may not have suitable insurance to risk.
That was the last issue that we raised and that John patiently addressed.
Next Most Recent Meeting
The evening of May 17, 2011, we met at Capital Lighting and Supply’s training facility, thanks
once again to Capital Vice President Ken Cain. We had five Inspector and four Associate chapter
members, plus one guest. President Jim Wooten opened the meeting around 6:30. We ran
long–close to two and a half hours, and all but a few minutes of that devoted to education. There
was lots of give-and-take.
First we handled chapter business. Karl Mirpanah has met with Washington, D.C.’s Department
of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) personnel regarding their new requirements for
Third Party Inspectors. After discussing the need for IAEI to support the use of appropriate
accreditation, he and David Shapiro concluded that a letter from the chapter to DCRA would be
appropriate. Therefore, before turning the floor over to our speakers, David checked whether we
had a consensus in favor of Karl’s motion. No one voiced disagreement. (Subsequent to the
meeting, Jon Cadd of the IO offered to provide data to use in the letter.)
With this out of the way, David introduced Steve Atkinson, P.E., manager of engineering for
Pepco, and Steve introduced Cheiho Ko, Pepco’s manager of special projects.
Steve’s worked in power engineering for more than a quarter-century, and is active in IEEE.
He began our briefing by revealing that his utility’s parent company, Pepco Holdings, Ltd,
encompasses utilities in Delaware and in New Jersey. They serve as resources for each other.
When one has a procedure that another lacks, the latter may copy it. When a bad storm overloads
one utility, a sister utility may lend it workers.
After Steve provided this overview, Cheiho took over. Primarily, he described the procedures for
coordinating large commercial jobs, but he also touched on smaller commercial and residential
jobs. (We learned that Pepco defines residential installations as commercial when they exceed
four units.)
Cheiho emphasized that Pepco has worked to simplify procedures over the last few years. For
instance, to minimize having to review switchgear designs for large jobs, they now list pre-approved 1200 amp and larger switchgear from quite a few manufacturers. See
<http://www.pepco.com/business>. Pepco does need to work within the limits set by the
authorities under which they work, such as the District Department of Transportation (DDOT).
Pete Bowers commented, “DDOT is a disaster.”
Pepco transformers rely on natural convection cooling through manhole grates, but DDOT may
prohibit the use of grated manholes in public spaces between the curb and the property line. This
used to be true just in core downtown areas, but the restriction has been expanded. Pepco is
meeting with DDOT over this issue as I write. The preferred solution is to site manholes on
private property. Public alleys could technically qualify, but as Pete noted, the odds are very
much against this. Dry-type transformers sometimes can be located in a suitable room inside the
customer’s building. However, Steve does not like this option, and for good reason: these
transformers have been involved in fires.
There was a lot of discussion about how long it takes for jobs to be completed, and members
offered many an amusing/horror story about ineptitude and delays. Pepco clearly defines the
procedure for initiating jobs. To start, contractors have to submit Class of Service applications.
They have been able to do so electronically for around three years, at
<https://webaps.Pepco.com/newservices/login/ns_login.cfm>. One advantage of the online
interaction is that contractors can check the status of a project at any time. The application must
include
∙ Project location;
∙ Contact information;
∙ Conditioned space and type of use, giving square feet, number of units, or both;
∙ Service Equipment type, size, and voltage;
∙ Connected Load information, including largest motor load; and
∙ Dates anticipated: in-service, construction start, and completion.
Beyond this, the information required varies with the type of occupancy.
Pepco tries to respond with a Class of Service determination in about three weeks. Ironically,
Cheiho said, some contractors leave their phone numbers out of their applications, which means
Pepco can’t call to straighten out anything that needs to be clarified. That’s not the worst of it.
Pete mentioned that he’ll show up on a (third party) inspection and discover that there’s no Class
of Service assigned, because the contractor didn’t even know he had to send in the information.
Pete now carries Class of Service applications with him to his inspections.
The application has to be accurate. If any information changes, a new application needs to be
submitted. The change can be as small as going from a 400 amp meter socket to a 400 amp meter
stack. Responding to one question, Cheiho confirmed that Pepco designs their services in
accordance with the planned load as described in the application, not the size of the Current
Transformer cabinet or the main breaker. He also confirmed that Pepco is mandated to install all
services greater than 400 amps underground. Small services can go either overhead or
underground.
The Proposed Class of Service includes the following information:
∙ Service type, such as 265/460V, 3 Ph, 4-wire, 60 Hz;
∙ Point of service (location);
∙ Requirements for customer-owned structural facilities;
∙ Service cable to be provided and installed by Pepco; and
∙ Standards and conditions to be per <http://www.Pepco.com/business/services/new/res/>.
After you receive the Class of Service for a large commercial project, Pepco recommends a
meeting with their design staff.
You need to submit structural drawings for any customer-built service facilities built on private
property; plus site plans, utility plans, and building plans (second basement through second
floor).
Pepco will approve the structural drawings in writing. They will provide contact information for
their structural inspector, and a list of stock materials for sale by Pepco.
At the completion of the Initiation phase, when Pepco approves customer drawings for a large
commercial job, they perform their preliminary engineering and then send out an inspector for
field investigation.
Pete complained about these inspectors adding last-minute complications and expense. For
instance, the design engineer has approved plans and issued a Class of Service, and then the
inspector has come along and informed the contractor that Pepco requires additional bollards to
protect their equipment. At this point, the contractor has to go to the customer for approval of a
change order. The customer may not be very understanding, especially given that the contractor
has nothing in writing to back him up, and the customer just wants the job finished.
Cheiho responded that the contractor needs to contact Pepco engineering staff; they will
document the requirement.
Robert Welborne asked, rhetorically, who prepares the drawings that Cheiho says are needed
before Pepco can design their end of the service. Cheiho explained that they need to know, for
example, where on the property the electric room will be, so they can bring their service to it.
When the contractor brings a stub out to meet Pepco, generally they specify its location
geographically: from a particular street intersection, it will come up so many feet south of the one
street, so many feet west of the intersecting street. Submitted drawings electronically, he noted,
makes coordination easier.
After the field investigation, Pepco proceeds with final engineering. For a service larger than
1200 amps, the customer must submit plan and profile views of the electric room for review and
approval; even if he’s using pre-approved switchgear, this too requires approval. Finally, if a
project has multiple service terminations, the contractor must supply an estimate of the load
breakdown at each termination. Pepco will bring heavy-enough wiring to each termination to
support its load, but does not want to over-engineer (and have to charge accordingly).
Once Pepco has all this information, they will notify the customer of the Service Connection Fee.
The last two parts of the design phase is applying for permits and final assembly of the
construction package. The typical duration of the design phase is four months.
Approval is not solely up to Pepco. Returning to the complexity of coordination between utility,
contractor, and jurisdiction, DDOT now requires a permit application and three days’ notice
before Pepco works underground in public space. Not so with pole work, and there’s no such
problem with Maryland jurisdictions.
The next phase after design is pre-construction inspection. So that Pepco’s crews can do their job
safely and properly, Pepco’s inspector verifies that . . .
∙ approved switchgear, meter sockets, and meter panels are mounted securely.
∙ Structural facilities such as customer-built manholes, transformer pads, conduit and poles
have been installed properly. These must be approved before backfilling or concrete
pouring. Otherwise, Pepco will make the customer tear up the concealing material.
∙ Finally, the job site must be cleared of debris and building material.
In D.C., Pepco requires 48 hours’ notice to schedule an inspection; in Maryland, a week’s notice.
Joey Panizari commented that BG&E does not care about such inspection. He also asked why
cables blow. Cheiho explained that insulation breaks down, this generates gas, and then when
water gets in . . . . Joey also asked whether all Pepco’s underground cables are copper. No,
aluminum is used where there are no manholes in the run. Buddy Friedeman explained that
aluminum means more heat at connections.
An early slide had warned us that Pepco will not start designing the service connection until they
have received and approved the drawings they require. Rick Panizari asked whether you really
need to have your permits complete before submitting drawings to Pepco. Cheiho said
technically yes, but he has taken gambles to expedite jobs . . . and has gotten burned. If there’s
any chance the customer might change his mind altogether, forget it: the time Pepco’s engineers
put in needs to be charged to some job. If the job’s certain, but it’s likely that some job specs may
change by the time permitting is done, having to revise their end of the plan would set them back.
For service changes to proceed, jurisdictional inspectors too have to do their piece: until they
send in a cut-in notice, the utility can’t change out the service. Unfortunately, in D.C. Third Party
Inspectors (TPIs) such as Pete, David, and Karl don’t have the authority to do this. TPIs report
the results of their inspection to DCRA, and the notice can’t go out until DCRA finishes with the
paperwork.
In addition to waiting for permits and the cut-in notice, Pepco needs to have received its service
connection fee. Construction for a large commercial facility typically takes 2-3 months, once
everything’s in order.
Now Rick chimed in with a beef. He submitted a Class of Service application three months
before the meeting, and Pepco had just assigned an engineer to the project. Pete asked whether
there is some kind of hot line for dealing with this kind of problem. Steve responded, “Call
Pepco’s main number and ask for the Design Engineering supervisor.” Cheiho noted that if the
job’s in D.C., it will help if you know in which Ward the job lies. Steve promised to provide us
with a list of supervisors, the areas they cover, and their contact information. When we receive it,
the list will be posted on the chapter’s web site.
After this, Steve got up and talked about the impact of the Smart Grid. Pepco Holdings was
awarded one of the largest Department of Energy Smart Grid grants. Pepco’s contractor, Scope
Services, is in the process of replacing all their standard meters with meters that have much
greater functionality, under the Advanced Metering Infrastructure Initiative. The new meters
report more details of electricity usage and allow more control. For instance, internal
mechanisms enable Pepco to disconnect or reconnect them remotely. Customers will be able to
compare their levels of electricity usage with those of comparable buildings. The meters will
notify the utility of tampering. Pepco has decoupled their earnings from electricity usage. (If
this were not the case, it would be self-defeating for Pepco to help customers reduce usage.)
Another change is that the smart meters all have locking rings, rather than crimped wire seals.
Buddy commented that these new meters must cost more than $100, and the locking rings will
discourage potential meter theft. He also noted that he’s seen some of them secured not just with
locking rings but with brass padlocks. A number of audience members expressed concern about
gaining access for meter removal, so we can disconnect power to do our work safely. Steve
reported that whether the Fire Department wants access or an electrician needs it, the only way is
to get Pepco in, unless they’re prepared to take responsibility for destroying the locking ring.
Returning to the details of the changeover, Pepco’s contractor’s vehicles and employees are
distinctly identified. They contact each customer to arrange a convenient time for the changeover,
which normally takes just a few minutes. They reschedule if they come at a time that proves
inconvenient to the customer. David asked about how Pepco’s contractor is adding Smart Meters
to those very old services with metering systems that don’t have a meter to unplug in order to
disconnect line and load. Steve was not aware of problems, but he commented that in some cases
Pepco may require a customer to perform some work.
Before leaving the subject of meters, a member mentioned the “Generlink.” This is a system that
adds a ring between meter and meterbase, for use with backup generators. When utility power is
lost, the Generlink disconnects the utility line from the house service, so the generator can’t
backfeed the utility. When utility power is restored, the device disconnects the generator and
reconnects normal power.
When we were done with meters, Steve talked about electric vehicles (EVs) and Plug-in Hybrid-Electric Vehicles. Besides reviewing information that has been widely available to us, for
example through IAEI News, he talked about some local concerns. Steve told us that DDOT
wants to establish charging stations alongside the road. Pete mused about the loss of gasoline
revenue from the Highway Trust Fund as EV use grows. Steve speculated that electric utilities
may be taxed to compensate for reduced use of liquid fuels.
Larry Devore, a guest, raised a new concern. While we might hope that home recharging of EVs
will constitute an off-peek load, there’s another plausible scenario. He envisions the mass of
commuters plugging in their EVs as soon as they all get home from work. Steve acknowledged
that this is a concern, even though the utility’s plans include not only discounts for customers
who authorize load-shedding as needed, but also time-of-day billing. If EVs should create heavier
loading in residential neighborhoods, transformers may need to be upgraded.
David leapt on this comment to ask how contractors can learn what the available fault current is
whatever the situation. Cheiho told us that, in addition to using ther information on Class of
Service forms, contractors can request what they need from Pepco for Arc Fault and interrupting
rating determinations. Just type up the request on your letterhead.
Another aspect of the Smart Grid is that Pepco looks forward to customers being able to monitor
and control appliance and HVAC usage remotely. For now, they offer smart thermostats, in
Maryland only, remotely controllable by both Pepco and the customer. The customer receives a
small monthly incentive discount. Larry commented that while programmable thermostats seem
to be okay for use with forced air systems, a very experienced HVAC-R installer told him that
energy savings from letting a boiler cool down during the unoccupied part of the day tend to be
lost again when the boiler kicks on and needs to reheat that cooled water. Steve responded that
this is correct, and that the same is true for hot water heaters. Pepco’s benefit from these
thermostats comes from moving usage to a lower-demand time of day.
A major promise of the smart system is that it will make it easier to serve plug-in electric
vehicles and to control smart appliances. The latter are not ready, Steve acknowledged, but he
speculates that they may become available somewhere between 2013 and 2015.
As we wound down, Steve mentioned that contractors may benefit from Pepco’s undergrounding
program, though it is very small. If the underground line is to reach all the way to a building’s
service, the customer needs an electrician to install a new meter socket. There was some
discussion here (earlier, too) of the expenses of tree-trimming, Pepco’s greatly increased efforts
in that direction, and the cost to reliability of having trees–often on private land–positioned
where they can bring down power lines. Cheiho noted that to bring the lines underground in a
residential neighborhood costs about $11 million per mile. Finally, Buddy talked about how
squirrels like to sit on pole-top transformers, and Steve mentioned that the new transformers have
animal guards. Both squirrels and rats like to chew through cable insulation.
Next-Most Recent Meeting
Our meeting the evening of March 15, 2011 at Capital Lighting and Supply’s training facility
was shorter than some we've had. We were fortunate that Capital Vice President Ken Cain could accommodate us, as he had not received a meeting notice! We had 3 Inspector and 4 Associate chapter members, 1 visiting Associate, 5 guests and a speaker. In the absence of President Jim Wooten (out for the night with gout), Vice President Robert Welborne opened the meeting at 6:30.
First, chapter business. Robert mentioned that he has filled out an application for CMP membership and intends to bring it in. David Shapiro noted that our finances are not going to improve until we offer a seminar, and mentioned Jim’s idea that we could use one that covers both 2005 and 2008 changes, to help people working in jurisdictions that skipped from the 2002 right to the 2008 NEC. David polled members regarding the editions in force locally. Harry Langway reported that Maryland’s Eastern Shore counties–Queen Anne, Wicomico, et cetera, generally adopt new editions of the NEC on January 1 of the eponymous year, so on January 1 of this year they began enforcing the 2011 NEC, and Howard County has, too. Pete Bowers, who was just out from back surgery, noted that Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties are enforcing the 2008 NEC, and DC and Northern Virginia, the 2005.
David described a change to our chapter’s web site. We had reached a consensus favoring the addition of health and safety information. This was stimulated by an invitation to link our site to that of a privately funded group publicizing information of mesothelioma, a disease caused by asbestos exposure. While David was uneasy with the results of investigating that site, he has begun downloading information from NIOSH on job safety and health concerns. He’ll continue uploading worthwhile new material to the site. Pete mentioned that he used to work on jobs where asbestos came down on him like snowflakes. Robert reminded us that non-loose asbestos does not pose a hazard if its integrity is not disturbed.
Finally, David repeated the gist of one paper recommended by CDC-NIOSH: if someone receives a severe-enough shock that his heart stops, it is critical that someone begin CPR within four (4) minutes. Pete shook his head at the idea that more-advanced life support should be obtained within eight minutes, and David emphasized that regardless of this, it often is within our control to apply CPR within the four-minute CPR window.
After this discussion, we enjoyed a shorter-than-usual educational program, consisting of show-and-tell (and question and kibitz). Jim Eldringhoff, who works for manufacturer’s rep R. C. Colerick, Inc., brought us some of the newest products of three companies: Arlington Industries, Champion Fiberglass, and Light-Emitting Designs. He talked about the Code requirements they can help us solve, and the limits to their Listing–misapplications to which we need to be alert.
Jim commented that Arlington’s simpler plastic products tend to be manufactured in the Scranton, PA area, and items with screws such as their reconfigurable condulet are built overseas. Both Joe Panizari and one of our guests mentioned finding the screws rusting out. Jim noted that they are supposed to be stainless.
One of the first questions came from Pete, who asked about Federal Specification Numbers. Jim was not familiar with these, but Joey, I believe, located some in the Arlington catalogs that Jim passed out.
The first item Jim demonstrated was Arlington’s snap-in MC connector, which comes in single- and two-gang versions, for ½" and for 3/4" kos. It accommodates MC, AC, and MCAP, the version that does without an insulated grounding conductor. One of our nonmember guests, possibly Chad, commented that he has found the two-gang version too crowded, in that, in his experience, only one of the cables would seat reliably in the connector.
The snap-in connectors contain integral bushings. Arlington’s larger sizes of MC connector, which use locknuts, do not. They are sold with plastic bushings, and Arlington supplies a plastic template with holes which which installers are to use to find out which size connector is needed for a particular MC cable. Along each connector’s hole is a marking to indicate whether the connector’s listing requires the use of a plastic bushing. Jim had no answer to the question of how an inspector is to determine whether the Listing of an Arlington connector used with a particular MC cable should have a bushing. The only possible out lies in the fact that these bushings are required to keep the cables from sliding through the connector when inserted.
David mentioned the article in IAEI News on the importance of torqueing connections, and asked Jim whether a torque number is specified for the screws found on the larger MC connectors. No.
We moved on to Arlington’s snap-together plastic sectional switch boxes, which Jim commented carry a two-hour fire rating. Pete and David talked some about the possibility of violating NEC Section 300.4, Protection from Damage, because the 3 ½" deep boxes have knockouts at the very back. In response to a question, Jim gave the opinion that you probably can replace the mounting screws with other drywall screws, say longer ones, if needed, without violating the listing. The only violation he saw would be if an installer simply ran a screw into a stud through the side of a box, leaving the head exposed. We had a brief discussion of Marty Schumacher’s warning against using drywall screws to seat hard surfaces.
Moving along to raceways, Jim mentioned that there are three manufacturers of resin-reinforced fiberglass conduit: Champion, United, and FRE. He represents Champion. The lightweight raceway, usually sold in 20' lengths, offers an interference fit: seat the male end of one into the female end of another, and pound the far end to jam the connection tight. If you want the coupling to be concrete-tight, first butter the junction with epoxy. They sell all kinds of fittings, from condulets to seal-offs to RMC terminations to kindorf supports. To field-bend the conduit, you heat it to 240 deg F in PVC bender with its ends plugged or taped closed, and use a one-shot type bender.
There are multiple raceway variations within Champion’s offerings. Another resin version takes higher heat. A 1/4" “thick wall” version is listed for Class 1, Division 2 use. It’s useful above ground in, say, rural areas, where Dick Cheney might take a shot at it. It will deflect a .357 bullet. Moreover, Jim said a faulted cable will not weld to it, but can simply be removed and a replacement pulled in. Pulling friction doesn’t damage it, but merely hones it smoother inside. He claims that the cost of their basic fiberglass conduit for use in a duct bank is about the same as that of Schedule 40 PVC.
The final products Jim showed and talked about are LED replacement lamps. A version that replaced MR-16 lamps was their first success, because there were no CFLs to fill that need. LED replacements have been steadily improving. Progress Lighting has already replaced one lamp designed for use in recessed cans, because its heat sink was undersized. Dimmability is much better than in the early days, but you still need to consult the list of dimmers that are suitable for use with a particular LED.
Sylvania and Phillips are doing a little work with LEDs, Jim noted, and GE basically none. For now, it is companies such as Light Emitting Designs, which he represents, that are supplying the demand.
The light comes in various colors, and because it is so directional you can’t count on an LED’s light to look the same as what it replaces. Jim recommends trying out one or two of the lights at the location where they are being considered, in order to make a decision. Their biggest selling point remains their extended lifespan’s effect in reducing the frequency of relamping, particularly in locations that make relamping difficult.
With this we closed the meeting, but animated conversations continued for some little while.
Next Most Recent Meeting
This is the report of our most meeting on 1/18/11, at Capital Lighting and Supply in Forestville, MD, courtesy
of Capital Vice President Ken Cain (and hosted by Josh).
We had 10 members, including 6 Inspector Members, counting our presenter, Marty Schumacher. Because Marty’s
a Chesapeake Chapter member, we fell one inspector member shy of a quorum. We agreed to put matters
requiring formal, official decision out for mail balloting.
Business
Our first business matter was collecting volunteers to fill our offices. Subject to member approval,
the slate includes: Jim Wooten, President; Robert Welborne, Vice President and Membership; Wayne Robinson,
Past President; David Shapiro, Secretary-treasurer; Programs, Vacant; and Karl Mirpanah, At-large.
Our next business was the matter of inconsistent plan review in Prince George’s County, MD. Robert
described some examples, and we had a good bit of discussion. While the State requires an engineer to
stamp a drawing, Prince George’s County has no law requiring an engineer-stamped drawing. The Chief
Electrical Inspector is allowed to accept non-engineers’ drawings, and when he filled that role, Wayne
used to let the electrician do his own drawing. Jim suggests Robert go to Jim Fridell for plan approval.
Wayne said he felt like recusing himself from the discussion. David had talked with the local NECA chapter
to find out whether their members had experienced similar problems, in which case we could act together.
He had not heard back.
We decided to send a letter, as several members had proposed, and in it request a meeting, in keeping with
David Clements’s recommendation. Wayne will supply David with chapter and verse of the statutes involved;
Robert will describe problems the current approach has caused; Pete Bowers will follow up with his NECA and
IEC contacts for cooperation in making representations to the County. Once he’s received all this
information, David will draft the letter. Wayne suggests the letter be addressed to Sam Wyncoop.
The last item of business was Robert’s request to be sponsored as a CMP candidate. There was no opposition
to this; he will forward the form to David, who will forward it on.
After some head-shaking over reduced chapter membership and participation, we proceeded to the evening’s
program.
Education
Marty started out with a comment on our last item of discussion. He said a lot of groups see membership
problems, and encouraged us to keep at it. In 1988, when hired as an inspector, he was required to join
IAEI, and to attend meetings. In recent years, inspectors don’t even receive comp time to let them attend
such continuing education activities.
Marty Schumacher, a long-time Howard County electrical inspector, now has a seminar business, trading as M.S.
Electrical Training, LLC., Westminster, MD. He generously spent two hours reviewing 2011 NEC
changes for us, using a selection of Mike Holt’s slides, in a program that allowed plenty of discussion.
Hartford and Howard counties probably will adopt the 2011 NEC in September, also Baltimore; Robert
said he understands some Eastern Shore Counties may adopt it in the Spring. I won’t review the changes
so much as focus on what Marty conveyed by way of values. The essential question is what will provide a
reasonable degree of safety.
In his county, for instance, inspectors do not insist on the use of suitably rated (purple) cable ties in
plenums. A non-rated tie is allowed–so long as the excess is cut off and removed.
When a multiwire circuit requires simultaneous circuit breaker disconnection, he doesn’t require the use
of multi-pole breakers; the NEC considers handle ties an acceptable alternative. What if
no such handle tie is available? A renovation required multiwire circuits, fed by an old Gould
Commercial panel. Marty accepted the use of a nail as a handle tie. Jim Wooten does too, in similar situations.
Wayne asked whether OEM handle ties are actually Listed products. David promised to research this.
Subsequent to the meeting, he called Eaton Corporation. Their technical representative John said that
the ties are not listed to an external standard, just meeting the company’s own specification. He also
said they do not recommend handle-tying three single-pole breakers together, because a handle tie will
make two trip together, but there is enough give that this is not necessarily true for three. (The ties
will enable simultaneous manual disconnection, as required by the NEC.)
One challenge Marty posed concerned the question of how to ground generators. Using two ground rods makes
sense if they generators are distant from a building. What if they’re right next to it, or as Karl
suggested, on the roof? We agreed that bonding the generator to building steel makes more sense in
those cases.
Pete Bowers spoke up about the requirement for two ground rods in order to achieve 25 ohms or less of
impedance. Pete says the number goes back to a 1930s telephone requirement, and has no independent reason
for adoption. Wayne commented that opponents of the requirement almost got it removed this year.
Looking at Section 210.52(A)(4), Marty talked about how receptacles intended to serve as kitchen counter
receptacles cannot do double duty and serve the receptacle spacing requirement for wall spaces beyond the
counter. What about a two-foot floor space between a countertop and a door? He granted that inspectors frequently
don’t insist on a receptacle being added to serve a space that a door opens into. It’s an oversight that
doesn’t get his boxers twisted up.
His perspective on GFCIs has shifted with the 2006 change in the UL standard. Now that they are required to
fail to un-energized mode, he sees it as more important to exempt critical loads from GFCI protection, despite
the fact that modern appliances have very low leakage current. This goes beyond the Code permission
to exempt patient care spaces near sinks. If a GFCI behind a fridge opens because it’s reached end-of-life,
he doesn’t like the idea of a family losing its food. He certainly doesn’t want a sump pump to fail because
its dedicated receptacle was protected by a GFCI that has died.
On to AFCIs and Section 210.12(A). Some inspection agencies are requiring AFCI protection of kitchen light
circuits; he doesn’t know why. He’s been told that on production-type wiring jobs it won’t be cost-effective
to use AFCI devices rather than circuit breakers. For additions, for old panels, for some multiwire circuits,
for various other special needs, the permission to use device-type AFCIs makes lot of sense.
When a fire alarm is required in a multi-occupancy building with no lighting that is not serving an
individual tenant space, and therefore hasn’t required a general-use panel, they may need to add a separate
service on the outside of the building to serve the fire pump. Bring it inside, and you have the problem of
two services on one building, and not necessarily in accordance with one of the exceptions.
Marty talked about the permission to use receptacle assemblies Listed for the purpose on kitchen counters,
to accommodate people who don’t like to see receptacles interrupting a backsplash. Pete mentioned that in
Washington, DC, where a homeowner who wants to avoid receptacles being installed where required, such as
at a kitchen counter, the AHJ has required a notarized statement in which the customer acknowledges
responsibility for the variation. Marty’s seen a stricter requirement, to handle the chance that the
homeowner who signed such a statement might unload the house on someone who doesn’t realize that the legal,
inspected installation didn’t meet Code: the exception has to be added to the deed.
Marty shared a number of opinions about outdoor electrical jobs. It used to be that a suitable receptacle
had to be installed to serve a porch or patio; now the size specifications are gone. As Signor Panizari
pointed out, there may be nothing more than a door opening out from the second floor, and come holiday
season the homeowner will set up his extension ladder to install festive lights fed from the required
receptacle. Perhaps, some of us felt, not the most essential amendment that’s been accepted into the Code.
A more-critical point concerns the requirement to adequately protect service entrance cable that could
be subject to harm. As Marty put it, “No way should SE cable be allowed for services, on a porch,
without protection.”
As we ran down past 9 PM, he mentioned a benefit to the new term, “Supply-side bonding jumper.” Engineers’ software
has been sizing system bonding conductors in accordance with Section 250.122 rather than to Section 250.66.
Finally, Marty spoke against screw misuse. Tek screws do not tap two full threads in the wall of an electrical cabinet,
so their use is unsuitable–illegal–for bonding. Another mismatch, in his (match)book, is drywall screws
being used in electrical work. One issue is that the neck is designed for a soft stop, as it buries itself
in gypsum and paper, not for seating against metal.
We stopped at 9:13, having enjoyed two hours and a bit more of Code discussion.
Our next most recent meeting took place on Nov 16, 2010--a miserably rainy night--
at Capital Lighting and Supply.
We had 4 inspector members, 2 associates, 3 students, & Gil Moniz, our presenter.
Gil came early, and provided a splendid two-hour program, despite being just over a nasty illness.
Who would have guessed that an overview of NEMA could be so engaging? Of course, it wouldn’t have
been, except for the presenter–and to some degree the audience. The most fun and educational parts
were the examples Gil provided–from his previous electrical careers as well as his years working
on behalf of NEMA--plus the give-and-take between him and the audience. Between all the different
currents, we kept on long enough that we decided to postpone any business matters (other than CEU
distribution) till our annual meeting in January
At the very beginning, a couple of us--Robert Welborne and David Shapiro--asked Gil for help in
scoping out a question: at what length does rigid PVC outdoors on the side of a building in our
area require expansion couplings?
Gil usually sees these installed once a straight run reaches 25 ft.; this is a very rough rule of thumb.
He noted that Section 352.44 requires one in any straight run between securely-mounted items whose thermal movement is
expected to exceed 1/4". Then he pulled up Table 352.44. It shows that this means any more than a 60 deg F
variation in temperature calls for an expansion fitting in a 10 ft. length. In the DC area, we see that
much variation in temperatures many years.
Subsequent to the meeting, David consulted a local meteorologist. At the nearby Climate Station of Abingdon,
VA, the low temperature in 1985 was -21 deg F. We had some 100 deg. F days during summer 2010, and the
meteorological records say there have been quite a few summers that hot and hotter. Putting this together,
if we take the full range of temperatures over the last 25 years, and round it down, we have maybe 120 deg. F.
Based on the Table, this suggests we need to halve that 10' limit. (Of course, it’s always up to the AHJ.)
NEMA Representatives and their duties
Gil was easygoing and very entertaining, and addressed the visiting VoTec students as well as the inspectors
and contractors. NEMA representatives have good people skills, as well as Code expertise and field experience.
All of them have been inspectors, contractors. Each covers a quarter of the country, the areas for which they're responsible
basically parallelling IAEI Sections.
One of their jobs, Gil noted, is to track trends. Example: Multihats have been performing inspections on the
East coast for a while, but NEMA reps are seeing more and more of them across the country. Trends often
start on one of the coasts, he observed. Another example: Sales of CFLs tanked when the economy went sour.
Another: wire-type cable trays, while originally used for low voltage, now commonly used to run power wiring,
are being misapplied. Installers tend to cut and shape this type of tray, despite the fact that doing so is
only an acceptable practice--meaning within the scope of the listing-–with one brand. The practice is
especially unfortunate given that the tray needs good continuity, because it tends to serve as a grounding conductor.
Legislative Duties
NEMA representatives are responsible for interacting with legislators, encouraging them to adopt current versions
of the NEC, helping them to word their electrical legislation so it means what they intend. Without
the reps’ helpful guidance (“lobbying” is a term they prefer to avoid), legislators can end up passing laws
regarding, for example, carbon monoxide detectors, that contain technically incorrect assumptions. This could be awkward
for the people who need to create and enforce rules based on those laws.
AFCIs
One of their successes has been in getting the NEC adopted increasingly without local amendments removing
AFCI requirements. Jim Wooten complained that when AFCIs trip, they trigger smoke alarms. Gil said the
Connecticut code had exempted circuits feeding smoke alarms from AFCI requirements, but this was found
unnecessary, and the exception was removed. When such claims were investigated, no conflict was found. Manufacturers
now note explicitly that AFCIs and smoke alarms are compatible. Jim, he suggested, might consider submitting
reports of any such cases he does observe. The site www.AFCI Safety.org both offers suggestions for
troubleshooting AFCI installations and provides a place for installers to notify manufacturers when it does indeed
seem that AFCIs are unusable in contexts for which they are listed. Manufacturers, he says, will respond.
He’s gotten good feedback on the site.
Gil commented that the use of AFCIs has caused installers to improve their workmanship. Pete Bowers seconded this.
Pete said that where they used to get away with leaving wires where they’d get pinched, and not see a problem
from the trace of faulting that resulted, now they have to dress their wires. If they don’t do so when they run
them, they’ll have to do so as part of troubleshooting, before the AFCIs will stay on.
Other innovations have been less successful. Gill talked about the Department of Energy pushing for more
efficient motors and transformers. NEMA came up with standard for Class E motors and TP1 transformers. As a
result, the Class E designation was incorporated into the NEC. However, nobody built these
(high-inrush current) high-efficiency motors; Class B motors satisfied the market.
Consulting down the Line and Smoothing Confrontations
A major function of NEMA representatives is to serve people working with NEMA products. When an inspector
leans on a contractor about the suitable installation of a product because the inspector happens to be
ignorant concerning the correct application, Gil said, the contractor turns to his distributor, and
he bucks the issue up to the wholesaler. The wholesaler in turn will turn to the manufacturer, and if
the rule is clear, the manufacturer will ask the NEMA representative to step in and explain the standard
and the intention. The contractor can go to Gil directly, too. Gil gets calls at 7:30 AM, when these people’s
days start–and Gil also addresses groups some evenings, as in our session, which let him go some time
south of 8:30 PM.
Moving on from NEMA’s field representatives, Gil talked about the NEMA web site. It offers free access to
most of their standards, and to their Engineering Bulletins. An example of the latter is a bulletin that
notes the full compatability of NM sheaths with expanding foam thermal insulation. In response to a
question, Gil said this holds true of the THHN on the conductors inside, as well, so damaged
sheaths should not make you hesitate to add thermal insulation.
One of the frequent questions he receives concerns ragged nylon outer insulation on conductors that
were subject to a difficult pull. He said that’s fine, so long as the pulling is finished; the outer
nylon’s done its job of protecting the critical inner dielectric insulation during the wire pull.
So much for the bulletins. Technical standards from NEMA are for development and manufacturing, not for testing,
unlike UL standards. Even if a NEMA standard includes a testing procedure, it doesn't necessarily become
an ANSI standard.
One standard that Gil spent some time on is NEMA 250, electrical enclosures. He compared its designations
with those in UL 50 and in the NEC. He also noted that the International Electrotechnical
Commission’s enclosure designations look only at their ability to prevent contact with energized parts
and their ability to keep out liquids. Therefore, while UL/NEMA enclosure types can be translated into the range
of IEC types, the reverse is not true.
“Evaluating Water-Damaged Electrical Equipment” is a standard that was rewritten in 2008. NEMA had
received feedback indicating that the original format, which was phrased in terms of recommendations,
was not sufficiently useful for people seeking instructions.
How about equipment that has been exposed to offgassing from corrosive drywall? David nudged him over the
fact that exposing THHN or oven older electrical insulation to the sulfur compounds is not going to injure
it or the conductors it encloses. Why not tell people their electricians should generally be able to cut
back and restrip their power conductors if the terminations are discolored? Gil responded that there
are confusing elements to the situation, and there are too many variables for NEMA even to have considered
putting together a task group as yet.
This is just a taste of what we heard that evening. Even when Gil replaced the closing slide showing
the NEMA logo with one that said, “Thank you,” the questions took a little while to stop.
Next Most Recent Meeting
Our next most recent meeting took place on September 14, 2010. Once again, Ken Cain, VP Marketing for
Capital Lighting and Supply, welcomed us. We had 2 Inspector members, 1 associate, and 1 non-member
at this hastily rescheduled, Election Day meeting.
Business Meeting/ Gossip
We started out a bit later than 6:30, and heard news of a number of members.
President Jim Wooten was attending his first chapter meeting since having all his teeth pulled.
Board Member-at-Large Charles Johnson stayed home because he was experiencing some discomfort from
a recent hip replacement.
Membership Officer Robert Welborne had to teach a class that evening.
We might have lost Ron Kimble to very serious illness, but two weeks in the hospital put him almost in shape to join us
for the meeting.
Pete Bowers also sent his regrets, having poll-watching duty.
Ed Holt sent his regrets and regards. His daughter Mandy, a K9 specialist, has been promoted to Chief Petty
Officer, and asked him to fly to Guam to pin her anchors on. She’s made Sailor of the Year for her command,
her second time in three years; also Sailor of the Year for her region.
Finally, Wayne Robinson was only able to join us after he finished teaching a class downstairs. He reported that, while
he makes a satisfactory living teaching a few hours a week, he is tempted by a job offer from another jurisdiction that
needs a chief electrical inspector; if he took got back in the saddle, this would enable his wife to retire.
Educational Program
Notwithstanding our low attendance–by far the lowest on record as far back as I looked--we had quite a good meeting.
Alex Boesenberg, head of NEMA’s lighting division, tooled over on his 1975 Super Glide to fill us in on how
lighting manufacturers have come together to work on recommendations and standards--and on developments in lighting design.
Unsatisfactory Products
We had a lovely, wide-ranging discussion, punctuated at several points by Jim expressing his concern over premature lamp failures.
Alex emphasized that grousing to your buddies is less productive than contacting the manufacturer’s complaint
department: all the reputable manufacturers maintain toll-free customer service numbers, because they want
to know if their designs or manufacturing processes are defective. If they hear the same complaint from
quite a few end-users, they know the dud purchases were not just flukes. One manufacturer of electronic
ballasts sends a field representative out to check each unit that fails.
If you see a problem with more than one product line, contact Alex (outside of lighting,
his appropriate colleague will get your mail) by using the form at
www.nema.org/about/contact/feedback.cfm. You can also use the form to submit questions.
NEMA has some concern about the development of a public product-complaint forum, if it is not appropriately
moderated to ensure that it develops accurate information. However, Congress did mandate that the Consumer
Product Safety Commission prepare such a forum. The CPSC has already proposed a design for the site and
received public comments. See http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/sect212.html for details.
When manufacturers see a pattern of product failures, they may use the NEMA technical committees,
working groups whose function Alex facilitates, to find out if other manufacturers are hearing the same
thing. This can result in revised guidelines or even updated standards.
Some very special problems can come to light this way. Here's one example that Alex gave. A high-bay factory used
high-output T5 fixtures. The manufacturing atmosphere contained significant amounts of metal
dust. The high-frequency fields at the lamps, combined with the metal dust, caused the lamp’s glass
envelope to become permeable. This is not a problem that would have been easy to foresee.
Developing Consensus
A major part of Alex’s job is helping lighting manufacturers coordinate intelligently without risk of
violating anti-trust laws. He documents what was discussed at each meeting, and mediates disagreements
so that the members can develop consensus documents. The results of such NEMA efforts are available for download
(not necessarily free) at www.NEMA.org/standards. Those White Papers and Standards in his area bear the
prefix “LSD” for Lighting Systems Division, and can be found at http://www.nema.org/stds/lsd.cfm.
Lighting is the NEMA division with the second-highest budget, trailing only the
semi-automonmous division of Medical Imaging Device Manufacturers. All the LSD White Papers can be
downloaded free, but note that a number are due for updating; check their dates. For example,
Papers LSD 3, 5, and 9 mention problems that are basically resolved by now.
An interesting aspect of his work is that half his committee members have marketing backgrounds, not engineering
degrees. However, Alex noted the effect of experience: once they’ve been representing manufacturing lines for some
years, they accrue so much technical knowledge that schooling differences fade into unimportance.
Alex’s own background includes U.S. Naval Academy training in applied Systems Engineering, gained as he
earned a B.S. in History.
One important consequence of manufacturer’s coming together in NEMA is that standards can create level
playing fields, and reliable product interchangeability. Before this can even take place, they
are able to support needed research. They funded studies of T8 fluorescent dimming for over six years.
Their support can also take the form of data, of manpower, and of materials. In 2008-2009, they worked
with UL to examine the failure modes associated with the interaction of dimmers and non-dimmable CFLs.
The failures were found to be safe, resulting in, at most, a moment's whiff of smoke.
None of this necessarily applies, of course, to dimmers and CFLs that are not manufactured in compliance
with ANSI standards.
There are other standards, respectable ones, but they may be of limited use in the U.S. The International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is based in Europe, with much of its energy from Germany. The IEC is working
on a standard, an open-source document enabling interchangeability, for dimmable CFLs. As IEC standards are
based on 50 Hz 220V installations, their guidelines cannot be converted automatically to apply to our equipment.
Still, Canada has the policy of adopting IEC standards. NEMA has been encouraging the many Central American
countries that use 120V to adopt NEMA standards, which will buttress the market for NEMA members’ products.
Meanwhile, NEMA has published a guidance document for dimming CFLs, and is in the process of developing it into a standard.
The standard for wall-box dimmers for CFLs has to take into account CFLs’ high inrush current and non-linear
draw.
CFLs and the Future
Stepping back a pace, Alex responded to various questions about CFL uses and designs. He also touched on
public concerns over the mercury used in CFLs, in any fluorescents. In view of the mercury pollution
associated with hydrocarbon use and the quick fixing of mercury into compounds that are not further reactive,
he said, “There is no scientific evidence that mercury from CFLs has an environmental effect.” He mentioned
a You-tube video in which a CFL manufacturer makes this point rather archly.
The Federal Trade Commission just recently required CFL manufacturers to print data on their lamp packages in
a uniform format. This way, purchasers can compare kumquats to kumquats. Alex told us that none of this may
matter in the long term. Regardless of any present controversies over CFLs, he said, most manufacturers see CFLs
as a stopgap, a lighting approach that will be supplanted once Solid-State Lighting devices-–LEDs or
OLEDs–become cost-effective.
SSL Devices
Right now, SSL products are hand-made, so they are all in some sense prototypes.
Until better designs are developed and economies of scale come in, SSL devices are not going to be
competitive with other efficient general-purpose lighting sources. A metal halide luminaire may last 10 years, offering
good-quality, bright light.
An LED substitute for a 4' troffer, he noted, can be purchased. However, it
will offer no advantage over a modern fluorescent luminaire in efficiency or even longevity, and it
might cost ten times as much!
LEDs are natural for spotlighting, with a natural angle of 65 deg. Jewelers got gems to sparkle
just the way they wished by highlighting the gems with LEDs of precisely specified chromaticity and
no need for color filtering. A little gold? A touch of green highlighting? Whatever.
Even special-purpose LEDs have had problems.
LED traffic lights benefit from the same facts.
However, as attractive as LEDs are for this purpose, over a cold winter, some installations became useless;
the designers had not recognized the fact that waste heat from incandescent traffic lamps prevented icing.
To keep LED traffic lights usable, the shrouds had to be modified to eliminate ice buildup.
One reason that Alex discourages adoption of LEDs for general lighting applications is that disappointment in early
units could lead to burnout. Then, when reliable, cost-effective general-use SSL lighting becomes available, the
reputable manufacturers could have an uphill battle to gain consumer acceptance. There are many less-responsible
manufacturers profiting from today’s “early-adopter” market. One company, “Lights of America,” is being sued
by the government for making unsubstantiated product claims.
Other Topics for NEMA's LSD
In response to a question, Alex also told us about the possibilities he sees for NEMA in daylighting. One problem is that when,
for example, big box stores install skylights–as they can be mandated to do–the quality of the light,
during the brightest part of the day, may wash out lighting effects intended to bring products
to customers’ attention. He is slowly bringing together a group interested in daylighting management,
whether through mechanically controllable louvers or through installation of electrochromic glass,
whose ability to transmit light can be reduced and restored electrically.
At present, there are no standards to coordinate these technologies with dimming of electric light.
Daylighting management is certainly not the only area of electrical manufacturing that is not represented by a NEMA division.
Solar energy is another, perhaps considered too much of a niche area for decades. Visiting E.E. Mike
Wechsler brought us up-to-date on the economics of residential solar. He reported that in Washington, D.C.,
after rebates, a forthcoming single-family solar installation required maybe $6000 out-of-pocket investment. This means a payback period
of merely a couple of years, followed by a couple of decades of sheer profit.
One last gripe was raised, concerning upgraded luminaires, such as solid-state-ballasted linear fluorescents
that replace old magnetic-ballasted units. First, they sometimes seem to be short-lasting, an issue that Alex had addressed earlier
(call the manufacturer’s complaint line!). Second, they can cause visual discomfort. Instead of talking about harsh color, glare, and
changes in light level, people mentioned flicker as a possible cause. Alex commented on people’s variability
in detecting flicker, with 100-120 Hz the usual limit of perception.
Follow-up
"Tell your problems to the people who made the equipment" is not where Alex left us, even with respect to the earlier
complaints about incandescents. In the days following our meeting, Alex consulted manufacturers' experts.
To get full service out of incandescent lamps and to avoid their premature failure,
they have three recommendations. The first two, at least, will be familiar to our members.
One, make sure the lamps are not subjected to overvoltage.
If necessary, install 130 volt or even 140V traffic-type lamps in luminaires on any nominal 120V circuits
whose voltage reads high. (At our September 2008 meeting, Bill Poulin told us that utilities commonly
serve the middle of a run at somewhat high voltage, so that anticipated voltage drop doesn’t bring it
down too far by the time the cable reaches customers at the ends of the run.)
Two, make sure
they are not subject to environmental stress such as vibration unless designed for the purpose, as are
Rough Service lamps and oven lamps.
Three, to avoid disappointment with any sort of lighting, buy reputable brands. This does not necessarily mean
lamps sold by the big three (Sylvania, Phillips, and G.E.), but at least buy lamps whose packaging indicates compliance with standards.
May 2010 Meeting
Our previous meeting took place on May 18, 2010. Reports
indicate that Michael Johnston and his associate put on an
excellent presentation regarding the NEIS program, for a very small
house: four inspector members, two associate members, and one
inspector nonmember. Both Jim Wooten and David Shapiro were unable
to make it, for health reasons. Harry Langway circulated an
attendance list, though, and CEU certificates are waiting for those who attended.
Previous Meeting
This is the report of our meeting on the evening of the evening
of Tuesday, March 16, 2010. Once again, thanks to the generosity of
Ken Cain, VP Marketing for Capital Lighting and Supply, we met at
their training facility in Upper Marlboro, MD. We had three
inspector members, five associate members, an instructor nonmember
and at least four student nonmembers.
Nik Dubish of Kelly Generator &
Equipment, Inc., presented an interactive program of 1 ½
hours, talking about some of the issues that arise in specifying,
installing, consulting on, and inspecting Generators. Nik used to
work for Generac, and provides training as a regular part of his
job. This program was approved by IAEI’s International Office
for .2 CEUs (credited for 2 CE hours). Nik is certified as an
Electrical Generator Systems Technician by the Electrical Generator
Systems Association.
Nik, supported by Scott Norfolk in sales and Gary Fink, Kelly’s
master electrician and NEC go-to man, discussed an entertaining
series of slides taken in the field. Some showed well-done
installations, others violations or simply bad ideas.
Before the training proper began, Scott led in with an overview
of what their company offers. Yawn, right? Except that we did learn
a couple of useful nuggets, useful for the contractors among us,
and useful for the inspectors whom contractors sometimes turn to
for suggestions. One is that they provide a fair variety of rental
units, although not the very smallest. The other is their generator
parts inventory; it is wide enough that they often can dig up
obscure or obsolete parts. Scott talked very briefly–really--and
then Nik took over.
These are some of the points that came up. They seem worth
setting out separately in order to emphasize them individually.
· The rules for minimum
clearances from outdoor generators to buildings vary. A common one
is 5'. How to measure this is a matter in which inspectors differ:
Gary is conservative, and insists of 5' from any point on the
generator to any point on the building.
· There are cases, though
. . . In one instance, in a historic district of DC, there was a
Code requirement to install backup power. However, the property
could not be modified because of preservation requirements.
Therefore, the AHJ signed off on a generator being shoehorned in
with nearly no clearance. · Some customers prefer
visibility, others low visibility; some quiet operation, some the
ability to confirm by sound that the units are operating. All
these requirements can be accommodated reasonably well, but some
don’t know enough to do it legally.
· Many generators are not
designed to have their exhaust piped away. Modifying this, like
modifying any aspect of the design, eliminates Listing protection
and warranties. Nik showed us several examples of Generac units
that were installed so that the exhaust entered HVAC intake vents.
There were even more slides in which clearances were not
established or maintained for adequate access to controls and
battery compartments. Then there were some where combustibles came
in contact with the exhaust. One allowed paper trash to fall in
the vicinity of the generator, so it could be sucked up against
the intake grill, or slide underneath the enclosure so that it
could sit against the unit itself.
· Jim Wooten mentioned an
inspection he performed in Annapolis in which he found the
generator under a deck with the exhaust 9" from vinyl siding.
Nik noted that their exhaust gases exceed 800 degrees.
· The nameplate of a
generator lists the letter class of items such as the rotor. This
indicates how hot the wiring can get before its insulation may
fail. (The further along in the alphabet, the more robust.)
· In a shore area, Harry
reported, authorities now require that generators be located 2'
above mean high tide.
· Small creatures such as
snakes like to crawl in under generators where it’s warm.
Rodents like to chew on wires, at least those with pre-THHW/XHHW
insulation. He has heard that this is because older thermoplastic
insulations contain fish oil. John Marcio of the National
Association of Electrical and Medical Imaging Manufacturers (NEMA)
said [awaiting response]
· Within the generator
enclosure, from the stub-up on, the wiring does not need to be
enclosed within a raceway. Bushing to protect it are sufficient.
· When the power and
control wires all have insulation rated for the power voltage,
there still is a significant advantage to running them in separate
raceways. If control wiring is run right against it in a single
raceway and, in the course of the pull, a power conductor gets a
kink, power going through the kink could induce a spurious signal.
· Smaller units use four
control wires to start them, carrying binary signals. Larger units
use two wires, and if the positive one inadvertently grounds, this
can start the generator–or try to. If the motor is already
running at a good clip, and the starter tries to engage without
meshing, damage could result.
· Listing information
always is located with the nameplate, by the disconnect, either
inside or outside the enclosure. Jim piped up to mention that
Annapolis requires that this information always be available on
the outside.
· Diesel units have their
own problems.
· Modern, low-sulfur
diesel fuel breeds vermin in the water that’s part of the
fuel. This gives it a shelf life of 6-12 months. If left
untouched, it loses its bright clear red color and becomes
useless.
· In addition to causing
white smoke and clogging filters, they put out acidic waste
products, which damage the engines.
· The fuel can be
filtered and treated on site. The company has equipment to
perform this operation, and can arrange with specialists to do
the job when particularly large tanks need to be treated.
· Diesel is not light.
Sometimes there is no place for the unit but on a rooftop,
because of noise, exhaust, or just footprint. In such a case, the
size of the tank that can be accommodated may be limited both by
weight and by fire regulations. These can require pans to capture
lost diesel safely in the event of tank rupture. A day tank on
the roof with the main tank below pumping up to it is an option
in some cases. Nik mentioned one job where pumping dfiesel up
wasn’t acceptable, so they continued relying on a bizarre
alternative. (If you’re curious about the details, give him
a call.)
· There are legitimate,
Listed dual diesel-gas units. However, there also are diesel
units that have been improperly converted to gas operation. If it
looks like a diesel unit and has a power pack on the side, it’s
probably one of these, we were told. Enough on diesel.
· Scott confided that
the units some manufacturers sell that are rated over than 100
kW do not have EPA certification.
· Gary mentioned that before selecting transfer
equipment, he always requests a letter from the serving utility
supplying the available fault current.
Ed Bihlear noted afterward that an arc fault article by a
Bussman rep said that 65 kA commercial distribution may be safer
to deal with than residential, which can run as high at 83 kA due
to the serving utility’s transformers. (David attempted to
follow this up with PEPCO’s media office, but received no
response.)
Servicing backup power for a cellular phone tower is
particularly nerve-wracking. Ice can build up on the dish even
when there’s no ice below. A bit of a thaw can cause it to
start breaking up. Especially at night, the first inkling you may
have that it is falling is when you start being bombarded.
Jim reported that the BG&E utility no longer will service
any equipment, gas or electric, that is located on a roof.
There was more than this, of course, but . . . you had to be
there.
Business Meeting
We decided at our Annual Meeting in January that we would be
voting on changes to our chapter bylaws, changes that were
proposed back in 2008. These were attached to March’s
meeting notice. So members could be ready. Jim even prepared some
questions to guide the discussion. However, the inspector who
proposed that we schedule the vote did not attend, with the
result that we were one short of a quorum under the present
rules.
The meeting proper therefore broke up quite a bit earlier than
usual, to be followed, as usual, by the social and educational
after-meeting meeting.
Jim, Gary, and David all agreed that by signing a permit, a
master electrician takes personal responsibility for the work
performed on a job. If he doesn’t inspect it himself, he is
laying himself open. Ed Bihlear mentioned that equipment is
coming out from manufacturers with the new Arc Flash labels. The
instructions set the approach distance is 41', so Ed simply
insists that a draw-out circuit breaker be de-energized before he
arrives. Because the arc flash boundary is 100', instead of
inscribing a hazard category class, they write, “Seriously
dangerous.”
Special Note
http://www.energy.state.md.us/incentives/transportation/index.asp
will link you to guidelines for two government incentive programs
for those building Electric Vehicle-charging stations.
Previous Meeting
This is the report of our meeting on the evening of the
evening of Tuesday, January 19, 2010, at Capital Lighting and
Supply's training facility in Upper Marlboro, MD. We had five
inspector members, five associate members, and four student
nonmembers.
Proposed
2011 Code Changes
Because the changes discussed were based on the ROP, their
content is subject to further modification in the ROC and then
yet again at the Annual Meeting. Therefore, this report will
focus more on the sweet nuggets contained in presenter Wayne
Robinson’s–and the audience’s--asides. These
were based on field experience and on proposed changes’
substantiations as reported in the ROP. This element is part of
what leads these discussions to offer more of interest, in their
way, than very straightforward seminars that closely follow, for
example, the IAEI Powerpoint slides.
Here are some highlights:
Annexes are not part of the mandatory portion of the NEC;
however, when referenced directly by a chapter, they can be. This
may be underscored in the 2011 Code, but is true already.
“Power Panelboards” originally were panelboards
that lacked a neutral, before the 10%-of-circuits rule was
passed. The idea of pulling a neutral to every panelboard was
applauded by several members. . They reported that they have seen
neutral-less panels treated as though they did have neutrals all
too often–with their grounds substituted.
Pete Bowers chimed in that a great many builders and
homeowners buy jacuzzis without making sure the items they
purchase fit into the intended locations in a way that leaves
their motors and GFCIs/local disconnects accessible.
The original GFCI requirement in 1987 required this protection
within 6' of each sink, regardless of type; it looks as though we
will be returning to that concept.
It will be a wrench for some building owners if the panels
serving their or their supers’ units no longer will be
permitted to also serve as the house panels.
It appears that countertop receptacles will be forbidden to
count toward the receptacles required for wall spaces, but wall
receptacles will be permitted to count as the receptacles serving
contiguous peninsula counters.
Floor boxes came up in the context of the proposed requirement
that meeting spaces with movable partitions be served so that a
partition would not cut users off from ready access to
receptacles. David Shapiro polled those present regarding the
fate of floor receptacle closers. Harry Langway sees them
remaining intact, because the receptacles are never used. Pete
sees the style using flip-open lids generally having them broken
off within three months, and left off missing.
Wayne told a story about a call from a lawyer, who apparently
was seeking support for his client’s contention that a fire
had resulted from a certain type of negligence. Wayne eventually
cut off his interest by presenting his off-the-cuff opinion that
the fire was very likely to have been caused by three-prong
receptacles having been installed in outlets lacking any
grounding conductors (or, presumably, GFCI protection). He
asserted that when there’s a ground fault in such a case,
the yoke gets so hot carrying fault current over time that it
gets the box to the point where the receptacle yoke breaks in
half.
That is about as far as the NEC education went. We received
sad news about a relatively new–but valued-- chapter member
who will no longer be with us.
BUSINESS MEETING
Plans
We slid smoothly into our business meeting. Pete asked about a
vote on some bylaws changes that David had proposed many months
ago. We agreed that they would be addressed in our March meeting.
Alerts
Next, Pete mentioned a problem with inspection of fire alarm
systems. In less than 40 hours–whoops–the state fire
marshal would be meeting with those who probably should be
inspecting their wiring.
Pete explained his concern further after the meeting, as being
about: “. . . a new code section under 22-13, for fire
safety - building code: MCER 5-06AM, adopted November 28, 2006.
It establishes a requirement for issuance of a Fire Protection
Systems License. That license is required to install, repair,
test, modify or service any alarm system and/or equipment.
“The license is issued by the Fire Marshal's Office,
with specific Nicet (National Institute for Certification in
Engineering Technologies) documentation required as a
precondition to qualify. Permits for the work activity are then
issued by that department and inspection of the completed work is
conducted by the Fire Marshal's Office. At present, the
electrical inspection branch is not involved, leading to other
problems of compliance in law.
“The reason for the new level of government oversight
and control was that life safety systems have been installed and
modified, their maintenance ignored or allowed to fall into
inoperable condition--and the fire department had no control over
malfunctioning systems in the public domain. This was an attempt
to bring oversight into play at the major levels of system
operability.
“The downside is that the process put the holders of
Nicet documentation as the dominant player (which translates to
the manufacturers or their local service organizations) to the
exclusion of licensed electrical contractors. No requirement was
stated that a journeyman or master electrician license was
necessary for this work, in order to comply with other county
law. Electrical contractors have been responsible for
installation of system components forever, with final testing and
checkout usually the domain of the manufacturer's representative.
All that changed with this new regulation.”
No one spoke up to say they would be available on such short
notice to attend the meeting.
Some days later, Pete reported that the fire marshal told that
meeting's audience that he had had no one to help him prepare the
regulation so as to coordinate smoothly with other departments or
regulations.
Next, Wayne mentioned an upcoming meeting of the state
committee regarding third-party inspector licensing and
retesting.
Finally, we had our annual election, with
these results:
Jim Wooten, President. Jim noted that he is thinking about
relocating close to the Pennsylvania border, at which time a
replacement would be needed.
Wayne Robinson, Vice President.
David Shapiro, Secretary-treasurer.
Robert Welborne,
Membership.
Harry Langway, Programs, at least for a while.
There were no other volunteers for Executive Board positions,
nor any to serve on a budget committee.
Reports
Finances
David reported that we are still pretty much busted.
Follow-up: We have been enjoying the hospitality of Capitol
Lighting and Supply for some time. Steve Collins’s
excellent suggestion at the last meeting, which was supported by
a consensus, was that our leftover books pruchased for
2005-related seminars the be offered for Capitol’s use.
This offer was carried out before the evening’s meeting
convened.
Membership
Robert reported that he has changed over his membership
category to Inspector. In addition to continuing to function as a
contractor, and serving on Prince Georges Community College’s
faculty, he has taken on their job of Electrical Supervisor and
Plan Reviewer.
About 8:45, we adjourned.
After the meeting, of course, there continued to be some
informal discussion.
****
PREVIOUS MEETING
This is the report of our meeting on the evening of the
evening of Tuesday, November 17, 2009. Once again, thanks to the
generosity of Ken Cain, VP Marketing for Capital Lighting and
Supply, we met at their training facility in Upper Marlboro, MD.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM
Wayne, our Vice President and also our evening's presenter,
made a very prompt start to the meeting, jumping right in to a
good hour and a half of solid Code instruction--and dialogue. His
talk was thoroughly illustrated with slides he had prepared with
PowerPoint for one of the handbooks he prepared and uses (and
sells) in his presentations on the subjects. The give and take
with the audience led the evening’s education/entertainment
to be more freewheeling than a straight slide-driven
presentation. Here are some highlights:
Wayne started out with Auxiliary Gutters, with side excursions
to address rooftop installations, as well as other installations
that call for temperature-related derating.
Much of the wiring run across roofs, he noted, just sits on
pressure-treated wood rather than being secured to structural
members. One of these days, he commented, all of these sleepers
are going to blow off, with the right wind. Everything will land
in the street. Inspection? In Baltimore County, he understood,
inspectors no longer are permitted to go up on rooftops. The
electrician signs a form saying the wiring up there was done to
Code. CE-style self-inspection.
Moving back to ambient temperature derating, he brought up a
slide presenting an extreme example. Suppose wiring–however
long the run--normally would need to be 3 AWG, but the run ends
with at least 10 feet in a boiler room with an ambient of 140
degrees. In accordance with 310.15(A)(2), the Exception not
applying, the entire run might need to be upsized to 3/0. How, at
least one member asked, is he to legally attach a 3/0 conductor
to a 100 A circuit breaker designed for 3 AWG and 1 AWG for
aluminum?
This stimulated a healthy discussion, resulting in a vote to
seek an informal interpretation from NFPA, as a chapter. (The
letter has been sent.) Ironically, Pete Bowers, a chapter member,
has been the IEC’s alternate on CMP 6 for the last couple
of Code cycles. It is conceivable that, had he been at the
meeting, he might have been able to illuminate the discussion.
These were our questions:
· What does it take to break the requirement? Suppose
there’s a panel outside the boiler room, with one
overcurrent device. Could the wiring from there to the load be
3/0, and upstream 3AWG?
· If this would be inadequate,
the panel being considered to contain a mere supplementary
overcurrent device, how about upsizing both the upstream
conductor and the device ahead of it by one size: could the rest
of the run now be considered a feeder?
· Going in the
other direction, if this sort of sleight of hand is acceptable to
release the installer from having to comply with the requirement,
why wouldn’t a simple junction box be acceptable to break
the run?
Our question was not what an AHJ may decide based on
the printed wording, but rather the intent of the Code section.
From there, we went to motor conductor calculations. Wayne
mentioned duty rating as an example where the Code has found good
reason to give designers a break on conductor sizing. Ed Holt, a
former member and a welcome, frequent visitor, noted that the
motor controller must have physical limits that restrict possible
use of the motor, not merely settings. Furthermore, something as
simple as a time clock is insufficient–it could be reset,
or removed, or replaced.
Wayne brought our attention to overload requirements that are
new in the 2008 Code. It’s not a big deal to figure out
what’s permitted: The nameplate gives the class of motor,
and then Table 430.32(C) identifies the maximum overload device.
Here’s a matter of interpretation: Wayne said that based
on his reading of Stallcup, you can’t exceed the size
identified from the table, even if your calculations might
suggest otherwise.
We quickly moved on to transformer calculations. Here are some
points he made.
If more than one overcurrent/disconnect is used for
protection, the sum of their actual ratings can’t exceed
what the maximum rating would have been had there been only one
disconnect.
This next one raised some objection–from two
knowledgeable men. One was Ed Holt, who carries serious
inspection responsibilities indeed. Wayne commented that there
are “five million” transformers out there with 400
amp mains but 500 Kcmil mains. He noted that technically, the
wire isn’t protected by the overcurrent device, and
therefore the design is illegal.
Both Ed Holt and Rich Panizari piped up, saying that sizing
the conductors to the loads makes the practice legal. This
brought Wayne to taps. He reminded us that restricting the
primary length to 10' and the secondary to 15' keeps a tap no
longer than 25' and permits us size it to the load. His next
comment elicited some differing opinions from the audience. He
noted that it’s awfully easy to go overlength. One reason
is that runs never perfectly cross the space from where they
enter to where they are connected, but follow structure. An even
more easy-to-overlook one is that the tails inside the
transformer and inside the overcurrent device cabinet tend to be
overlooked in the count.
He added a final comment on allowances. He has never seen a
fuse oversized to 250%, as technically permitted when necessary.
However, he pointed out, it is necessary to keep the permission
in mind when facing test questions.
Another snare he warned us of (as did Chuck Mello in the
December issue of IAEI News) is that whatever the permitted sizes
for separately derived systems’ individual grounding
electrodes, once they are connected to a common grounding
electrode it must be sized a minimum of 250 aluminum or 3/0
copper.
He focusing on feeder taps for his final segment. Wayne
commented that when the conductors are sized at the full
calculated rating on both sides of a splice, there’s no
tap. Once even a single undersized conductor leaves a splice, it
becomes a tap, and its length is limited accordingly.
Rich, Ed Holt, and Wayne engaged in some fun discussion about
field options to allow the use of the 1/3 rating. Wayne pointed
out that if we downsize the primary-side overcurrent device, it
may trip. Ed suggested that this would tend to be due to inrush
current, so you could adjust the trip setting. Wayne argued that
this would require engineering calculations, for coordination.
After a bit over an hour and a half, we took a break,
returning for the business/executive meeting.
BUSINESS MEETING
Programs
The first order of business was for Charles Johnson, our new
Programs Officer, to seek input as to how to solicit presenters
for future meetings.
He did get a lot of the input he asked for.
· At the end of Wayne's talk, he mentioned that he has
a 2011 Code Change book or books in the works, and would be
willing to spend an evening in January—that's the meeting
on January 19—giving us another good hour-and-a-half.
·
Steve Collins mentioned that his father was a fire commissioner
for ten years. He and others speculated that the state fire
marshal's office is concerned about electrical safety across the
state. They might have comments for us on the current situation
in Prince George's County. He will ask his father to contact the
office for us, to find out whether we can get a program
consisting of one of their representatives addressing us on the
interface between the fire marshal and localities. Steve also
came up with several ideas regarding a publicity campaign.
·
However, Nigel Nisbeth, a brand-new member, had even more ideas,
including a program where we invite members of the press to
attend a discussion of how the current reduction in professional
oversight of electrical inspections might be seen as affecting
safety. At David's suggestion, Nigel agreed to try out the job of
Publicity and Public Affairs chair, seeing to not only these
contacts but also publicity for future events such as seminars.
He will be coordinating with IAEI's International Office, to make
sure that what we do is in keeping with their policies.
Finances
David reported that we are somewhat in the hole at the moment,
the result of expenses incurred sending representation to the
Section meeting. This will diminish with the annual Winter IO
disbursement, though David will front the money to pay for our
audit in January. Fortunately, most of our members receive our
mailings via email, and we have enough postage to handle the
remainder for some time.
Our 2010 fundraising will have to do a little better.
Otherwise, we may have to rethink our representation on the
Section Executive Committee, and with it the annual Secretaries,'
Treasurers,' and Membership meetings.
We do have one small asset that has been sitting unused: a set
of 2005 NECs, plus one 2005 NEC Changes book. While the list
values total $400 or so, we are highly unlikely to use them in
actually teaching a 2005 NEC seminar at this point. There were
proposals to dispense of them by offering them online, and we
were about to vote on this when Steve Collins came up with
something better.
We have been enjoying the hospitality of Capitol Lighting and
Supply for some time. Steve Collins’s excellent suggestion,
which was supported by a consensus, was that the books be offered
for Capitol’s use. This offer was conveyed when the meeting
ended; Ken Cain graciously accepted.
Robert reported that he has continued to invite people to try
us out, and some ask him for membership applications. Four
current students accepted his invitation to attend the evening's
program, and one, Justin Bagley, who just converted his Limited
Master to a Full Master license after having taken Robert's
refresher course.
About 9:30 we broke up and formally adjourned, not necessarily
precisely in that order. At least two attendees, Ed Holt and Ed
Bihlear, had to get up at 4 AM to handle their considerable
responsibilities.
After the meeting, of course, there continued to be some
informal discussion, including some war stories, so to speak, in
the parking lot. Fascinating stuff.
This is the report of our meeting
on the evening of Tuesday,
September 15, 2009.
Attending: three Inspector members, four Associate members, and
one prospective member. Once again, thanks to the generosity of
Ken Cain, VP Marketing for Capital Lighting and Supply, the
meeting took take place around 6:30 p.m., at their training
facility in Upper Marlboro, MD.
Not dark; not in fact night; but
it certainly was stormy, and a challenging drive for some
attendees. Furthermore, Jim, our President, had been called out
of town; Charles, our At Large board member, was home
recuperating from hip surgery; and even David, our
Secretary-treasurer, was a few minutes late. Happily, those who
did make it spent our time schmoozing comfortably. Once David
arrived, Wayne, our Vice President, called the meeting to order
officially.
Educational Program
Our meeting's speaker and
topic were not been nailed down beforehand, for whatever reason;
subsequently our new Education Coordinator, Pete, decided it
would be best to give up the job and focus on his other
commitments. As both David, our chapter secretary, and Harry, our
former Education Coordinator, had understood that speakers had
been scheduled, we waited patiently for them, as afternoon slid
into night (and the storm temporarily abated).
Wayne mentioned that he always
has PowerPoint presentations on Code topics available. Teaching
with them may not be his bread and butter, but it certainly is a
significant sideline.
He talked at some length about
the hoops he has jumped through successfully in order to have his
seminars accredited for CEUs in all sorts of jurisdictions. (He
also talked about the woeful situation of inspection in parts of
our area.) David mentioned an opportunity resulting from his
having completed the editing of W. Creighton Schwan's final book,
Behind the Code,
except for some fiddly details. One of those details is that he
recently received permission from NFPA to reproduce copies of the
fronts of any NECs
as illustrations. He will be inserting a great many of them,
going back to at least the 1911 edition. Just as Oran P. Post
entertains the Ohio Chapter with an assortment of old NECs,
David could have brought in the images he has available.
We did make a firm determination that the next meeting will
have a program, whoever needs to handle the duty.
Robert, our Membership Coordinator, brought up an enforcement
question and got his answers. Nathan, an engineer now with a
consulting firm but formerly an Orange County, CA IAEI member and
a NRTL employee, introduced himself. David and several others
complained about the lack of enforcement, which encourages
illegal work.
Membership
Eventually Robert interrupted
some grousing and discussion about low participation, about
cumbersome new processes resulting in the need for non-employee
"permit runners," and about new licensing requirements
to give his report. Robert has gotten the impression that a fair
number of people he talked to were interested in IAEI. Thirty
showed enough interest to ask for membership applications. But
nothing came out of his efforts, to our knowledge, except for
member Steve Collins showing up. Robert has not let this stop
him.
An
Unusual Bit of History
Steve spoke at length about
his work; he has quite a special specialty. For decades he has
worked on data centers. When their equipment is put together, it
must be well over 99.% reliable: at least six nines. This is a
challenge for the product manufacturers who want to remain
competitive.
He talked about the early days of
400 Hz work. They knew nothing about harmonics or skin effect
initially. He'd be called in the middle of the night to reset a
breaker that had tripped despite being loaded well within its
capacity. The next day he'd strip it out and find . . . nothing.
They learned that excess heat was
the culprit, although they didn't know why it should be present.
They responded empirically, with fans and eventually with
different setups entirely, ones that allowed far better heat
dissipation from a breaker.
Steve spoke a bit about the progression of data center cooling
designs--air-cooled to water to air again; fans to tents to their
more-efficient successors. Still, an important part of the remedy
was modified electrical designs. Paralleled
conductors? What's he or she saying? (I guess back then it was
pretty certainly "he.")
The NEC
offered little guidance. Steve and his colleagues found that part
of what was needed, in fact, violated NEC
rules. Always, though, they kept safety in mind, and eventually
the practices that they had found necessary to follow became
incorporated the NEC.
Inspection of these data centers was no simple thing, anyway.
He'd get a call from the jurisdictional inspector telling him to
meet the guy downstairs at such and such a time, though, and
shepherd him through the security gauntlet.
Steve was a fun "presenter." Eventually, the meeting
broke up at about 8. We'd been going for something over an hour
and a half, and generally having a pretty good--and useful--time.
Most Recent Meeting Including an Educational
Program
Our meeting
took place on the evening of Tuesday, May 19, 2009. Once again,
it was hosted by Capital Lighting and Supply, thanks to the
generosity of Ken Cain, their Vice President for Marketing.
Attending were 4 inspector members, 6 associate members, and 6
nonmembers, plus our two speakers.
Business
Having a quorum, we held our annual election. The same
officers were re-elected, with one exception. We have a new
Education Coordinator. After working well and hard to serve the
chapter, Harry Langway–a member of the Chesapeake Chapter
who lives on Maryland’s Eastern Shore–found a
volunteer, Pete Bowers, to take over finding meeting speakers.
Harry provided, and will continue to provide, guidance to help
Pete get started with candidates for our Fall programs. Besides
some familiar, and very good, speakers, we may have enjoyable
teasers, such as a brief introduction to ANCE, a testing
laboratory that is in the process of obtaining NRTL
certification.
Secretary-Treasurer David Shapiro circulated a CPSC notice
concerning a recall of some Fluke clamp-on meters. Download site:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09222.html. Before
the evening was out, members picked up previously undistributed
CEU certificates acknowledging their attendance at the
educational talks enriching meetings before March’s. We
hope to get dual-signatory March CEU certificates to September’s
meeting, along with those for attendance at the educational
portion of May’s meeting.
Finally, Pete brought up some news about Eaton/Cutler-Hammer.
First, Tony Crimi, their representative who used to attend our
chapter meetings, has retired, and it was not clear who is
replacing him. Second, they have developed extranet programs to
enable both distributors and contractors to obtain price and
availability information about their products. Pete noted that
this could be especially handy for contractors who try pricing
jobs evenings and weekends. One glitch is that even their
distributors seem unaware of the program. Another is that to be
able to participate in the program, you need to fill out an
application that includes the name of your local rep–that’s
the person through whom they supply you with your access ID. Pete
had not yet been successful in getting answers. David contacted
them in the name of the chapter. Apparently no one is going to be
quite a local as Tony for now. They told us that the contact
person, both for their extranet and for any chapter support from
Eaton, now is Alesia Davis, in the Baltimore area. For
information about the contractors’ extranet program, you
can go to
http://www.eaton.com/EatonCom/Markets/Electrical/BusinessPartners/Contractors/98067397
Educational Program
Pre-program
A number of members, and non-members, showed up early for some
additional free training, courtesy of Southwire. Southwire’s
representatives may be back–perhaps next year–to
address one of our meetings; this is up to our new Education
Coordinator. However, this report is not about the pre-program
but about what took place at our meeting on May 19.
The Night’s Talk
Harry Langway had lined up another fine presentation:
Meters
and Electrical Measurements.
Besides giving us a hell of
a show, and providing solid information, attending this yielded
paid-up IAEI members another full two hours of CEUs, as
authorized by the IO.
Question: When we need to rely on meters to keep ourselves
safe and make sure that installations are functioning properly,
who do we want go to to get the lowdown about meters--someone
who's had a course or two, and otherwise figured things out by
the seat of his pants, or someone who knows meters inside out?
Brian Blanchette is not only a technically astute head who
thinks things through, does his own research, and is not overly
shy about sharing the results. He also is accessible and
personable, and a more-than-competent writer and teacher. Ideal’s
Tests and Measurements Manager, the man designed some of
the meters on the market today. It is very hard to find somebody
with his experience.
Brian discussed the correct way to use various digital meters,
but started his talk in such a way as to accommodate even
walk-ins who might not have the background of people who’ve
studied, been in the trade. He began with basic electrical
theory, and quickly went on to the implications of voltage drop.
He thinks of impedance more in terms of available fault current
than of VD, because that is key to protective equipment being
enabled to function. He moved on to line-to-neutral voltages, and
a damned sight more–including some big surprises, pearls
dropped along the way. Even members of the audience who might
have felt lukewarm toward hearing a spiel focusing around one
particular manufacturer’s line of meters had plenty to
gain.
Ron Greenfield from O.T. Hall accompanied Brian. In
addition to his day job as a sales representative, he is an
instructor with the I.E.C. We heard an amusing dialogue between
him and Pete, who has bought several meters from him. Brian,
Pete, and of course Ron spoke with one voice on the need for
inspectors and contractors to buy the various meters, and
adequately sophisticated versions of them, to be able to scope
out their jobs adequately.
Time to provide some details. Brian mentioned combination-type
AFCIs early on, talking about how the first two brands
available–Cutler-Hammer and Square D had very different
designs from the later introductions, manufactured by Siemens.
The latter also include those they manufactured but branded as
G.E. and Murray.
Whatever their design, AFCIs, like any other protective
devices, require enough current to flow to cause them to operate
within the critical time frame, however the latter is specified.
This is where the critical nature of available short-circuit
current comes in. This factor brings us to the main approaches to
minimizing impedance: reducing the number of series connections,
each of which is going to be characterized by a certain amount of
impedance; and sizing conductors appropriately for length of run.
Furthermore, in performing distance calculations, he reminded us
of the need to consider the full round-trip length of a each
circuit, not just the one-way distance.
While the present generation of testers require the presence
of voltage to get an adequate picture of circuit condition, Brian
noted that the IEEE standard is phrased in different terms:
recommending that we keep the total impedance over the length of
any one conductor–that’s conductor, not round-trip
circuit–to a quarter of an ohm. Ron chimed in to point out
that some prefer to keep conductor impedance within a
more-generous limit: one ohm.
This does not need to be left
so abstract. For one example, consideer this: 14 AWG copper runs
2-2 ½ ohms per 1000 feet.
Now consider an older or at least cheaper single-family
residence. Suppose there is no central air conditioning. Suppose
also that one 15 amp circuit wired in 14 AWG cable takes care of
the receptacles daisy-chained all over the house. Unfortunately,
this is not uncommon. If there’s no central air, it’s
very likely that if there’s any money at all there’s
a window air conditioner in a bedroom. Quite commonly, that
bedroom will be located at or near the tail end of the circuit.
Now we have a relatively high-impedance circuit with a compressor
trying to draw up to six times its normal current each time it
starts. What happens if we retrofit the house with AFCIs? They
may be almost useless.
Brian also expressed dissatisfaction with the tests presently
in ANSI/UL standard 1699. Rich Berman, P.E., our U.L. Regulatory
Engineer, said this when he viewed the comment after the meeting:
“. . . it is correct that the proper way to test an AFCI
device is to push the AFCI TEST button. AFCI indicators can be a
convenient way to determine if an AFCI is on a circuit, but some
AFCIs may not trip when subjected to the pulses from an AFCI
indicator. [Ideal Industries’s tool for checking AFCIs
technically is “an indicator,” not “a tester”;
as Brian noted, the only official way to test an AFCI is to push
its TEST button] If the AFCI stays energized when used with an
AFCI indicator, it does not mean that the AFCI is bad and should
be replaced. UL 1699 does not require the AFCI to trip when
subjected to the pulses of an AFCI indicator.
An AFCI is not an overcurrent protective device [this is not
to deny that an AFCI circuit breaker is an OC device], and is
designed to recognized unwanted arcing faults. One of the tests
includes a razor cut on an insulated conductor (called the point
contact arc test; technically, the "razor" cut blade is
specified in the standard as 0.05 in. (1.27 mm) thick which is
not a razor. Sharpening to an razor edge is optional if agreeable
to all concerned.), but there are several tests for operation
inhibition and unwanted tripping, including inrush current,
normal operation arcing, non-sinusoidal waveforms, multiple
loads, lamp burnout, and immunity (EMC, RF, etc.).”
Let's get back to Brian's warning about the limited value of
AFCI protection on a long multi-outlet branch circuit that
ultimately feeds a window air conditioner. One of the assumptions
intrinsic in the design of all AFCIs, he warned us, is the
availability of at least 300-400 amps of short-circuit current.
Later in the evening, he commented that a decent residential
short-circuit current availability figure is 300-600 amps. One
You-tube.com site, he commented, used to show a homemade, 120
volt arc furnace fed by non-defective AFCIs that fails to show
any inclination to trip. To forestall disbelief in the
possibility of such a project, he commented that for jollies he
himself created a arc furnace connected to a household circuit as
a kid, using carbons from a D cell (shaped as needed) wrapped
with copper wire, a dish of saline solution, and not a whole lot
else.
Brian was not saying that AFCIs are useless, or a bad idea. He
put it this way, after the meeting was over: “. . .it is
very difficult to reliably filter out nuisance trips without
filtering out real events. . . I am pretty sure the things can be
effective. The commercialization of the product was not
necessarily kind to the technology, but then, it rarely is. . .
Nothing is perfect, and the Combination Arc Fault Circuit
Interrupter breaker does detect arcs that other breakers cannot.”
The question of how you know whether an AFCI is defective he
answered easily: push the TEST button. If it trips, it’s
good. This is a much more reliable test of whether it is defunct
than trying to trip it with an external arc, because of issues of
circuit impedance. To the greater surprise of many in the
audience, he noted later that he has found consistently that
AFCIs are good for about 75 trips– the number must include
those caused by pushing the TEST button. After this, they won’t
trip when you push the TEST button, and are due for replacement.
How effective they will be in responding to a particular arc
fault is another matter, depending on design of AFCI and circuit.
Moving back to his main subject, he acknowledged the
challenges in testing circuits fed by them. As he described the
elements to branch-circuit testing, he–and Pete--discussed
the use of testers to tease out various aspects of these
questions. Brian mentioned, and showed bits of, a White Paper
that he wrote, titled, “The Electrician’s Guide for
Testing Branch Circuits with Combination AFCI Circuit Breakers."
It contains a decision tree, focusing on the use of his company’s
test instruments. It was a relief to read that when the AFCI
trips only in response to simulated problems in the outlets
closest to the panel (or only in some outlets generally, but not
all), the problem is most likely caused by loose wires or
connections–or by tests made at faulty (high-impedance)
wiring devices. Another interesting comment, at least for people
who have not discussed design with representatives of various
manufacturers, was that he has found different AFCI circuit
breakers respond differently at low current levels. One point he
emphasized was his reason in naming it “The Electrician’s
Guide. . . “ rather than the inspector’s: most
testing has to fall on the installer, not the inspector. Pete had
talked of coming in, red-tagging jobs for violations, and
leaving, repeatedly, until contractors finally reached the point
where they tested their own work adequately before calling for
inspection.
On a more-general note, Brian commented that most of the
testers we are likely to be carrying are rated as Category 3 or
higher–and they need to be. This rating means that they
have been certified as safe up to 600 volts, good for testing
anything normally found indoors. Category 2, on the other hand,
is suitable only for use at a branch circuit outlet itself, and
not upstream.
He went over the elements in testing branch circuits in some
detail. To summarize, you review:
1) The physical structure of
the circuit, which includes confirming correct polarity at
outlets;
2) The quality of the voltage supplied;
3)
Neutral-to-ground voltage, which varies depending on load and
circuit impedance–the latter hinging in part on distance
along the wiring from the common bounding jumper;
4) Voltage
drop; and
5) Possibly actual impedance.
He also urged the use of thermal imagers to answer certain
questions, noting that the price of at least some new units has
plummeted. The discussion of thermal imaging–in some but
not all cases related to the sorely-uneven balancing of loads,
especially loads characterized by triplan harmonics, across
phases--led to a comment about three-phase neutrals. He
emphasized that these often are inappropriately downsized, even
though doing so may follow the rules for derating that is
permissible when they are not considered to be carrying
significant current. In fact, though, they should be increased,
to compensate for carrying sizable additive current from more
than one phase.
The only standards addressing Total Harmonic Distortion set
standards for maximum voltage, even though voltage distortion
exists as a response to current distortion–to loads. In
very large systems, up to 8% THD may be acceptable; almost
everywhere else, 5%. In hospitals and airports, though, 3% is the
maximum. The solution to these problems in three-phase systems is
twofold: don’t put all of the distorting loads on one
phase; and oversize the neutral.
The examples were quite entertaining. On one job Pete’s
meter reported a false ground. Rather than check for bad
connections at one place and another and another, searching
slowly upstream, he was able to go to the panel, where the
neutral conductor’s termination was loose. On another site
that turned out to be suffering from just this problem, Brian
used imaging to determine that it was what caused a panel
overheat badly. With each turn to the inadequately secure
screw–and it took several--the readings returned closer to
normal. “Don’t retorque, because you’ll extrude
the wire”? This case was an exception.
Switchgear normally is rated for installation in maximum 40
deg C ambient environments, and loads are permitted to add up to
30 deg C additional. When a conductor is glowing, what do you do?
One bank’s system did just this, and if they had shut it
down, the data in their computer system would have been lost.
While they hastily downloaded it, the bank’s carbon dioxide
fire extinguishers were paraded to the panel by a bucket brigade
of employees, moderating the temperature just enough until they
could close it down.
Backing off from the horrible examples, Brian talked in more
general terms. Fortunately, he noted, most problems are the
result of gross mistakes, such as neutral-ground bonds downstream
of the Main Bonding Jumper. This is worse, he noted, when it
occurs in single-phase wiring utilizing the neutral, because with
three-phase at least there is the possibility of some return
current flowing through the other phases. Perhaps another
corollary of the concept that the causes of most problems are
gross is that meters don’t have to slice the second too
fine in their sampling. That yielded this aphorism: “No
instantaneous readings carry quality information.”
In discussing what sort of readings can be useful, he touched
on the difference between normal meters and those testers that
can report peak current. This led him to an aside on the history
of electricity generation and the dispute between Edison and
Tesla, with Westinghouse as Tesla’s sponsor. Edison proved
that AC could be dangerous, claiming that there was no measuring
AC, and setting limits. An excellent showman, he demonstrated
this not with a dog-and-pony show but with rather more of a
circus. He electrocuted an elephant using AC, and later donating
an AC electric chair to the State for executions.
Tesla responded by developing a system to measure AC. It
couldn’t be simple averaging, because if you average a
quantity that alternates evenly between the same level above and
below zero, you get zero. Instead, he conceived of RMS
(Root-Mean-Square) figures, and figured out how to measure them.
Oh, there was lots more, but . . . you had to be there. The
meeting ran past 9 PM, though not quite as long as some.
Our remaining meetings this year will take place on Tuesday,
September 15 and Tuesday, November 17.
Next Most Recent Meeting
This is the report of the meeting March 17, 2009.
Attending: around 20 people, including at least 5 Inspector
members, 5 Associate members, and 8 or 9 nonmembers, apprentices
who showed up for part of the evening, at the urging of their
instructor, Membership Chair Robert Welborne. Unfortunately, the
roster disappeared in the course of fax transmission from Past
President Wayne Robinson, who stood in for Secretary-treasurer
David Shapiro, who was sidelined by vertigo due to an inner-ear
malfunction. A number of long-time members who don’t often
attend made it in, and several reported afterwards on how
valuable they found the mini-seminar.
Training
The group enjoyed a fine two-component presentation by Michael
Johnston, former IAEI Director of Codes and Standards, who now
holds a similar senior position with NECA. The first part
reviewed grounding and bonding of separately derived systems. The
second element looked ahead--extensively--at Proposals for
Article 250 of the 2011 NEC that seem likely to be accepted.
Other News
Financials and Seminars
We are operating without an
updated Board of Directors. In accordance with our bylaws, this
means our present Board remains in place. While out books
continue to pass the annual audits, we also do not yet have an
approved budget overseen by a budget committee. The information
submitted by David Shapiro previously in the draft budget remains
relatively accurate at this point, although we are better off by
what we netted from Wayne Robinson’s first Code Update
seminar.
Unfortunately, the Grounding and Bonding Seminar he
offered in April was not sufficiently subscribed, and had to be
cancelled. Checks were returned, with thanks.
At present, we
are searching for a new bank account, as our long-term account
has instituted a maintenance fee that we could easily incur each
month for falling below the minimum balance. While at first GMAC
Bank seemed very promising, David, as chapter treasurer, has been
forced to consider it the least safe bank he has ever dealt with,
only in part because their representatives repeatedly failed to
keep agreements. As of late April, David is still in the process
of determining whether either of two other banks, with local
branches, can serve our needs.
Previous Meeting
This
is the report of the George Washington Chapter meeting January 20
at 8511 Pepco Place, Capital Lighting and Supply’s
warehouse and training center, courtesy of Capital’s VP
Marketing, Ken Cain.
Attending:
6 Associate members;
2 Inspector members;
Plus our presenters–3
visiting nonmembers
We got started around 6:30,
after a pleasant half-hour or so of informal
conversation–following on a very homey period, for a few
early arrivals, of even more informal conversation in the lobby
with Ken Cain, who has
extensive experience in this industry. Ken, incidentally, had
left a number of flyers in the meeting room, inviting us to join
a free half-day product training session to take place at their
facility.
Without
any delay at all, Harry Langway, our Program chair, welcomed Mark
Phipps of manufacturers’ representative Electrical Sales
Associates, Inc., and his colleague Tom Kidwell introduced our
speaker, Dave McBain of Littelfuse, who had flown in the
day before to avoid the Inauguration traffic.
Training
The
first item we concentrated on was arc flash and arc blast–the
big reasons to reduce available energy at points of access to an
electrical system. Dave displayed one slide showing daunting
numbers: good fuel for those of us who want to make a point to
scoffers about the importance of doing things right.
More
than 1000 annual deaths due to electrical accidents;
More
than 2000 workers sent to burn centers each year with severe
burns due to arc flash/blast;
Among
qualified workers, 80% of injuries and fatalities due to arc
flash/blast; and
Annual
costs to employers and the nation.
We
proceeded to learn all sorts of things about fuses, and
overcurrent/life safety protection generally, including but
certainly not limited to series-rated systems, and to
current-limitation generally.
He started out with some very
brief film clips showing arcs. One was a 30-second video caught
on a meatpacking plant’s security camera over the weekend
of 5-6-03. We saw three untrained, unprotected men--wearing nylon
on their heads to keep stray hairs out of foodstuffs. It showed
the flash, it showed the men staggering afterwards, confused,
with the nylon melted to them. One didn’t even realize that
his shirt was aflame.
Electrical workplace safety
requirements associated with arc flash/blast come out of NEC
110.16, requiring labeling; the OSH Act, CFR 29 1910; and
NFPA70E. 70E tells how to calculate arc flash.
IEEE 1584 is an optional
guideline, an alternate means that can be used to calculate some
arc flash calculations. Most programs of protection are offered
at work sites, by employers. Dave mentioned that Proctor &
Gamble has an internalized program re training for protection
against arc flash/blast; makes it one of the better places to
work.
Current-limitation
Current-limiting means letting
at most ½ of a cycle’s energy through before
interruption is completed.
Non-current-limiting means
letting at most 6 cycles through.
This is, of course, with AC
loads. He went to the trouble for us afterwards to confirm that
they are similarly, though not equally, effective with DC loads.
In the words of Kenneth Cybart, Littelfuse’s Senior
Technical Engineer, “DC circuits are harder to extinguish
than AC circuits. How quickly a fuse reacts to DC short circuits
or DC arc flashes depends on the X/R ratio of the DC circuit. We
would have to test our fuses at different X/R ratios and DC
voltages to see how quickly they can extinguish the current, and
minimize the energy. But, in general, AC current limiting fuses
react faster in DC circuits than non current-limiting fuses. The
IEEE and NFPA are now working together to come up with
mathematical formulas to determine how much incident energy a
worker may be exposed to under DC conditions, but the results may
not be known for a while.”
Ken also pointed out that generic arc flash warning labels,
while still meeting the requirement in NEC 110.16, are inadequate
for compliance with the 2009 edition of NFPA 70E. The latter
calls for warning labels field marked with
incident energy available or required level of PPE.
Even with AC, protective
devices offer differing levels of current-limitation. Their RK1
fuse, for example, lets through less than their RK5 (though it
fits the same fuseholder).
Most of today’s fuses are
tested for up to 200kAIC. Some old ones are manufactured to a
different standard: 5 or 10kAIC. Dave asserted that CBs let
through more energy the bigger the fault, fuses less.
Utilities, of course, give you
the starting point for any AIC calculations. Harry Langway noted
that PEPCO will give you fault current, but he has not been
successful at pulling similar information out of BG&E.
Resources
Dave mentioned two helps for
people in the field. 1-800-tecfuse is Littelfuse’s
technical help line, which ring you through directly to a person
who will field your fuse-related question, whether you are
dealing with their fuses or not.
He also mentioned a service his
company offers, performing fault-current analyses at facilities.
Handouts
He
also distributed a few handouts, theoretically focused solely on
fuses, but some in fact applicable more generally. For instance,
the Littelfuse brochure (Form PF992) “Using
Current-limiting fuses to increase short circuit current ratings
of industrial control panels” has a great sketch on P. 4
(which we were shown as a slide) showing graphically how a
current-limiting device reduces let-through energy.
He
also plugged their elevator (shunt trip) panels, and their
(Selective) “coordination panels,” which include
breakers (yes, really!–single pole
C-H
Quiklags) containing integral series fuse protection, designed
for use to help comply with requirements for certain Special
Occupancies, Conditions, or Equipment. In the 2008 edition, these
are: Healthcare
Essential Electrical Systems (NEC 517.17(C)), Elevators (NEC
620.62), Emergency Systems (NEC 700.27), Legally Required Standby
Systems (NEC 701.18) and Critical Operation Power Systems (NEC
708.54); also for use in orderly shutdown, as an option for
Electrical System Coordination NEC (240.12(1).
There
was a product selection guide . . . all the sorts of things that
you would expect from a manufacturer given the opportunity to
address an audience.
Finally,
he handed out a few sets of “collector cards,”
plastic-laminated forms, a little like unbound Codechek (TM)s.
These of course are thoroughly oriented around Littelfuse
products, where applicable, but the coverage extends beyond
those, with a few pages, for example, devoted to PPI.
Other
Activities
With
so many absent due to the inauguration, we addressed no
business–neither nominations and election, nor review of
new and clarified requirements from the International Office, nor
consequent selection of a budget committee, nor discussion of
possible bylaws changes, nor publicity activities for the
seminars that are planned. The required Treasurer’s Report
was made available in writing, but only Jim looked it over. One
member took home a scholarship application, promising to bring
additional copies to our next meeting. Our March meeting,
presumably, will serve as our Annual Meeting. If we lack a quorum
probably it will make sense to handle the necessary votes by
mail.
Code
Puzzlers
Here
are the next couple of Code questions and answers, as
promised.
1)
Ampacity Exception A 200 amp MBR service panel
serves a single-family dwelling. A generator also serves it, but
not as a separately derived system. It’s only a 3-wire
transfer switch; the neutral remains isolated from ground, as the
cable used is 2 AWG aluminum SER. The switch feeds a 125 amp
panel for which we need to select a main. The load fed via the
transfer switch is 80 amps or less. Can we apply 310.15(B)(6) and
use a 100 amp main?
No--this
is not the entire load.
2)
That Sense of
Isolation Section
210.8(B)(5) Exceptions 1-5 permits removal of GFCI protection, to
avoid greater hazards. Are isolated power systems required here?
Are such systems defined?
No:
permitted, certainly, but not required. Isolated
power systems’s specs are only explicitly discussed, in
considerable detail, in one location.
George Washington Chapter Budget
Historical Background
IO Distribution:
In 2008 (overlapping with the end of
2007) we received $669 from the IO. (In 2007, overlapping etc.,
$734)
In 2008 we expended $90 for bookkeeping, thanks to the
generosity of Pam Panizari. Ditto previous years.
In 2008 we
expended ~$90 on copying and mailing. (2007, $266.)
In 2008,
like 2007, we expended $17.45 to renew our domain registration
and forwarding service. (I donated the actual hosting, with a
page on my web site.)
In 2008 year we paid $89.46 toward a
partial “I am Safety Smart” kit from the IO, with
Peter Bowers and David Shapiro promising to cover the rest of its
cost. (In 2007 we contributed $100 toward the Leukemia &
Lymphoma Society as a memorial for Art Hesse.)
In 2008 we paid
$1263 to send me (& wife) to the Eastern Section Annual
Meeting, where I provided our representation on the Board of
Directors. Lodging, including deposit: $9; registration, $300;
one-way gas $27; One meal $28. In 2007 I ate the costs, because
the chapter was rocky financially.
In 2007 we also paid $70
for groceries, for meeting refreshments. This experiment was not
deemed worth repeating. In some previous years, Dick Bissell, who
has since retired from the industry and dropped out from IAEI,
periodically donated trays of meatballs.
Proposed Budget
Realistically, I don’t know what we might take in to
balance the books.
Here’s what I can say, rather dourly, based on what I do
know:
Income:
So: IO Disbursement, $700.
Pete Bowers offered to kick in
a third of the cost of the “I am Safety Smart” kit,
which amounts to . . . $89-odd.
Expenses:
Judiciously, $50 for copying and mailing, IFF we don’t
have to mail paper ballots to our inspector members to get a
critical vote, and don’t do a mass paper mailing of a
meeting flyer, but just send out paper meeting notices five times
a year to those few members who don’t use the web.
$18
again for domain registration.
$1500+? for representation at
the Board meeting. Our rules say its normally the responsibility
of our secretary to represent us there, and our tradition has
been to cover the full cost of attendance for secretary and
spouse. 2007's meeting was a lot closer to us geographically than
2009's will be, and I see the associated expenses other than
travel rising, not staying level. I have asked the Green Mountain
Chapter for any information they can provide, but have heard
nothing so far. I know that I may not be comfortable personally
covering the costs of representing us.
$100 Surprises. I
suggest this as a minimum cushion to cover unanticipated
miscellany.
Total Expenses anticipated ~$1700.
Income anticipated ~$ 790. at best plus future seminars' net.
Net: - ~$900 shortfall
(Whoops.)
The December 2008 IO distribution turned out to be $289.-
Present status:
Petty cash ~$0
Checking ~ $1005.-
So we seem to have liquidity. Round it down to $900 to cover
miscellany, including the annual auditing fee. However, this
figure still is somewhat illusory. . .
We owe: $525- for prepaid seminar registrations by Charles
Johnson, Pete Bowers, and Jim Yeoman. True, none of them is
insisting on repayment, and at least some have generously invited
us to treat the registration fees as contributions. Still, we do
owe them, at the least, the ability to apply the money toward
future seminars–figures to be subtracted from our
anticipated gross income.
Preliminary Status Evaluation: Cash flow deficit anticipated:
~$0. minus any future seminars' net.
Theoretical cash flow deficit:$525. minus any future seminars'
net.
~$500
.
We own a small box of 2005 Code books and one 2005 Code change
book (changes from the 2002 NEC, of course). Value maybe $400.
Net status if we liquidate that resource at valuation as well:
$500-$400= ~$100 deficit -February seminar net.
Potential Additional Sources of income:
Pete generously
offered to teach a master exam prep class co-sponsored by the
local IEC chapter and us; this could bring in money–easily
enough to cover the potential deficit. This did not happen.
Wayne
very generously offered to co-sponsor a number of seminars,
publicized by notices to his many former students, and split the
income with the chapter–potentially thousands. As a result
of the one that took place, we are not facing a serious deficit.
Still, as of early March, 2009, while many have expressed
interest, this is not yet true of sign-ups.
Further successful seminars could put us handily ahead, back
where we were some years ago.
Hence the budget I offer must consider a theoretical deficit
on the order of $500, minus future seminars' net, if we don’t
generate additional income as we have in the past.
There are two simple ways I see of resolving this and
balancing the numbers, in the event that the theoretical should
turn into the actual. One is to rely on the good grace of those
who registered for seminars that had to be canceled–all
loyal members--and just not concern ourselves about that $500.
The other is to set Eastern Section participation on hold. If we
indeed bring in more income, fine; proceed as planned, or even
get behind more educational and charitable activities. If not,
either I see whether I personally can eat the cost of going
there, as I did last year; or a substantial part of it. Either
would be harder this year. Another is that we find someone from
this area who plans to go anyhow and then we figure out a way
that will allow him or her take my place; or we simply don’t
take our place at the meeting.
There might be ways I can shave the cost, too. This year, for
example, some hotel slight-of-hand enabled me to save us over
$100 in room costs. It was perfectly legal and ethical, and
fortunately, minimally inconvenient. Conference hotel:
$255/night; hotel next door, $143/night for the night before the
conference, when I had to be in town in order to make the
morning’s board meeting.
I not only represent our chapter but chair the section’s
bylaws committee, and provide secretarial assistance to the
American Council on Electrical Safety (ACES), which is IAEI's
guest. However, the Bylaws committee has two other members, and
even with respect to the committee, my participation is not
essential. (After all, if we should request a change in our
chapter’s bylaws, we have to be recused from participation
in that particular decision by the committee.) As for my support
of ACES, it is not a chapter matter, and is provided only as
available.
If we subtract what was paid toward canceled seminars, we come
very close to even, assuming that IO disbursements don’t
drop.
If we subtract the entire figure budgeted for Section
participation, we do come out ahead for the year.
I do believe this covers us against reasonable contingencies.
Submitted February 2009.
LOCATION
Directions to the Capital Lighting &
Supply Central Distribution Center/Headquarters
8511 Pepco
Place | Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
Phone: 301-909-6500
Leave the Capitol Beltway at Exit 11A onto Route 4,
Pennsylvania Avenue South/East.
Now go about a tenth of
a mile and then turn Left at the first light, Westphalia
Road.
Next, take an almost immediate Right (just before
the Citgo gas station) onto Pennsylvania Avenue’s Service
Road.
Just as a location pointer, Sunbelt Rentals is located
at 8400 Pennsylvania Ave.
Drive directly by Sunbelt Rentals
and take the next Left, onto Pepco Place.
Travel to the
end of Pepco Place - Past the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of
Carpenters, about 1/10th of a mile, and drive into our host’s
parking lot. Parking is immediately in front of their building,
on either side.
Next Most Recent Meeting
George
Washington Chapter meeting November 18 at our new location, 8511
Pepco Place, Capital Lighting and Supply’s warehouse and
training center, courtesy of Capital’s Jordan Laycook.
Attending:
6 Associate members;
3 Nonmembers;
3
Inspector members;
Plus our presenters--2 visiting Inspector
members
We got started around 6:30, with a brief facility tour. After
this, Chapter President Jim Wooten prayed, and then decided to
put off the scheduled business meeting in order to proceed with
the evening’s featured speakers.
Educational Program:
Code Making Panel (CMP) 7 Member John Cangemi, from UL, and
CMP 1 Chairman Gil Moniz, from the National Electrical
Manufacturers’ Association (NEMA), kept us glued to our
seats. They talked with us for the better part of three hours
about not only the 2008 NEC but the evolution of the rules, going
back multiple Code cycles; and also about product standards,
listing, CE marks, and products that need to be installed and
inspected despite the lack of explicit Code coverage or Listing.
Some rules, they noted, have requirements that flipped back
and forth form one Code edition to the next. Swimming pool power
is one example, with GFCI protection required or not depending on
the use of hard-wiring versus twist-lock receptacles in
progression from 1999 through 2008.
Gil’s first challenge of the evening came when he
casually mentioned that New York State enforces different
electrical codes depending on whether a job is residential or
commercial. David Shapiro asked how this contrasts with the
situation in Ohio, which received rather bad press in IAEI News.
Gil explained that historically in Ohio, a review committee had
examined and then recommended acceptance of each NEC revision, as
representing the best doctrine available. This time, however,
politics had intervened after the fact, causing them to
backpedal. In New York State, on the other hand, the legislature
has accepted the International Code Council’s documents,
the International Construction Code (ICC) and International
Residential Code (IRC). The IRC defers to the 2002 NEC where
issues are not addressed in the IRC, while the ICC has been
updated explicitly to reference the 2005 NEC.
Jim commented that this would be a horror for an inspector;
Gil agreed. Furthermore, he added, all license tests are based on
the 2008 NEC, which isn’t applied at all to inspections.
Gil followed this with an example where complying with the NEC
will leave a job in violation of the Code in force. The ICC’s
Existing Building Code relaxes the electrical requirement for
locating receptacles. On the other hand, to address service it
defers to the IRC proper. Here comes the problem. Consider a
building with a stone foundation, and a service at the bottom
level. The NEC relaxes the requirement for headroom at 200 amp or
smaller services in existing buildings. However, if you are
replacing service equipment under the IRC, there’s no such
exception.
Another example he pointed out where some irregularity is
found is Philadelphia. Pennsylvania adopted the ICC for
electrical work, but Philadelphia enforces the NEC. One little
step they happened to omit is to apply to the Department of Labor
and Industry for an exception to the statewide rule.
In Maryland, Gil noted, electrical inspection is generally in
good shape in terms of its basic reference document: at least the
NEC is the accepted standard. This is thanks to the office of the
State Fire Marshal. Wayne Robinson noted that there is a lot of
pressure on the Fire Marshal to budge, though.
Here is where Gil and others started to discuss the politics
of safety. One meeting in Rochester, he noted, was packed with
firefighters in uniform seeking to have a sprinkler requirement
added to the IRC. Even the building officials who might have
supported the requirement voted against it because they felt
uncomfortable with the pressure from this group. The next time,
in Minneapolis, even more firefighters attended the meeting, but
not a uniform was to be seen. This time the sprinkler proposal
passed, and so the 2009 IRC finally incorporates this
requirement.
Pete Bowers noted how politics screws up safety efforts in DC
similarly. For 15 years advisory committees have looked at ways
to improve the situation, and he’s sat on most of them.
He’s seen how those with power resist giving up authority,
even when they don’t have the expertise to make the best
decisions.
Now Gil moved on to an issue that has come up as the result of
utility policies around the country. Increasingly, utilities
shift substations from their own ownership and responsibility to
that of their larger customers. In consequence, jurisdictional
inspectors become responsible for passing on these installations.
Formerly, the work was guided by the National Electrical Safety
Code, the NESC. Most jurisdictions, though, do not specifically
adopt the NESC into law. While Section 90.2 used to have a fine
print note suggesting that we look to the NESC for guidance, even
this is gone. What’s an inspector to do?
One answer we were offered is to ask the owner what ANSI
standard the equipment was built under. Ultimately, where the NEC
is mum, we need to evaluate whether its installation complies
with that standard. If the manufacturer is known and reputable, a
call to them will supply lots of handy information. The
manufacturer will be able to identify the project name, and
locate the drawings and the engineer responsible for them.
John pointed out that going to the AHJ for initial concept
review helps a lot. None of the inspectors present, though,
offered that service. Wayne noted that regardless of which side
of the service point high-voltage equipment is located on, he
lays responsibility for such equipment installed in Prince
George’s County on the serving utility. Tony Crimi said
this is what Eaton generally sees.
Continuing to look at Article 90, Gil talked about the changes
from the 1993 NEC forward in the description of what
installations are not covered. Is there a laundry list plus an
fpn, no fpn, does it add locations covered by whatever agreements
putting them under utility control, or, in accordance with a
proposal by Wayne accepted in the 2008 code, remove the term “or
other agreements” so that any lighting installation that a
utility wants exempted from NEC coverage and AHJ inspection at
least has to be covered by an easement registered with the
County. Gil noted that there are quite a few proposals to change
it again.
Wayne expressed concern over agreements regulated solely by a
Public Utility Commission (PUC), because PUC appointments are
political, members being selected by the governor.
Gil moved forward now to Article 100. “Clothes Closet”
now is defined, under the 2008 NEC. However, to Gil it is clear
that this definition can be applied to inform the judgment of
inspectors working under earlier versions of the NEC, because it
is a definition, not a new rule.
David broke in here, asking where else this approach makes
sense: is it limited to Article 100 definitions? We agreed that
it is not. Wayne mentioned that NFPA 20 rules for fire pump
controllers now are written more clearly than they had been.
Because this is clarification, not revision, he feels comfortable
applying the later version of this as well.
We went down a side path here for a few minutes. David’s
original counter-example to Gil’s point about new
definitions informing earlier versions of the Code was the rule
requiring circuit labeling that is specific enough to be useful
and reliable. Gil said that as a contractor, he used to spread
out all equipment instructions on the kitchen counter, and make
notes for a circuit directory on the cardboard box that the
loadcenter came in. At night, he’d take this home and type
up a directory. (Tony came in for some chiding from the floor
over the inadequate space manufacturers provide for circuit
identification.)
Pete interrupted, saying that this was the practice of an
older generation. Nowadays, the cardboard would be ripped up, and
installation instructions trashed. Gil countered that in his
experience sitting on the board of the local vocational school
over the last three years the kids have been topnotch, engaged.
What a difference. This is true in all three classes (years).
Previously he found only two or three interested kids to a class,
with the rest of the students very disappointing to a committed
instructor. Pete commented that this latter, frustrating case has
represented his experience in various teaching contexts. Gil
noted that he knows of one large contractor who keeps a
behavioral scientist on retainer to get employees socialized to
act the way they should be expected to.
Someone made a crack about circuit directories in foreign
languages. Gil responded that the New York City code explicitly
states that they must be in English–not that there’s
anything wrong with adding information in additional languages.
Bonding and grounding came next, with a reminded of the
difference between the two, and a note about the new definition
of “neutral.” Pete asked the reason for the
resistance to adopting into Code a standard color code for
ungrounded conductors. Gil said that such a standard was removed
quite a while back--from the 1964 Code--because there were
somewhat differing systems in actual use at the time. Also, it
doesn’t account for larger conductors that commonly are
sold simply in black. Besides coloring, tagging with numbers or
letters is a reasonable option. However, whatever the system, it
needs to be posted at each panelboard.
Wayne saw every benefit to requiring a consistent system of
identifying all conductors by system and phase not only in
feeders, as now required by Section 212.15(C), but also in branch
circuits. Gil pointed out a disadvantage: should this become
Code, if you discover that the loads are imbalanced, and want to
swap some circuits between phases, you would have to change the
conductor colors.
We next talked about grounding electrodes and grounding
electrode conductors. Wayne, like many of us, never has seen an
actual installation using a chemical electrode. Pete has
installed some of these for data centers that specified ground
resistance of less than one ohm, but has never been asked to come
back to replenish the electrodes’ depleted chemicals. Wayne
knows of some that have monitors which will notify you as the
electrodes’ resistance rises. Gil mentioned that cellular
phone towers include such maintenance as part of their standard
operating procedure.
John took over now, to talk about the UL White Book and
product standards. He pointed out Flexible Lighting Products,
which are found on Page 160 of the 2008 volume. It says that they
are not intended to be relamped, field-modified, or permanently
mounted. An important distinction needs to be made between these
and decorative lighting strings, the holiday lights intended for
temporary use--not to exceed 90 days.
The idea of not being designed for permanent mounting means
that you are not supposed to take Flexible Lighting Products
apart to screw them in place, similar to Relocatable Power Taps
(which actually were discussed a bit later). The latter used to
be known as “Temporary” but “Relocatable”
was a preferred term–to clarify that they are not suitable
for use on construction sites along with other temporary power
uses. Their keyhole openings mean that they remain capable of
being lifted and moved. Incidentally, while they might contain
surge arrestors, unless they are labeled as transient voltage
surge suppressors and specify the protection they offer in terms
of the voltage level, they have not been investigated for any
protection of this sort. What one of these is investigated for is
having the size of conductors and other components corresponding
to the rating of the receptacles it contains, so that a Listed
Relocatable Power Tap won’t be dangerously overloaded by
equipment designed with plugs fitting its receptacles. Wayne
noted that this type of product used to ignite when its Metal
Oxide Varistor(s) died. John agreed, and mentioned that
solid-state equipment tends to suffer “avalanche
breakdown.” He noted that nowadays they meet one new
requirement, to withstand a certain number of surges; and
another, to have a safe end-of-life mode.
John noted that he had some trouble recalling the category
applying to “flexible lighting products.” He pointed
out that if you access it online, you find one improvement over
using the index to the printed White Book: word-search
capability. The 2008 White Book is cross-referenced to both the
2008 and the 2005 versions of the NEC.
The issue of tamper-resistant receptacles came up as we were
given the opportunity to examine some unusual receptacle covers.
These were designed to give a standard duplex receptacle an
appearance closer to a decora receptacle, in part by sitting in
front of its two faces. The problem with this is that attachment
plugs need to fit into a receptacle far enough to make adequate
contact, and this restricts covers from blocking more than 1 mm.
of their length from entering. Part of the history of this, it
turns out, has to do with the holes traditionally found toward
the ends of flat plug blades. These used to mate with dimples
inside the corresponding spring metal blades inside receptacles,
to ensure positive contact. Metallurgical developments made these
unnecessary, so the requirement for inserting full blade length
to match them up has been supplanted by functional tests.
Nonetheless, UL was uncomfortable with listing such covers.
Similarly, to date no covers (as opposed to receptacles) have
been brought to UL that satisfied all the requirements for
tamper-resistance.
The question of tamper-resistant IG and clock receptacles was
raised; our presenters were not aware of any being available. Gil
noted that there are listed poke-through floor fittings whose
covers block the receptacles’ fronts to protect them. The
reason these carry the UL label is that each of these is
investigated as a unit–box, receptacle, and cover.
Next Wayne brought up a concern about listed equipment whose
installation, to his mind, clearly violates the NEC. He takes
issue with panelboards that contain breakers for both normal
sources and standby or emergency sources, with no separation. In
case of fire, he fears, connection to both is likely to be lost.
Richard Panizari has come up against this concern of Wayne’s–and
Wayne’s the man who gets to say yea or nay. Gil kept
arguing that the breakers in these units, at least those that
serve the alternate sources, are not disconnects but isolating
switches, and therefore exempt from the requirement for
separation.
We moved on to a discussion of bonds, grounds, and neutrals.
We agreed that bonding conductors, like grounding electrode
conductors, can be bare–or covered with insulation of any
color. Gil reminded us that grounded conductors of
corner-grounded systems are not neutrals.
Gil helped confirm an interesting point for Wayne:
supplementary overcurrent devices do not have to be considered in
selective coordination. His perspective is that essentially they
are part of the equipment.
During the course of the evening Wayne, notably, identified a
number of violations in the IAEI Archives pictures used to
illustrate the talk: violations that were not at all what the
pictures were intended to illustrate. Our presenters acknowledged
that this happens often.
We moved on to Section 240.86(A), where Gil noted that one
aspect often is overlooked: using series-rated protective systems
whose combinations are selected under engineering supervision,
rather than by the manufacturer, is permitted only in existing
installations.
On we went to the unfolding of another set of rules from 1999
forward: the need for two entrances, and for panic hardware, in
electric rooms. Pete commented that at one point, “sharpies”
would install 800 amp and 1200 amp equipment side by side, so as
not to have 1200 amp equipment and trigger the rule. Wayne noted
that panic hardware is cheap, so what’s the big deal? Gil
responded that the problem is door swing. Replacing a door is not
so simple, when it opens into a corridor needed for evacuation,
one that doesn’t have room to accommodate the door’s
swing out.
We had a comment on Labor being the source for a couple of
rules. Some rumbling was heard in response, but Gil said they had
documented “bodies”; the CMP examined the cases and
found them legitimate. One is the internal all-conductor
disconnects for two-ended fluorescents. Here Wayne, surprisingly,
chimed in with support. He’s not known as a softie, but in
this case he agreed: it’s worth the trouble to kill all
power. He spent time in a coronary care unit, he said, due to
getting hung up between some badly cut BX and a ground; he
commented with a smile that hitting the concrete may be what
restarted his heart.
We were coming to the end of John and Gil’s slides now,
and the patient audience was getting a bit restive. A question
came up about wiring channels, now that Lighting and Appliance
panels are no more. Tony said that in going from 40 to 60 circuit
loadcenters, the wireway widths are extending from 20" to
28. Wayne gave Tony another nudge by commenting that jobs tend to
sit on hold for some time waiting for engineers to come up with
selective coordination designs, and they tend to end up with
fuses.
With the last slide, we applauded our presenters, and Jim made
some noises about a business meeting. However, most of us were
getting up to leave.
That was it for the evening, which wrapped up very shortly
before 10 PM. Fortunately, the IO-required treasurer’s
report was handled by a list printed as part of the distributed
agenda. Jim made noises about calling a special meeting of the
executive board to address other business items.
NEW FEATURE!
NEW FEATURE! Boy, we learn a lot at the annual Code Workshops
put on by IAEI’s Sections! At the Eastern Section, one
benefit everyone who shows up on time gets is chewing over a
half-dozen or so Codes and Standards questions each morning over
breakfast. What I think is, why should you miss out on this fun
and learning? Here are a first few questions for you to ponder.
Look for more in future mailings. At each meeting, I’ll
pass out (my understanding of) the answers that the group of
mavens came up with at the Code breakfasts. For those questions
whose answers may differ depending on which jurisdiction you’re
working in, I’ll talk about at least the 2005 as well as
the 2008 NEC. The answers also go on our web site, eventually, in
the meeting’s minutes. For some Code questions, just as for
some that come up in the field, you may need to go online, or
look in your White Book, as well as into your NEC.
These
first few are chosen with our host-and our November
presenters--in mind.
1) GFPE: Articles 426 and 427 talk of providing not
GFCI but GFPE for protection of snow/ice/pipeline/vessel heating
equipment. Suppose the customer has an oddball panel, and they’re
watching their pennies. They don’t want to replace the
panel-preferably not even install a subpanel. You go to the
distributor: can one find CBs manufactured nowadays offering GFPE
that are legitimately Classified for use in other manufacturers’
panels?
Answer: Yes, potentially. Many have been submitted for
such classification and failed their tests. All major
manufacturers’ web sites will tell you where their CB s are
Classified.
2) AFCIs: Installing AFCIs on lots of
circuits may add a whole lot of unnecessarily long leads running
from them to the neutral bar or, contrarily, having to bring
circuits’ return conductors a lot further into a panel than
you have needed to in the past. Given this, is there any issue
with shortening or splicing extensions on to the neutral leads of
AFCI or GFCI or switched-neutral CBs? Also, AFCIs run a little
warm; is this panelboard going to overheat?
5) If properly
installed, they may run warmer than standard CBs, but they and it
and the wiring will stay well within design parameters. What's
more, it's perfectly legal for you to trim any excess wire from
those leads.
3) Too Clever? Underground Schedule 80,
NMRC, is damaged. The electrician wants to pull back the wires
and, rather than glue on a regular coupling to add the extension,
glue on an expansion coupling (to be buried when the floor is
patched); he believes this fitting will make the repair easier.
If he buys this instead, will he end up p’ed off because
the inspector has to reject the work, or is this use in keeping
with the Listing of an expansion fitting?
No violation. The
Listing of expansion fittings says nothing to restrict this use.
Next Most Recent Meeting
This is the report of the meeting of the George Washington
Chapter on Tuesday, September 16, 2008. Attendees included six
associate members, six inspector members, one visiting
contractor, and three allied professionals--our presenter and two
associates.
At 6:38, Jim called the meeting to order and prayed. Then we
got to business.
Business
Location, location
Wayne Robinson has arranged for the hospitality of Prince
George's County for quite some time now, and has faced rather a
struggle to do so. Tonight, despite his having reserved the
meeting room for us with plenty of notice, he had to evict a
different group's meeting in order to accommodate ours. He is
giving up this battle.
As of this writing, we're homeless. However, Ed Holt
volunteered to contact PEPCO, in the hope that we can secure the
use of their meeting facility in Forestville. (N.B. See
"Next Local Meeting," above, for the actual new
location.)
Seminars
Since it was announced, a total of eight people showed
commitment to Wayne's rescheduled "2008 NEC Changes"
seminar. Thud. Wayne was philosophical about this, commenting on
the number of such seminars already offered by various
organizations.
The one other seminar that has been talked about seriously was
the Master's Exam preparation which Pete Bowers volunteered to
teach, sponsored in conjunction with the IEC, at their location.
No formal financial report was requested or presented, but
David mentioned that our kitty is in bad shape. Hope flowers,
though. In the past, seminars served as the primary source of
money for our budget. The few dollars needed to put out mailings
are more than covered by the International Office's distribution
to the chapter from member dues. Besides, nowadays the cost of
member notifications generally is very modest, thanks to most
members' agreeing to accept email notification. However, the IO
disbursement dollars are nothing like what is needed to pay for
representation at Section meetings. The chapter's tradition is to
cover the out-of-pocket expenses: registration, lodging (which
category includes meals), and where far away, travel. Presenting
any seminar, at least without importing paid speakers, carries
the likelihood that we will be able to partly restore the bank
account.
Community Service
The last main item of business addressed before the technical
presentation was an update on the Safety Smart children's
program. It has taken a long time to get to this part of IAEI's
purpose. The kit was ordered the day after the meeting. It
arrived quickly, and as soon as training can be completed, Pete
and David will look to start teaching Middle Schoolers. Because
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. no longer is underwriting part of
the cost, the kit is rather more expensive than expected, but
Pete and David will kick in the shortfall beyond what was
authorized. Once we've taught a number of classes--90
children--supplies also will need to be replenished. Wayne
volunteered to cover the next supply order out of his pocket.
In one other matter, Shirley asked the status of D.C.'s
electrical inspectors. David reported, based on what he had read,
that the general housing inspectors had been fired for not
passing the ICC tests. Pete added the information Shirley sought
(which David had not known, despite sharing Pete's distinction of
being a DCRA-approved third-party inspector): Pete reported that
all but two of the District's electrical inspectors are gone as
well.
Photovoltaics: Code and Safety
Issues
Educational Program
The line-up
Kerinia Cusick. M.E. (Senior Executive, Huthwaite PR),
representing the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) in our
area, promised us a mini-seminar on inspecting photovoltaic
installations. While a talk outline was promised, and a biography
of the presenter, the well-known expert who had planned to teach
us was called out of the country on urgent family business, so it
was just as well that no such materials had been posted on our
web site. Regardless of this, Kerinia had assured us of a
valuable presentation, and this most certainly is what we
received.
Bill Poulin, Director of Products and Services for BP
Solar--yes, the entire shebang--has been with BP Solar and their
predecessor for 29 years. He came down all the way from
Frederick, Maryland to spend the evening with us. And we kept him
a good, long time. What's more, Peter Lowenthal, Executive
Director of the local SEIA group, who has been part of it for 20
years, joined us for the evening, and offered his knowledge as
appropriate.
Extras from Peter Lowenthal
Even before Bill began enriching our technical education,
Peter dangled additional training opportunities before us--"us"
meaning any members who so choose. As details become available
they will be posted at http://www.mdv-seia.org/events.html .
Since Bill's talk was oriented largely around BP's product and
the NEC, Peter offered some additional perspective on what
is available locally. Sun Edison is also active in our area,
selling not PV equipment or even installations, but rather the
power derived from PV equipment. They negotiate this in contracts
with a property-owner, when they find a commercial customer with
enough roof footage to make it worth their while. They install
the equipment on customers' buildings, charging nothing for the
installation, retaining ownership of it, and merely selling its
output. An intriguing concept, concerning which it would have
been fun to learn a great deal more.
Peter also talked about the support that Maryland's present
governor provides for alternate energy programs. Sun Edison's
rooftops program hinges on the tax credits to make it
economically rewarding. Bill added that not just anybody can
apply for Maryland's state energy incentive grants: the signature
of a licensed electrician is needed for the grant to be
processed.
Later in the evening, to continue on the theme of
practical economics, we were assured that the price of modules is
likely to resume its pattern of dropping over time, after having
leveled out due to a temporary shortage of the refined silicon
material needed for the crystalline-type diodes.
Installation Basics, Code Issues, and Safety,
Safety, Safety
Standards and their effects
Bill started his technical presentation by emphasizing that PV
panels, if not the rest of the systems, are expected to last 25
years and longer. That's 25 years of supplying up to 600 Volts
DC, with much of the equipment and wiring system continually
exposed to the outdoors. Moreover, Article 690 is dealing with an
item that is putting out voltage all the time when sunlight hits
it. He reported that his company has a contract with the Home
Depot chain, and they have fired more dealers, for reasons such
as safety violations, than they have retained.
(Despite this,
Wayne still reported that he has observed pretty bad systems
coming out of PV installers working out of Home Depots.)
Bill
contrasted ANSI/UL 1703, the U.S. standard covering solar panels,
and IEC standards 61215 and 61730, the International
Electrotechnical Commission standards. UL 1703 covers safety. It
may test a panel to destruction, and if throughout this the panel
(or other component) doesn't pose a hazard, it can pass. It is
not required to function by the end of the testing. The IEC
standards, in contrast, add in performance requirements. At this
point David expressed concern about the validity of the
certification process when the IEC standards are employed. Bill
clarified the difference between two European markings,those
associated with IEC and CE standards. Furthermore, he took this
opportunity to inform us that while the European CE standards
used to allow manufacturers to self-certify compliance, he
believes that at some point in 2008 a requirement for third-party
certification was added. Subsequently, at the meeting of the
American Council on Electrical Safety (ACES) hosted this year at
the IAEI Southern Section's Annual Meeting, this appears to have
been contradicted. In fact, the European Commission has
requested--in an agreement signed on our end by George W. Bush in
April 2007, that OSHA accept a manufacturer's statement, a
Supplier Declaration of Conformity (SDoC), represented by the CE
mark, as a substitute for testing by a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory. Further information is available at the
site where OSHA published the request that the public supply
evidence-supported arguments favoring or opposing this move. The
site gives ample background too, discussing the present status of
the European model, as of late October, 2008. The Comment
Period will close on Tuesday, January 20.
Now Bill moved on to inverters. The standard applicable to
them is UL 1741. One critical requirement is provision of an
anti-islanding feature, which guaranteesthat they will not
backfeed into a utility system that is down. All inverter units
manufactured by the reputable companies are designed to handily
exceed all utility requirements in this regard. When the
inverters' circuits are restored after having been have been
disconnected for whatever reason, they will self-start, taking a
period of four or five minutes. It takes them this long to synch
tightly to the utility frequency and voltage--within the tight
limits to which they are designed to hold. An inverter, whether
single- or three-phase, actually is designed to put out slightly
higher voltage than it senses from the utility, so as to be able
to feed power into the utility system and run the customer's
meter backwards, as intended.
Bill shared a deep, dark secret: utilities
have been known to provide overvoltage to customers in the
middle of a run that tends to be subject to heavy draws, so that
by the time their lines reach the end of the run, the effect of
voltage drop has not reduced the normally available utility
voltage to brownout level.
This can have an unfortunate
effect on a PV system. When the inverter tries to match this
utility input, it may hit the ceiling of its design voltage
output. When this happens, it drops out. This shutdown may
appear to the customer as a failure of the inverter, when it
actually represents proper operation of a safety feature.
Another common reason for an array to appear
to have failed is that an overcurrent device has operated. An
inverter has a fuse for each string of modules feeding it;
fortunately, there are indicating features to let you know when
a fuse has blown.
Because the modules in a string are in
series, if one module should develop an open connection, the
string will stop delivering power to the inverter. It will of
course still be producing voltage up on the roof so long as
light is hitting it, on either side of the open, amounting to
the sum of the open circuit voltage of whatever modules remain
in series. Large, commercial systems will have means of locating
a problem to a particular module.
Last, if the array gets too
hot, say around noon, it will shut down till it cools.
Other design elements
In addition to these features, inverters
adjust their impedance so as to draw whatever ratio of current
versus voltage will yield the maximum power available at any
moment from the PV arrays, given the radiation hitting them,
their temperature, and any other relevant factors.
Temperature is quite an important factor:
the cooler the diodes that make up PV arrays, the more
efficiently they function. For this reason, if aesthetic
considerations permit, the arrays will be raised off the roof so
as to allow air to circulated underneath. The wiring can be
given some degree of protection by securing it to the underside
of the arrays. While concentrators will focus much, much more
light onto an array than mere exposure under the sun, they also
put much more heat on the arrays, reducing efficiency from
perhaps 15% to maybe 5%--thus considerably reducing the benefit
of the brighter light.
Batteries
Batteries were not a serious element of the
evening's talk. Wayne mentioned seeing quite a few installations
that incorporated battery backup, and mentioned the fact that
Article 517 allows a PV system with battery storage to serve as
as an emergency power source. Still, Bill was not talking about
buildings with the stand-alone systems favored by what you may
have heard affectionately termed "solar hippies," or
even about systems where batteries serve as optional backup. At
least 95% of the systems he sees are battery-less, because, he
commented, diesel generators are a cheaper way to get the
security of a backup power source.
Further technical details
One of the first questions an installer
needs to address, for practical reasons, is where and how to
install modules. Roof-mounting can be far less expensive than
ground-mounting, because of the need in the latter case to build
a structure, from foundation up, that will last. On the other
hand, not every roof is suitable. A roof with less than 15 or 20
years of life left to it needs to be replaced before being
utilized for a solar array. While a PV array shields a roof, and
thereby keeps it alive longer than it would if directly exposed
to the sun and weather, replacing it once a PC array has been
installed is quite a production. Of necessity this involves the
temporary removal of the array and its supporting structure
before the roof can be worked on.
The next question is where
on a roof to mount the array. Locating arrays where the
supporting structure could collapse under their weight, or where
the roof might be peeled off by the lift of wind hitting them,
is illegal. This latter issue can depend on many factors,
including the lay of the land nearby, the roof's pitch, the
array's position, the house's location, wind speed, snow load,
and likely live load of people walking on the roof. When in
doubt, consult a structural engineer. For $500., or up to $1000
if the situation is particularly complicated, the location can
be fully assessed as to its adequacy for the purpose of
supporting a specific array. Generally, the supporting
structures holding the arrays--using stainless steel hardware,
and carefully bonded for lightning protection, are bolted right
through to roof joists. The UL standard specifies that modules
themselves be designed with a minimum ability to withstand 45
pounds per square foot of lift. Some illegal designs have
included arrays cantilevered over the edges of roofs-- generally
they need to be kept back from the edge at least three percent
of the width of the roof.
Generally the supporting structures that are
sold for PV arrays are overdesigned. This cannot be said for
home-designed and -manufactured, catch-as-catch-can inventions.
Wood, even pressure-treated wood, hasn't a chance of lasting as
long as the array--some has rotted through within 10 years--and
even angle iron bolted together in haphazard arrangements, can
fail.
There's nothing illegal about setting arrays
where they are shadowed by structural elements, or trees, or the
lay of the land. However, while getting some kind of full sun
means they will generate their rated voltage, they will be a lot
further from earning back their cost of installation if mounted
where the light hitting them is weaker, or where full sun hits
them for fewer hours each day.
Bill passed around a non-functioning module
to get us familiar with its looks and connectors. He commented
on the requirement for locking connectors, and the way some
connectors only approximate this. He also showed us some basic
graphs. and formulas, to get us familiar with thinking about PV.
These included a discussion of the diodes' function and a
description of the terms used. V [sub] mp is the voltage
produced under standard test conditions, which include 1 kW of
incident energy per square meter; this is familiarly known as
"One Sun," and no, it certainly is not the maximum
sunlight that may hit an array. However, when more sunlight can
reasonably be anticipated, just as when more extreme
temperatures can be anticipated, the designer needs to
recalculate the voltage. The AHJ, Bill emphasized, has the right
to request those calculations and the manufacturer's
instructions.
Maintenance
Maintenance involves elements such as
checking the wiring and connections, making sure mechanical
connectors such as bolts are secure, and simple soap-and-water
cleaning. How often modules need to be cleaned depends on the
area in which you are working, but dust can reduce output by as
much as 10%. This allows calculation of the return on investment
from cleaning on various schedules, depending on how fast output
goes down.
Environmental effects, he agreed in response
to questions, can be more critical than merely a sprinkling of
dust. If one spot is--splat--blocked by a dead critter, or some
other opaque matter, the diodes at that point maintain high
impedance. As a result, they get awfully hot as the voltage
built up by the rest of the string tries to force current
through them. Also, there is the possibility of animals
attacking wiring. While this is not a Code nor a manufacturer's
requirement, he does recommend protecting the wire, even the
integral wire en route to the junction box where it connects to
the wiring heading inside to the inverter. Incidentally, he
noted that the conductors from each string generally will show
less than 1% voltage drop so long as they are 14 AWG or larger.
If the home run is enclosed in rigid metal conduit, the
requirement for a disconnect in sight of the array (whose value
he had trouble seeing) is eliminated, thanks to a new exception.
Critical calculations
Getting back to basic calculations, the
inverters used with most residential arrays can only accept
250-300 volts, but at least one accepts 550. The NEC
limits output to 600 volts, and this can be exceeded easily. The
number of modules in a string, all of them in series, makes a
big difference in cost of wiring and inverters, so there can be
a tendency to push the limit. In New York and New Jersey, for
example, 10 to 12 modules can be enough to reach or exceed this
limit, not to mention the ratings of the wiring and the
inverter. Once the sun has risen fully--it not need reach
anything like high noon--you get maximum output from each of the
modules, provided that they are clean and the day is as cold as
it is going to get. This is something that needs to be checked
carefully. Some charts will give you the coldest day, but in
doing this they refer to the middle of the night, not a time
when sunlight is available. The formulas for taking into account
the combination of sunlight and temperature include a factor
provided by each manufacturer.
The designer is reponsible for
obtaining the Listing information and performing the
calculations, and to be prepared to show these to the AHJ.
Competence
The presentation was not encouragement for
the contractors who were present, or who read this report, to
jump right in and present themselves as PV installers. In
addition to the comments about the considerable number of
would-be installers working out of Home Depot, there was Wayne's
note about having to send some plans back twice to the engineers
who had signed off on them. Unfortunately, at present in
Maryland, any Professional Engineer can sign off on any plans
for our work, regardless of having had or not had any related
training or education, so long as he or she claims to be
comfortable working in the applicable discipline, Electrical
Engineering.
Next there was the discussion of
certification. About the best certification available, he
advised us, is that provided by NAPSEP. To sit for the test that
results in full certification, you have to have participated in
at least two installations--and then pass the grueling five-hour
test. Only half of those who sit for this test pass it, at least
the first time around. Once certified by NAPSEP, you have to
keep up with developments, to fulfill continuing education
requirements.
Additional Resources
We have been fortunate enough to read
inspector guidelines for PV systems provided in each issue of
IAEI News, and to have John Wiles's offer of his manual
for free downloading. Bill suggested additional resources,
starting with This also provides worthwhile suggestions for
inspectors, free, he advised us, courtesty of another generous
expert. Another resource he mentioned is a well-designed text
(with accompanying CD) that the NJATC published this summer,
based in large part on materials from the Solar Energy Industry
Association. Finally, he referred us to a very active web
discussion on roof coverage versus access by Los Angeles
firefighters, with reference to the ability of firefighters to
break into the roof in order to disperse smoke if necessary.
The meeting broke up around 9:15, though we
didn't let Bill go till past 9:30. Members attending the meeting
earned a very solid 2 1/2 hours of widely accepted and
Maryland-certified Continuing Education credit.
Third Most Recent Meeting
Extensive
Deliberation Over Future Training
This is the report of our meeting on
Tuesday, May 20, 2008. Attendees included twelve associate
members, three inspector members, and one visiting mechanical
engineer.
Show-and-tell
The plan was, "Bring em in and show
them off"- your old tools, that is. Peter Bowers brought in
a slew of old testers and several other gems. Who knew that
anyone was manufacturing circuit tracers that far back? Ed Holt
brought in his pristine red eggbeater and a few other items. We
gathered around and handled them, and talked about their uses.
The term, "tools," incidentally, included some antique
connectors, including the big old springs that were the
precursors to wirenuts: Pete brought in a mostly unused box of
those. David Shapiro had promised to show his Kett drill, but
reneged--the tool has gone missing. All this happened before the
meeting got formally underway at 6:40 after Jim Wooten arrived
and signed last meeting's CEU certificates. Pete amused us with
a demonstration of 12 AWG water witching, and Jim said his
prayer. Then we got to business.
Business
Our very first and most extensive order of
business was to figure out what we are going to do as a training
organization. It was a hell of a shame that our most recent
seminar had to be canceled. A lot of members have shown their
generosity. Charles Johnson, Ron Kimble, James Yeoman and Pete
Bowers all told us to cash their seminar payments and let them
sit until we have another seminar to offer. Still, the question
on the table became, "What seminars are needed that we can
offer, and how can we offer them?"
Pete talked a fair bit about the need for
master exam preparation courses. He expressed concern about
unscrupulous masters renting the use of their licenses to
journeymen wanting to pull permits. There was much grousing and
helpless moaning about the apparent indifference of most
jurisdictions to illegal and incompetent work, even when
formally reported. True, after Pete wrote a letter of complaint,
DC stopped issuing permits for applications over Wilbur White's
signature--five or more years after White's death. Wayne said
that as of June 1 every electrical contractor in Maryland must
have a license. Theoretically, in areas such as Garrett and
Allegheny Counties, where the Middle Department Inspection
Agency, Inc. runs things, the office of the State Fire Marshal
has the power to remove MDIA's license as an inspection agency
if someone presents a formal letter of complaint regarding
MDIA's issuing permits to unlicensed contractors.
Master Electrician?
Pete believes that if journeymen had the
opportunity to bone up on whatever Code version is applicable in
the jurisdictions in which they want to pull permits, they will
be happy to take and pass the test and undercut the unscrupulous
license-renters. Ed pointed out that the College of Southern
Maryland fills classes twice a year when they offer master's
preparation courses. This confirms the existence of a need.
Ron Kimble, who has tutored many people for
the test, commented that he is selective in accepting students
for his tutelage: if someone's been doing things the wrong way
for 17 years, Ron does not expect success in knocking a clear
understanding of the actual Code rules into his head. Invited to
teach for us, he demurred. Wayne commented that he would spend
82 hours in a master exam preparation class, and emphasized that
you need a knowledgeable instructor who can answer questions,
not just someone who reads prepared material.
So it's worth doing; what about a space?
Pete will contact the Workforce Development Group downtown to
find out whether they could make a space available for our
seminar, a four-Saturday, all-day class. Instructor? David
agreed to contact IAEI to find out whether their instructors
would be available to teach such a class as a cooperative
venture; in case the IO idea falls through, Pete agreed to
teach.
2008 changes
Master's prep is far from the only training
possibility. Wayne Robinson offered us the benefit of his
knowledge three different ways. First, he agreed to re-offer his
class in 2008 Code changes in late Fall. No one had been
enforcing the 2008 locally, but Harford County Chief Inspector
Milford Badders has confirmed that his jurisdiction adopted
the 2008 NEC as of July (originally May) 14, 2008. Their
local amendments can be found at . It seems very likely that
other jurisdictions as well will adopt it before the end of the
year. A four month lead-up should give us plenty of time to get
the word out. However, the class will take place only if we can
get adequate sign-ups, with a fairly early cutoff.
You who
are reading this, take heed: if you would like to earn 10 CEUs
and sharpen your understanding of the 2008 for a very modest fee
this October, say, register your interest now by
contacting the chapter secretary.
NFPA 72
Finally, a number of senior members agreed
that contractors can get into trouble by installing fire alarm
systems in response to electrical customers' invitations. An
introduction to NFPA 72 would be valuable, even if not a
full-scale course that would qualify attendees for fire alarm
certification. No one present felt qualified to teach such a
course, but Wayne agreed to sound out a candidate he respects:
Keith Lippincott, a Fire Protection Engineer now with the
University of Maryland.
Unaccepted Changes?
Finally, David proposed offering a short
class this summer on the problems that could result from
applying a later version of the Code than the local jurisdiction
has adopted, and inadvertently violating the law. There was some
mild interest, but not enough to suggest going forward.
Kids
Now we moved to the last two business items.
David again brought up the issue of sponsoring the "I am
Safety Smart" program. The Chapter will purchase a kit for
teaching younger children, and Pete and David will start out
teaching it.
Honor
Finally, David suggested that we consider
voting Wayne an Honorary Chapter Member. Wayne immediately said
he is not interested in the honor; he can afford the annual
dues, and furthermore, although it would not be evident from his
support of our chapter, he has some issues with the
organization, which he's been a member of since October 1989.
While Wayne's extensive Code teaching is accepted by the ICC as
satisfying its CE requirements, when he sought to renew his IAEI
plan review credentials, the was told that teaching doesn't
count and he needs more Continuing Education. He was given to
understand that Executive Director Jim Carpenter would contact
him to discuss his protest, but as of our meeting, he had not
heard from the man.
Introductions
After this, we finally got around to saying
hello to some fresh faces. Our newest member, Tony Crimi, came
down from Columbia. He is well known to, and highly respected
by, a number of old-time members. Tony is a long-time sales
representative for Eaton/Cutler-Hammer, and the consensus is
that he is among the most responsive manufacturer's reps around.
Of course, introducing himself as a rep for a distribution
equipment manufacturer, he faced some questions.
David started off by asking the assembled
inspectors and installers how many honor/enforce the NEC 250.12
"Clean Surfaces" requirement, found in the following
form in the almost-identical 250.96, Bonding other enclosures,
general: "Any nonconductive, paint, enamel, or similar
coating shall be removed at threads, contact points, or contact
surfaces, or be connected by means of fittings designed so as to
make such removal unnecessary."
No one said, "Why
yes, of course." David then challenged Tony about the
possibility of using a conductive paint on panel cabinets, so
that the rule about nonconductive paint wouldn't apply.
Tony
noted that paint is only found on residential loadcenters, and
in fact ordering a commercial cabinet painted rather than
galvanized costs a premium. Someone suggested that scraping the
paint clear would result in corrosion right quickly in some
environments. David chimed in that you are expected to restore
any necessary protection. To this Tony commented that if you
want to use touch-up paint, it has to be specially packaged
nowadays; it can't be shipped as easily as it used to be.
To the surprise and consternation of the
multitude, David recounted a closely related conversation with
UL's Rich Berman on the subject of enclosure bonding. First,
locknuts are Listed for use in grounding. Duh. Second, stamped
"donut" bushings, while not Listed for outdoors use,
are indeed Listed for use in grounding. Both types of product,
provided that they are installed appropriately--concavities
facing in, suitable tightening, the obvious--will pull their
weight in carrying fault current back to trip breakers or blow
fuses. What may not be so obvious is that the rule in NEC
Section 250.12 requiring that we scrape away nonconductive
finishes is not set aside when locknuts are tightened. Even if a
manufacturer intends their locknuts to scrape away paint, they
haven't submitted this characteristic to a test at the Listing
agency and so UL, for one, has not specifically evaluated them
for this purpose. If inspectors accept real tight installations
as resulting in 'fittings designed so as to make such removal
unnecessary'--as is their right--they're not basing it on the
product standard.
While on the subject of manufacturers and
UL, Wayne pointed out that until UL 67 is updated, 60-space
residential panels such as Square D's do not comply with its
rules.
So Tony's a welcome addition not only as a
friendly, participating member but as a resource, and his
presence generated a nice bit of Code discussion. Next, we
welcomed another resource, our very patient visitor of the
evening. Kerinia Cusick is a Senior Executive with Huthwaite PR.
Kerinia, a mechanical engineer as well as a public relations
executive, came up to invite us to develop a training
partnership by co-sponsoring, helping to publicize, and issuing
CEUs for completion of workshops put on by local members of the
Solar Energy Industry Association.
This summer, Kerinia pointed out, Maryland
will be offering healthy tax breaks for solar installations.
This means, we generally agreed, that they will be more
attractive financially, and it is likely that less-experienced
installers will be installing them and inspectors who've never
had anything to do with one will have to oversee their safety.
Wayne is acutely aware of this. In Prince George's County, Wayne
requires all PV applications to be accompanied by stamped,
detailed engineer's plans. This way, the inspector knows what to
look for--both electrically and in terms of an acceptable
increase to a building's structural load.
Kerinia is talking about offering classes to
help inspectors in particular know what to look for. Wayne is
familiar with the trainers that the association has in mind, and
recognizes Jason Fisher, for one, as very knowledgeable. Jason
does workshops at Hudson Valley Community College and is a
Master Electrician. Isaac Opalinski, the other, regularly looks
through IAEI News. Kerinia wanted to know whether we
would be interested in co-sponsoring such training.
The
consensus was clearly "Yes!"
Should we charge attendees, and if so how
much?
How can we attract the inspectors to attend?
These
questions led to rather more discussion. The general sense was
that while the vast majority of inspectors won't pay (well,
okay, perhaps a few bucks toward lunch), if there's enough
detailed material for installers to learn what inspectors are
likely to look for, they will attend, and will be more than
willing to pay a reasonable fee.
Wayne recommended that Kerinia go directly
to the jurisdictions, to see whether individual jurisdictions
will sponsor trainings and assign their inspectors to attend.
The workshops can't be very lengthy, though. Inspection
departments keep a close eye on how many of their paid hours
inspectors spend away from the field. Even better, go to the
State. If they will sign on to the concept and pay the costs,
municipalities will be more likely to pick it up.
David suggested that while CEUs are required
for master electricians who want to keep up their licenses, and
for IAEI-certified inspectors, in the ordinary course of things
municipal inspectors don't need CEUs to keep on working. Wayne
noted, though, that both PG and Montgomery Counties offer a
modest pay premium to those inspectors who maintain ICC
licensure; other jurisdictions may do similarly.
Most unusually, we never got to the
evening's planned educational component. We took a break around
8 PM; when we reconvened, the conversations were going so hot
and heavy that we decided to postpone the presentation on
Article 680 that Wayne had generously stepped in to offer after
our previously scheduled performer bailed.
The only other
item of business was Jim's complaint that we are not listed as
CE providers for PG County. Wayne gave David the name and
mailing information to send a request to be added to the list.
(The application has been mailed; the application to be
recognized by Virginia as a CE provider had been mailed earlier.
Neither has elicited a response as of this writing.)
Next Most Recent Meeting
This
is the report of our meeting on Tuesday, March 18, 2008. We had
six associate members, four inspector members, and five
non-member apprentices.
Dimmers and Other Lighting Controls
Two representatives of One Source Associates, Inc., Mark Koehler
and Vince Pearl, discussed Lutron dimmers, dimmer boards, dimmer
panels and dimmers in general, touching on daylight harvesting.
Early
on, they made the point that dimming incandescents so as to give
up 10% of the light will save 10% of the energy, but will double
lamp life. The standard level of 40% dimming will extend lamp
life 13 times; 50% dimming extends lamp life 20 times.
We
learned that the man who founded Lutron invented the modern
dimmer, in the 1960s. We also learned that all Lutron products
are designed to be backwards-compatible. (No, if you install a
dimmer with the switch facing backwards, into the box, besides
not protecting the wires this is not compatible with operating
the handle, chum.)
They
showed and talked about a number of innovations. They offer a
device containing a stacked pair of dimmers, or a dimmer and a
timer, or a dimmer and a photosensor-operated night light, on a
single yoke. They also offer a dimmer that is mated with a
uniquely-shaped receptacle that matches a uniquely-shaped plug
to be used to replace the plug on a floor lamp. This averts the
risk of dimming a receptacle and, for example, plugging a
motorized appliance into it, with unhappy consequences for
appliance and dimmer. One system will dim from up to 9
locations, unlike standard 3-way switching, will only will
permit dimming from one location. They own the frequency used in
their radio-frequency control system, and it automatically sets
the particular signal it uses, to eliminate the risk of
interference by other units used by neighbors.
What
no one has, at present, is a dimmer that can be used to do a
reasonable job of full-range dimming for standard compact
fluorescents, or for fluorescents generally, across the board. A
specific dimming ballast must be matched with a specific dimmer.
However, every dimmer Lutron manufactures is available in a
version designed to control 3-wire dimming fluorescent ballasts.
But
will the dimmers die on you if somethng shorts? All Lutron
dimmers are rated to withstand the IEEE/ANSI test of 6000 volts
and 200 amps. Dimming panel based equipment is rated at 6000
volts and 3000 amps.
Goodies They
discussed and distributed Pass & Seymour plugtail
receptacles and tamper-resistant GFCIs. The latter earned them a
thorough razzing from contractor and Third Party Inspector–until
recently, sole inspector for the Town of Laurel once Art Hesse
retired and then died--Pete Bowers, who complained that one in
ten of the P&S GFCIs that installers purchase from Maurice
Electric fail when he tests them with an external tester,
sometimes smoking.
Mark
took over from Vince at this point, and talked about commercial
dimming. Nodding to ASHRAE 90.1 adoption in Maryland with energy
use restrictions, he talked abut how the performance of Lutron’s
daylight-harvesting dimming system easily exceeds the code
requirements. Generally, the two rows of lights closest to the
windows are the ones that will show most energy saving as a
result of daylighting, unless th windows are unusually large.
First
he discussed motion sensors. A small office can rely on a
relatively inexpensive passive-infrared unit, often simply
replacing the light switch (with manual override), so long as no
furniture blocks its view, as it were, of the entire space.
Safer, but more expensive, is a ceiling sensor. An ultrasonic
sensor is more expensive, can sense around obstacles, but can be
falsely operated by the noise emerging from some HVAC registers.
Also, he notes that at one installation some lawyers,
religiously hunched over their computers for long periods in
disrespect of standard ergonomic recommendations, would find the
lights flicking off, and had to learn to move occasionally. The
most expensive system is the dual-technology design, turning on
in response either to passive-infrared recognition or to
ultrasonic response to movement, but turning off only when both
sensors give the okay.
Now
he moved on to new digital ballasts, which he firmly believes
will replace standard dimming ballasts. At perhaps $90-100 list
per ballast, the same for controls such as daylight or occupancy
sensors, they offer the feature of topology-independent control.
So long as each receives power and a 2-wire UTP low-voltage
control bus wire–additional 14 or 12 AWG 600 V wires also
can be used for this–they will sort out their own
addresses so that a palm-pilot type processor unit can direct
them to operate in various changeable groupings, dimming or
otherwise controlling them down to the fixture level. The system
even keeps track of their hours of use, and can provide email
alerts when lamps or ballasts reach a specified number of
operating hours.
A
fair amount of concern was expressed over the need to run the
additional low-voltage cables. Mark assured us that installers
had found listed UTP cable whose diameter made it compatible
with listed connectors that fit ½" trade size
knockouts. Chapter VP, PG County Chief Inspector, and Code
instructor Wayne Robinson pointed out that once the 2008 code is
adopted, installing Class 2 wiring inside NM power cable will be
legal. Ed Holt, Jr., electrical inspector with the U.S.
Architect of the Capital, had the impression that it would be
legal anyway, so long as all conductors were insulated at the
maximum voltage range.
Another
topic Mark broached was architectural lighting boards. He asked
inspectors how they felt about the use of theater controls for
general lighting control, emphatically pointing out that they
contain magnetic-only circuit breakers, and heat up enough that
the breakers may be listed for maximum three-hour use by
qualified persons. The general response was that if an
installation violates NEC Section 110.3(B), it’s
out. David Shapiro pointed out, with seconding by Ed Holt, that
a listed device may have different characteristics and limits
when it is utilized as a component; so long as the NRTL
investigates and lists the equipment containing it, and the
equipment is used within the restrictions of that listing, it
may be fine. There was a general consensus that it is not the
job of the AHJ to pull apart listed equipment.
After
we sent off Mark and Vince with applause, we took a break and
then reconvened to handle business and some Code questions.
Secretary-Treasurer David Shapiro brought up the need expressed
by the IO for us to appoint an audit committee. A consensus
agreed on our continuing to use Pam Panizari’s
professional assistance to perform this function.
David
then showed the group a couple of pictures showing installations
that made him uncomfortable. The issue on the first was that
plumbers’ metal strapping was used to support NM cable.
Pete didn’t like the fact that this meant it did not
follow the building surface as closely as it would have had it
been stapled or secured with electricians’ straps. Wayne,
like David, did not like the fact that the straps’ metal
edges might damage the sheath and conductors.
Pete’s
concern led to further discussion. Wayne noted that he had long
used, and accepted the use of, metal tie wire to support BX and
ty-raps (TM) to support NM. Authorities in Ann Arundel County,
though, reject the use of tie wire in ceilings, according to his
students. AFC reps had told him that only in DC and New York do
people buy BX; elsewhere it’s all MC.
Pete
noted that some installers tie a cable to a rod, then use the
same tie to tie the next cable down, and the next. He makes them
break the tie and use an independent tie for each cable.
Raised
a concern about how people interpret the concept, “closely
follow the structure.” Several inspectors agreed that
there is no consensus on how to interpret this, especially above
suspended ceilings. He discussed the need to provide support
rods, painted to differentiate them from ceiling supports, but
secured at their lower ends for rigidity.
David
brought in a couple of other items. One, the concern that
plug-in Glade Air Fresheners have started fires, was challenged
by Ed Holt, who has seen this labeled as false on the site for
checking urban legends, WWW.Snopes.com, based on an argument
that it is not proven. Investigators
have
seen burnouts and cases of overheating, but the last report
David received said a failure mechanism has not yet been
identified. He has been advised that further data can be
obtained by requesting the CPSC’s record of field reports.
David
also reported that Twister Al/Cu wire connectors have shown
troubling failures both in tests performed for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission and in the field. Ed Holt asked
whether these failures tended to occur in wet locations. No;
certainly not under the Article 100 Definition. Alumiconn (R)
connectors seem to be proving themselves in CPSC-sponsored
research, even if their use is not exactly the “best
possible repair” that Copalum(R) represents.
We
closed with discussion of antique connectors, and then antique
tools. Our May meeting will include a showing of some members’
heirlooms.
Other
Goodies Shirley
Clay and Karl Mirpanah adopted the last two White Books that
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. was kind enough to donate to our
chapter.
Communication
Glitch My internet server was having difficulty around the
time of our last meeting. This seems to have been fully
resolved, so the chapter’s edress and URL are functioning
properly.
As
it stands, this year we meet on 5/20, 9/19 and 11/18/08–in
addition to offering seminars, the next one taking place April
19 and 26 at Prince George’s Community College: a review
of 2008 NEC changes, earning 10 hours of Continuing
Education credit. For details look above under Seminars.
Next
Most Recent Meeting
Some
meetings simply are good from the git-go, whether or not they
boast a razzmatazz set of presenters. We had a fine program the
evening of January 20, 2008, thanks to the silent presence of
Alan H. Nadon, Chief Electrical Inspector of Elkhart, Indiana.
His contribution was augmented by the spit-'em-out Code
references supplied by Wayne Robinson, and very active
discussion, including many of the 18 participants.
The
meeting was popping long before President Jim Wooten called us
to order, with some difficulty, at 6:30. (We'll have to get him
a noisemaker!) I regret that the issues discussed in the
half-hour and more of floating talk before the formal meeting
didn't get discussed by the group as a whole, which would enable
them to fit smoothly into these minutes. Some of the matters
raised concerned a basic IAEI principle: consistent enforcement
of the NEC. A particularly unhappy element is "oral law,"
local requirements extending beyond the document that the
legislature originally adopted (the NEC version with any local
amendments); requirements that have not been broadcast widely.
Jim
decided to start the evening's business with the program. It was
followed, after close to two hours, with an overdue break, our
election, and discussion of future plans. We broke up before 9
pm.
Program
Is
it just a laugh? Is it a serious Code violation? An oversight?
Sheer ignorance? Bloody-minded "They'll never catch me"
indifference? Thanks to the generosity of Alan Nadon, who
provided the slides, and of Wayne Robinson, who again lent the
use of his projection equipment as well as his expertise, we had
loads and loads of pictures, many of them omigawds, to enjoy,
analyze and discuss.
(In
addition to Alan's original wealth, it is possible that the
striking pictures inadvertently included some shot by Joe
Tedesco or others.)
We
referred to Code books ranging from the 2002 to 2008. Our
chapter serves jurisdictions that have adopted editions ranging
from the 1996 NEC to the 2005-and an adjacent one, served by the
Chesapeake Chapter, may be considering adoption of the 2008.
Wayne
had a lot to say about changes forthcoming with the 2008 Code,
starting with elimination of cable wiring under buildings.
However, no one anticipated the 2008 being adopted anywhere
nearby any time soon. No local supply house is known to the
folks at our meeting to be stocking residential child-resistant
or moisture-hardened receptacles.
After
considering several slides of very damp locations, David Shapiro
noted, to general agreement, that equipment designed for wet
locations only maintains its rating so long as its finish
survives the environment. Ed Bihlear pointed out that rust
generally travels out from the center of a hole, where the
finish is compromised. Asked whether the tool-wielders restore
finish after cutting holes or tightening locknuts, or the
inspectors demand its restoration, only one person-prospective
member Glenn Nelson-raised his hand.
Heads
shook over a picture showing steel conduit entering a hole cut
in the bottom of an enclosure, overlapping a couple of knockouts
and not allowing a locknut to seat and create continuity even if
one had been tightened adequately. However, Wayne pointed out
that if a bonding bushing were installed, he'd be satisfied with
the connection.
Shown
a picture of a fused disconnect with one fuse damaged, Wayne
recommended that the conductor attached to it be either replaced
or meggered.
On
the other hand, he is quite concerned over the acceptance of
single-conductor pool bonding into the Code. His complaint is
that the Code change was not substantiated by documented
research, but by the less-satisfactory claim of field
experience. Because cattle's milk production is reduced by the
lack of an equipotential grid, this tastes to him like favoring
animals over people, ultimately because a copper pool grid can
cost the installer $500. He asks that people contact him if they
hear of tingle voltages in swimming pools. In Prince George's
County, Maryland, Section 680.26(c) has been adopted from the
2005 NEC, despite the fact that the County remains under the
2002-and he reports that a group of builders oppose adoption of
the 2005.
A
couple of additional notes. First, Ed pointed out that in
24-volt control wiring, a green wire is used as the positive.
This way, users avoid being misled by finding no voltage on it
at one point and assuming it's a grounding conductor.
Second,
while he hasn't arranged for its pre-adoption, Wayne certainly
favors the forthcoming rule restricting wiring under the
corrugations of a metal roof.
Third,
attendees knew of one, count 'em one supply house in the area
that carries tamper-resistant receptacles, such as would comply
with the 2008 requirement. However, these are expensive,
hospital-grade devices, not the residential-grade items that we
would expect to be stocked once someone somewhere starts
enforcing the 2008.
People
at the meeting also had a few laughs thanks to classic gag
photos; saw eight of Ed's color photos of the Convention Center
in process; heard what the application of Budweiser over time
(via a dumpster overhead) did to an underground switchboard in
College Park, MD; found out what happened when an ungrounded
service fed grounded equipment (hint: hot stuff); and know why
an Indiana motor made people think of Philadelphia's SEPTA.
Election
Because
we fell shy of a quorum in our meetings last year (and the year
before!), those volunteers who made themselves available to
remain in office continued to run our group. Our by-laws
authorize this.
This
time, ballots with SASEs were sent to all Inspector Members (the
only ones eligible to vote). They were asked to mail in their
ballots ahead of time, unless they were sure they would be at
this meeting. Dud plan. One and only one ballot was returned by
mail--the day after the meeting.
Fortunately,
we squeaked out a quorum. Our 2008 officers are:
President:
Jim Wooten
Vice President: Wayne Robinson
Past President:
Wayne Robinson
Secretary-Treasurer and Section
representative: David Shapiro
Education/Seminars: Harry
Langway
Membership: Robert Welborne
At-Large: Charles
Johnson, Sr.
Second Vice President: Vacant
Continuing
Education Credits
At
this meeting, C.E. certificates were provided for the 10 paid-up
members showing up who had attended November's meeting, plus
Karl Mirpanah, who had expended considerable effort to attend
it, and had followed through on becoming a member after the
meeting. (Actually, Wayne's certificate is in the mail.)
As
always, those members in good standing who were present for the
full program earned Continuing Education credits. These will be
documented by certificates that can be picked up at the March 18
meeting. A good attendance roster, following on the consistent
good work we're seeing from Robert Welborne, our Membership
coordinator and enthusiast.
But
what are these CE certificates good for? Many of our members
carry Virginia licenses. Our informal education committee,
consisting of Education Director Harry Langway, Vice- and Past
President and chief volunteer instructor Wayne Robinson, and
Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro, have been in touch over the
possibility of our being certified by Virginia DPOR. as a course
provider. This will enable some of our activities to fulfill the
Continuing Education requirement for Virginia licensure. We
anticipate applying by Va DPOR's March deadline, in order to
qualify for certification at their Board's April meeting.
White
Books
Here's
a puzzler: Wayne asked folks whether STOOW cable is
sunlight-resistant. Its marking indicates that it is protected
against moisture and oil, but neither the marking nor the Code
talk about its sun-resistance. For that information you need
some kind of glimpse at the Standard, which says yes, it is
sunlight-resistant. Thanks to the generosity of Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., we had three or four free copies of the
White Book. Three members requested them, and one member-to-be.
One member request didn't come through due to email problems,
but two were distributed at the meeting; the other two will be
at our March meeting.
Future
Meeting Dates
If
we hear from a large-enough contingent that they can't come to
our present meetings due to a schedule conflict, but they would
for-sure expect to attend if we met on a different evening, we
have the option of changing days once again. We're here to serve
our members, and what makes sense is to do whatever accommodates
the greatest number. As it stands presently, this year we will
meet on 3/18, 5/20, 9/19 and 11/18/08-in addition to offering
seminars.
Seminar
Our
next seminar, reviewing changes in the 2008 NEC, will be taught
by Wayne Robinson on April 19 and 26, for five hours each day.
It will earned 10 hours of Continuing Education credit.
Location, price, and so on will be posted at www.gwiaei.org, and
notices (mostly email) will be sent out and flyers distributed.
Previous
Meeting
This
report covers, first, our executive board/open business meeting,
November 20, 2007, 5:30-6:30 pm. That is followed by a summary
of our educational program, which took place from about
6:30-8:30 PM.
Members
and Attendance
We
had 22 attendees, counting our speaker: 8 associate members, 3
inspector members, and 11 guests. Or possibly 7, 3, and 12, if
we classify a member of another chapter merely as a guest even
when he attends our meetings regularly. Despite being a member
of the Chesapeake Chapter, Harry Langway is a key, hard-working
(albeit non-voting) part of our executive board. Most unusually,
he arrived after the evening’s business meeting, despite
his best effort.
Similarly–and
here future quorums may be affected–not only was Karl
Mirpanah not yet an Inspector Member of the George Washington
chapter, he drove in from Ashburn, in the Southern Section, for
our meeting. He was a good hour late for this meeting, having
spent two and a half hours on the road, instead of his usual one
hour. And he still asked questions that yielded him, and the
rest of us, useful information.
Our
program was well-attended in good part thanks to Robert
Welborne's work encouraging nonmembers to check us out. His
efforts brought in five new faces for the evening. Another
reason is that Harry Langway found us a winning presenter,
described under Program.
Business
Secretary-treasurer
David Shapiro described our meager present finances. He
mentioned the expectation that we will be co-sponsoring a PV
seminar by John Wiles in cooperation with Montgomery County in
January. This will, however, be designed solely as service
rather than as a money-maker.
Our
primary money-earner used to be our multi-day Code
seminars. We discussed what sort of seminars in this vein the
chapter should put on now. A number of us thought that, while
the 2008 Code represents the latest and best consensus, there
might be more interest in earlier versions because the 2008 will
not be adopted locally for quite some time.
In
keeping with others’ cynicism about jurisdictional
adoption of the new version, Wayne Robinson mentioned the rumor
that Alabama building officials will reject the 2008 NEC due to
its new, far-broader AFCI requirements. Because he sees no move
on the part of the Prince Georges County legislature to adopt to
2005 NEC, he proposes to put the 2008 before them in the
forthcoming session. However, he sees builders’ interests
as killing it in order to save pennies.
According
to Jim Wooten, Code Official Ken Pratt told him Annapolis will
shortly adopt the 2005, not the 2008. David mentioned the fact
that Pennsylvania is not supporting the 2008 as yet, and will
not even support inspectors who presently pass the occasional
job that meets 2008 requirements but not 2005. (Some time back,
a Pennsylvania inspector had gotten in trouble for accepting a
mall structure lacking a firewall between tenants that was
required under the version of the International Commercial Code
then in force, but not in the latest, not-yet-adopted
version.)Wayne suggested, offering a contrary perspective, that
jurisdictions take on liability if someone gets hurt due to
passing work installed to less than latest code standards.
Unfortunately, a number of us agreed, a public jurisdiction may
be less likely than a private person to worry about being sued
as a result of such injuries and damage.
Jim
said he’s rather more interested in a 2005
grounding/bonding seminar. David proposed that if DC does manage
to adopt the 2005 NEC early in the new year, as is hoped, there
will be a need for an unusual, 1996-to-2006, Code changes
seminar.
So
much for options A and B. Wayne understands that Baltimore
County will go ahead and adopt the 2008, though. Furthermore, he
had presented seven local seminars in the last few weeks before
our meeting, and the participants told him they were tired of
learning the 2005. They were asking for the fresh material
represented by the 2008: option C.
The
conclusion of our roundtable, Option C, was based on the fact
that Wayne generously volunteers his seminar-presenting services
and even his slides and projection equipment to the chapter (and
we’re not far from broke).
Wayne
wants to see a seminar serving at least 50 people, each paying
at least $150.– He can get 2008 Code Change books for $35
apiece in relatively small quantity through another
organization, perhaps the IEC. He will pick the dates for a
seminar spanning two Saturdays in March. He'll email David, who
will check with the rest of the executive board. David will wait
a week, and if this time passes without his hearing any dispute,
David will assume consensus. He then will put the announcement
on our web site, www.gwiaei.org, with a flyer–perhaps a
link to the pdf of a flyer--that can be downloaded and printed
by anyone willing to distribute it.
In
another matter, we came close to having a quorum, which would
allow us to carry out our long-delayed election. Our next
meeting will take place January 15, 2008. This is to be our
official annual meeting, when elections are supposed to take
place. Especially given that our hard-copy mailing list has been
so greatly reduced by the forthcoming switch to email and to
dropping no-longer-current recipients, it will be no great
hardship to hard-mail ballots and SASEs to our inspector members
in advance of that meeting. This seems certain to enable us to
achieve a quorum and thus carry out a valid election.
As
we stand, a number of members have expressed interest in our two
vacancies: Vice President (must be an Inspector Member) and
At-Large. However, none has committed to volunteer for either
post as yet. (All posts require regular attendance at chapter
meetings, which may cause hesitation among certain members, who
therefore might be better off volunteering to assist rather than
to take on formal posts.)
These
are the present positions and incumbents: President: Jim
Wooten
Past President: Wayne Robinson
Secretary-treasurer
and Section Representative: David Shapiro
Education:
Harry Langway
Program
The
presentation by Jeff Slayton, regional Business Development
Manager for Generac Power Systems, Inc. lasted almost two hours,
a fair bit longer than anticipated. This was due to audience
interest that kept generating questions, which our presenter
answered patiently and knowledgeably. Even better, he took down
each question for which he did not have a ready, certain answer,
along with the questioner’s contact information.
Three
Points regarding Generators, in order of decreasing importance
and generality
~Maintenance.
Generators start 98% of the time, on average, thanks to
improvements in the prime movers and in the controls. Despite
this, if you don’t test a generator, you don’t know
that it will work when you hope to rely on it. If you don’t
exercise it regularly, the chances that it will fail are highly
likely to increase.
Most
savvy customers pick a day of the week and time of day and run
their generator for half an hour. Unfortunately, it is
exceedingly common to run it without electric loads drawing on
the alternator. Tests should carry the greatest possible
building load.
If
the prime mover relies on liquid fuel, and you simply leave it
sit indefinitely, the fuel may be the source of failure: it has
a finite life span. The applicable code says that diesel can
last every two years. It can be used up over that period to
operate the generator, or else drained and replaced, or treated
to confirm BTU content. Firms will come in to do the latter for
$3 a gallon, if you don't want to handle it yourself. Diesel
will gel and deposit wax more quickly in colder climates, but
fuel used in this area certainly is not immune. Water from
condensation can be a major problem. Furthermore, heat is a
factor causing any stored fuel to lose the lighter volatile
components more quickly.
p>
~Modularization.
There are many advantages to designs that
utilize advances over the last 20-some years that enable
moderate-sized units to be paralleled relatively easily and
efficiently. Less-critical operations historically have shunned
paralleling due to the expense and complexity of custom
switchgear found in hospitals, which long have required the
redundancy of paralleled generators.
~Dual-fuel.
In recent years bi-fuel, diesel/gas systems have gained
popularity. The actuator technology and computers couldn't do
this 20 years ago. These have considerable advantages, although
they don’t yet offer quite everything one might hope for.
Such a generator will start operation with straight diesel
propulsion and, once the alternator is spinning enough to carry
the required load, shift operation to a mix, adding up to 70%
natural gas to the diesel fuel. One advantage is less-polluting
operation. Another is conserving diesel, hence being able to
reduce the amount of diesel stored on the site. This both takes
less space and reduces fire concerns. Thus a 3-400 gallon tank
can run a large facility’s generator for days, augmented
by utility natural gas which is piped in continuously.
All-diesel operation remains available as an automatic backup
mode, in the event that the supply of gas is interrupted. This
backup mode will mean operating for a shorter length of time
than when the intended combination of both fuels is available,
but still a considerable duration of backup operation. Another
bi-fuel characteristic is that if the loading suddenly
increases, the ratio of diesel to gas increases, up to 90%
diesel, due to the better torque characteristic of diesel
compared to gas combustion. It backs off the natural gas to
prevent pinging.
The
only missing option in bi-fuel units’ design is all-gas
operation. This would be handy to keep operation yet cleaner
during periods of lighter loading when less torque is required.
Note, though, that in California and Massachusetts gas-operated
generators require catalytic converters, because these put out
more carbon monoxide than do diesel units! A switch to all gas
also would further put off using up the diesel supply, during
extended outages, and keep the generators going when the diesel
is all gone–and also could pick up in the case of
contamination of the diesel supply. However, as compression
engines, lacking spark plugs, the prime movers not only rely on
the diesel explosion to get going, but at this point in their
development would misfire if the fuel intake were fully
converted to gas.
All-gas
generators are fine, but they are dependent on a single source–a
gas line or propane tank. They cannot be fed secondarily from
backup tanks of diesel.
Tradeoffs
among generator sets
Quite
naturally, as the representative of a particular manufacturer,
Jeff shared more information emphasizing his own company’s
products than about other’s gensets. Since the late 1950s,
his employer has manufactured just generators and transfer
switches. All the components originate and are assembled in
their own Wisconsin and Iowa plants. Standby units are a small
part of their sales. In certain lines, they private-label the
exact same products they sell under their own name for Trane,
Bryant, Siemens, Guardian, and possibly others. There has been
other overlap between genset names. They have built products
known under the Caterpillar and the Briggs and Stratton labels,
too. We’ll go through some of the particularly
parochial-sounding material, but briefly.
The
paralleled modular units presently are a Generac product, at
least in the U.S. Sized up to 300 kW gas and 600 kW diesel
modules, they are easily gangable up to 15 units. Koehler has
been doing much the same thing in France for 20 years, and
Caterpillar and Cummins are developing the same concept in their
lines.
One
advantage to modularization is enabling installations to utilize
smaller spaces: Generac’s gensets can be paralleled under
a single overall set of controls when set far as 1000 feet from
each other. Systems do not need to be oversized, but rather can
expand as needed. They have smaller sumps, using less oil even
in aggregate than equivalent larger units–and the
individual small units are easier to maintain without down time,
in matters such as oil changes. Other matters being equal, Jeff
acknowledged, installing the big Caterpillar sets might make
more sense than modularizing small units when installations use
more than two or three modules, and especially when the standard
single generator is real big.
Another
type of Generac offering that Jeff touted is their especially
quiet units. While normal gensets produce around 72-78 decibels,
adjusted for human hearing sensitivity (dBA) Generac is selling
new commercial gas gensets, with the entire unit including
mufflers hidden in a box, that when exercised, slow down to 1000
RPM. This brings their racket down to 61 dBA. When producing
full power, these units do rev up to produce the normal,
interfering, level of noise. For reference, when produced hour
after hour 85 dBA is the level of sound that bring the OSHA
warning, “Any louder than this, and everybody’s
hearing needs to be effectively protected or you’ll be
deafening them.”
Questions
and Challenges
All
sorts of questions came up from IAEI members who install and who
use generators, who consult to customers concerned about
generators, who inspect generators, and who teach others the
Code issues that apply to generators.
Backfeeds
A
very retired, well-known former chapter member said he
understood that modern generator design prevents the backfeeds
that utility workers are worried about. Jeff said yes: except
for portable generators, the transfer switch is intrinsic to the
generator unit.
Jeff
described the types of transfer switch. One safe option for use
when exercising a generator, which means that utility power is
present on the other side of the switch, is the open-transition
switch. This pauses at OFF before transfer, so power from two
sources out-of-phase with each other cannot reach loads
simultaneously. Closed transition switches transfer power when
the sources are in sync, and used to be greatly expensive. A
closed transition switch now adds only $300 to the thousands of
dollars paid for a generator.
As
an aside, Jeff acknowledged that portable generators can be
scary. They can indeed be connected so as to backfeed into
utility wiring and potentially hurt someone working on restoring
power.
Permits
Another question concerned the responsibility for permits
and inspection when a gas-fed generator is installed. Jeff’s
impression was that generally the electrical contractor pulls an
electrical permit to cover the generator and wiring, and subs to
a mechanical contractor who pulls a permit for the gas fitting
and has that inspected. To reduce the cost of installation,
which can double the cost of a genset, they have been
incorporating a distribution breaker in the transfer switch.
This may, unfortunately, have the side effect of encouraging
nonprofessionals to get involved in the installations and
dismiss the idea of permits and inspection–if these occur
to them at all. Kelly Generator in Calvert County is the local
industrial distributor handling Generac. However, when Suburban
Propane in Calvert brings gas to generators, a loyal member told
us, in his experience they don’t pull permits. Different
members at the meeting, working in different jurisdictions with
different plumber/pipefitters, had varying experiences with
regard to the gas permit issue.
Waveforms
Wayne asked whether generators bother AFCIs, particularly
the new combination branch circuit/outlet or parallel/series
version meeting the 2008 standard; also whether controls such as
those used to parallel modularized generators require
particularly stable power.
Jeff
responded that generators are solid on 60 Hz but their controls
have trouble with transients such as those created by
fluorescent lighting loads using solid-state ballasts and
multiwire circuits. He was uncertain about AFCIs.
Uninterruptible
Power Supplies and Generator Sizing
Karl asked Jeff to
explain UPS load calculations.
Jeff
admitted that he used to find this demand crazy-making for
several reasons. In the past, generators required a very clean
load. The voltage regulator would see a zero-crossing point from
non-linear loads, and cause the generator to speed up, creating
a surge. Consequently, the UPS would abandon generator input and
go to battery power because power was dirty. This would exhaust
the battery. Consequently, at the least you needed significant
oversizing Voltage regulators now are more rugged than before,
less vulnerable to being confused. UPS devices use Insulated
Gate Bipolar Transistors for rectification. Furthermore, they
don't demand full battery recharging by the generator when it is
being called on actively by the load, just maintenance of a 25%
recharge. Nowadays with UPS filtering, a generator sized at
100-150%, at most 200% of the calculated or measured load will
be sufficient. The issue gets worse with smaller UPS systems,
smaller being defined as less than 50 kW, and single-phase
loads. In these cases Jeff advises that you size the generator
up to 250% of load rating. Unfiltered UPS systems, though, still
call for 300% oversizing.
Small
Residential Units
Jim mentioned a woman who wanted her
gas generator removed. When it operated, he tells us she
complained, “it sucked the natural gas out of her house”
Other members’ comments were that she needed to get a
bigger gas meter and higher-flow gas line (or gas regulator).
He
also asked about his own pull-start 5 kW unit, which is labeled
as a Generac. It won't start in cold weather. He wants to get
electric start, but Home Depot said they stopped making them.
Jeff suggested that Jim get a propane 8W automatic-start, with
its little transfer switch. Jeff uses one, and it’s more
than enough for all his needs, including pumping water from a
several-hundred-foot well. Jeff explained that Geenrac sold off
the unit making those little generators. Briggs and Stratton
apparently kept the Generac name on gasoline-operated engine.
Jeff was kind enough to offer to put Jim in touch with people he
knows at the factory making the Briggs and Stratton product.
They might well steer him to the part he wants to buy.
Odds
and Ends
There are just a few more notes that readers
might wish to follow up on if intrigued; I won’t flesh
them out.
~~~In 2007, emissions requirements got much
tighter. Generator manufacturers had to change their engines.
~~~ Siemens is making a split-bus panel to allow part of a
loadcenter to run emergency circuits and another part of the
same panel non-emergency circuits.
~~~~In discussing the
long feeder pigtails provided with some gensets, Wayne mentioned
that they're going to have to run separate neutrals in their
feeders under the 2008 NEC. Wayne also offered the opinion that
California may create trouble with their special rules, but at
least they follow NFPA 5000, not the IBC. Finally, he noted that
he observed a new Guardian genset unit that didn't have a key
switch. However universal they are in actuality, key switches at
least nominally restrict public access. Robert said that he's
seen new ones with the key switches.
Next
most Recent Meeting
There
is scant information available on our September 18 meeting. We
had two presenters. One, a Wattstopper (R) rep, explained the
energy codes affecting commercial buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, IECC,
and California's Title 24,and described some ways to satisfy
their requirements. Our other presenter, Mr. Ross Kotarski of
Leviton, gave a mini-seminar of Category 5 wiring and control
devices.
Attendance was light: 2 inspectors and 7 others.
This information on the meeting is available thanks to
Former President Wayne Robinson, as David Shapiro (our
Secretary-Treasurer) had to attend to another commitment.
Losses
Since
our last meeting, our godfather, Art Hesse, died and our
one-time secretary, Brooke Stauffer, is presumed dead. A short
biography of Art appears in September’s IAEI News; a much
longer one is posted at www.GWIAEI.org/#Art. The details of
Brooke’s disappearance are available at
http://karenandbrooke.blogspot.com <>, which also has
information about the (non-religious and religous) memorial
services for Brooke and his fiancé Karen. The
non-religious one took place in September; the date of the
religious one is Saturday, November 10.
Previous
Meetings
Our
previous meeting took place May 18, 2007. This meeting was
devoted to a preview of likely 2008 NEC developments. We
were again fortunate to enjoy the terrific team of John Cangemi
from UL and Gil Moniz from NEMA. We got right down to it at
6:30, or a few minutes earlier. No quorum available for
elections, once again, and no other new business.
Changing
the NEC
They
started with a quick reminder of the NFPA Code process:
Proposals may be reviewed on the floor at the June
meeting.
Then changes require approval by the Standards
Council
. Our presenters know of intentions to make several
floor motions. Wayne Robinson suggested 75; we were told that
Mark Earley mentioned 30 a few weeks ago, but they were
groupable to a total of maybe eight.
The
White Book and Product Categories
Next
they walked us briefly through the 2006 edition of the UL White
Book. Ample copies were generously provided for attendees,
and in fact enough for us to take extras for colleagues. They
noted that it includes marking guides, starting on Page 390.
On
Page 311, the index is correlated to the 2005 NEC. John
revealed that the 4-digit codes originated as initialisms, short
for long strings of words describing product categories. This is
because in the early days of computers, it was easier to deal
with short strings. The Codes created in more recent years are
just meaningless strings of letters, not initialisms or
acronyms.
Likely Changes
First
off (though out of the order of the evening’s
presentation) the site www.NFPA.org has the Report of
Proposals and the Report on Comments, and you also
can obtain hard copies, free, upon request. Gil also passed out
his handout of significant changes.
Moving
on to anticipated 2008 changes, the first one they covered was
the creation of Article 355, dealing with Type RTRC fiberglas
conduit. It is considered different enough from other NM
raceways that it was time to separate this from PVC.
Why not
do similarly with enclosures? Fiberglas boxes are a different
material than fiberglas conduit.
Article
522 has been created because the technical experts from Disney
World wanted their requirements separated from those for
temporary amusement fairs covered in Article 525.
Article
708, Critical Operations Power Systems, hardened against
disaster, might end up as an independent standard, perhaps
referenced in the NEC; it might end up as a mere annex, as Wayne
suggested; but Gil thinks it will indeed be a new article. The
committee that put it together was developing it as Hurricane
Katrina was bearing down on New Orleans. It applies to wiring
only if an area is designated as mission-critical by a
government agency. It doesn’t have to apply to an entire
building; for example, it can specify a section of a hospital.
Article
626, for truck stops, we’ve read about elsewhere.
Article
780 Smart House (Closed Loop) wiring, will be deleted.
Also,NMS cable is gone. The system just never took off.
The
tables describing NEMA enclosure types that had been
located in 430.91 will move to 110.20; enclosure are not used
just for motor controls. John pointed out the note saying that
each provides just a specified degree of protection, not blanket
security.
Section
110.22 Series ratings under Engineering supervision.
These will be field-marked whether existing or newly engineered,
with a specified text.
Section
110.26(C)(2) regarding large equipment now will include again
the 6' width to make two doors necessary. Equipment
rating referenced here is equipment manufactured capacity, not
just equipment capacity as determined by the installed
overcurrent device or its setting.
Equipment
size is not, however, going to be part of the criteria for
requiring personnel doors with panic hardware opening
out. All doors within 25 feet now will have to meet that
criterion. There were various comments on the proposal,
suggesting different distances that workers, perhaps injured,
would need to travel unhindered when escaping malfunction. The
25 foot choice was a compromise.
Section
210.4 on multiwire circuits will require that all
conductors of a circuit start from same piece of equipment, and
all must be capable of simultaneous disconnection at that
equipment. Whatever the occupancy, whether two or more legs feed
devices on the same yoke or no is to be irrelevant–mention
of yoke is being removed from 210.7.
This led into a bit of
discussion. The capability of being simultaneously disconnected
is not the same as automatic simultaneous disconnection. Hence
multipole breakers will be only one option. Common fused
pullouts will be another, and handle ties, a third. All
understood this clearly. Ed Holt and David Shapiro saw how the
requirement for simultaneous disconnection at the point of
origin of a multiwire circuit could be read in a way that our
presenters indicated was not the CMP’s intent. If the
panelboard from which a multiwire circuit contains a main
disconnect, this would simultaneously disconnect all conductors
of the multiwire circuit–while disconnecting the rest of
the circuits as well. This, we were told, would not be
sufficient to satisfy the intent of this rule.
Section
210.5(C) will require installers to identify conductors
by phase and system at termination, connection, and splice
points. This does not necessarily require color coding; the
requirement could be satisfied by or labeling or tagging.
Moving
on to residential GFCI requirements both exceptions 1 and
2, for receptacles that are not readily accessible in garages,
basements, and sheds, and for dedicated appliances, all will be
deleted. Now all receptacles in these areas must be protected!
If equipment trips a GFCI, it si defective. Fire and alarm
systems in basements still retain their exception.
We
learned a bit more about the calibration of a Class A GFCI. It
trips in response to 4 and 6 mA of current, in accordance with
an inverse-time curve 6-264 mA . At 264 mA it should require no
more than half a cycle.
Pete Bowers complained that his
Ideal tester found about one in ten of new, brand-name GFCI
receptacles fail their trip test. Our presenters challenged
this, but he stuck by his guns.
Section
210.8(B)(4), the Outdoor receptacle requirement for GFCI
protection lost its limitation to public places. Vending
machines now are covered. Receptacles within 6' from ALL sinks
now are covered.
Section
210.12 (B), the expanded AFCI protection requirement is a
little less radical than anticipated. Yes, most dwelling unit
outlets will require this protection. However, it will not be
required for circuits solely serving outlets in a kitchen, bath,
garage, attic, or storage room.
Members
of NFPA 72 were going to exempt smoke detectors, but the
TCC said to check with the NEC CMP, as it was more in their
bailiwick. The conclusion was that it’s safe to not exempt
them.
Section
210.12(B) Exc. 2 offers a welcome relief, potentially.
Receptacle-type AFCIs can be made available now–they
have been listed for a long time, but no company has found it
cost-effective to manufacture them--because the 6' distance is
removed--just install them at the first outlet beyond the
panelboard, and use BX or metal conduit to that point.
Section
210.52 will have a useful twist, though one that is going to
demand a bit more of both installers and inspectors. Switched
receptacles can’t serve as Code-required receptacles
per 210.52, unless they are only half-switched.
The
countertop receptacle requirement now will not be just
for kitchen counters.
Outside
receptacles now will be required on balconies, decks, and
porches, unless the usable area is less than 20 square feet.
Section
240.24(F) wll forbid the installation of overcurrent devices
over stairway steps.
Section
300.4(E) will demand that raceways and cables under roof
decking stay 1 ½" away from roof–not 1
1/4" as is the case when the threat comes from drywall
screws and picture nails..
Section
310.15(B)(2)(c) was explained by Pete Bowers, who sits on the
CMP. After the last Code cycle, when all we got was this lousy
T-shirt, I mean a Fine Print Note, this time we have enforceable
language. The people who were concerned about the sun’s
heat damaging insulation performed the additional research
that was demanded of them. This section now requires the use of,
and provides, a table for temperature adjustment of insulation
in conduit in direct sunlight, over a roof (or similar asphalt
surface). It is uniformly applicable across the country. You
still need to factor in your local maximum ambient temperature,
and of course raceway fill and other conductor loading factors.
Section
314.16 finally takes the difficult step of differentiating the
box capacity requirement for devices based on their size.
It does not bow to the proposals of about 20 years ago and
directly consider their actual volume, nor their depth. However,
if a device has so much as a flange or yoke extension that
extends wider than 2 inches, it requires as many multiples of
the normal volume requirement (based on the box’s
conductors) as its number of gangs, calculated at 2" (or
excess fraction) per gang.
Section
334.80 requires cable going through wood framing,
horizontally, vertically, or any which way, that is firestopped,
be derated as though it were bundled, even if it’s BX.
They noted that “Bundled” nearly made it into
Article 100. However, when it was pointed out that the term is
used differently in each Article –310, and the 700, and
800 articles–the proposed definition was yanked.
Section
334.80 will require that when two or more NM cables go
through thermal insulation without spacing, they will
require derating.
Sections
406.8(A) and (B) (1) requiring the use of weather-resistant
receptacles–the devices themselves, in addition to
their enclosure requirements--was proposed to become effective
in 2011, but its effective date was moved up to 2008.
Manufacturers have such devices listed now, although they may
not be available for purchase. They promise to be kind in their
pricing
Section
406.11 will require the use of tamper-resistant receptacles
in all 210.52 areas including those where GFCI protection might
be required. To this change there will be a floor challenge at
the NFPA annual meeting.
This new requirement was based on
solid substantiation. One study reported about 29 000 electrical
burns were suffered by children over maybe 10 years. These often
were the result of from stick objects into receptacles. Similar
results were found in Canada. The actual figure is much, much
greater than reported.
Plug closers were available (though
they’re not Listed), but this many burns were reported
despite their availability. There are shuttered receptacle
covers on the market, but they interfere with retention. UL once
listed them, does so but no more. Another NRTL still does.
Pressure to initiate shutter action is about 20% more than
regular insertion force, so the elderly are not going to be
hindered much more than they are by the effort of inserting
plugs into new standard receptacles. These are not going to be
manufactured to the current hospital grade pediatric standard.
Many European devices are shuttered, and thus tamper-resistant..
Section
408.36 42: the 42 circuit limitation is gone. Harry
Langway, among others, expressed concern over crowding of
cabinets when panelboard are Listed with 50, 60 (as in Canada)
or more circuits. Even now, panelboards have been crowded with
42 circuits (or more) by the insertion of tandem breakers when
or where not authorized by their schematics. Canadian tandems
have been imported without the rejection feature that would
restrict them to those sections of panelboards designed to hold
them.
Section
410.8(B)(3) and (D)(2): a proposal would have classified LEDs
in clothes closets were with fluorescents , but the CMP
rejected this because some of the LED systems may get too hot.
They will be grouped with incandescents. However, 410.8(B)(3)
acknowledges a new, Listed LED that is incorporated into a
clothes rod, and is permitted in that clothes storage space.
Section
422.52 Electric drinking fountains now need GFCI
protection, even though they’re not fountains. There were
comments from the peanut gallery about the impossibility of
resetting the GFCIs if receptacles are used, placed right under
them where they will be splashed.
Section
680.26 Equipotential bonding around pools. Wayne
complained that the language mixes conductive with nonconductive
pool structures. Gil did not see this. As proposed, a single 8
AWG copper conductor can bond a nonconductive pool 6" deep.
Wayne talked about the Florida chapter having discussed their
impression that #10 steel wire bonds just as well. Wayne
believes some sort of grid is much safer than a single
conductor. Gil noted that very few people use encapsulated rebar
to build pools, it’s so expensive.
Section
680.26(C) We now will be required to provide equipotential
bonding of pool water as well as of metal bits. (No
clamps have been Listed for bonding water–it’s too
slippery.) If you wish you may accomplish this by use of
equipment that has to be bonded anyway, such as a wet niche
fixture or ladder. Otherwise, set a 9 x 2" plate somewhere
in the water.
Section
680.31 plug connected filter pumps must have integral
GFCIs regardless of GFCI protection in the receptacles to which
they are connected.
Hydromassage
tubs will need dedicated GFCI circuits.
800.156
At least one communication outlet will be required in
each dwelling unit. The cable must run to a service provider
demarcation point.
After
the presentation, Pete Bowers talked about a conflict between
some gas utilities and NEC requirements and, more important,
thinking. Benfield gas manifolds use soft stainless steel
tubing with plastic jacket. Consequent on a lawsuit, their
brochure recommends that it be bonded back to the electrical
panelboard equal with a conductor sized to the service grounding
electrode. This, we agreed, should not be relying on the
electrical system for lightning protection. Wayne told Benfield
rely on 250.104–bonding needs are adequately served by the
grounding conductor in the circuit serving the equipment.
Gil
reported that it’s an issue around the country. Lightning
strikes has caused this thin-wall yellow material melt down.
John noted that their bulletins have said that CSA/Canada
-Listed (not U.S.) are available. Our ground clamps are listed
for rod and pipe, not tubing unless so marked, same with rebar.
Gil has more information available on this.
Wayne
chirped up with a complaint: the main bonding jumper in a
panelboard is listed for only 30 amps. No comment.
Future
programs
Harry
got John to agree to potentially offer us one of their fine
presentations once a year. Wayne will be giving us a
mini-seminar in March 2008 on Code Changes, based on what
actually makes it into the new Code.
We
broke up around 9:10. At our September meeting, we will have two
presentations, one of them discussing the requirements in the
new energy code. We also will have CEU certificates for those
who attended this May meeting.
This
is the report of our chapter meeting March 20, 2007, 6:30-8:45
PM . Attending were seven? associate members, three inspector
members, and five guests, not counting our speakers. We met in
the basement lounge of 9201 Basil Court. I apologize for listing
the address as #7901 Basil Court in the mailing, and I dearly
hope that no one who tried to come gave up because of the
misdirection.
Business
Nothing
deferred from our last meeting got resolved except, arguably,
for the matter of eats. Last time, we decided it would make
sense to bring a gigundo sandwich, to cut in sections to feed
members who came straight from work. However, nobody called or
emailed to let David Shapiro know they were interested in this.
Lacking a head count, after conferring with Jim Wooten he just
brought the drinks left over from our last meeting. Although
Robert Welborne said he believes the feed to be a good idea,
nobody else spoke up to that effect and Robert offered no
response to the issue of nobody having contacted David for a
head–or belly–count.
David
reported the treasury thin but solvent. Robert reported that he
hopes to schedule a low-voltage seminar for this summer or fall.
Again
we lacked a quorum, so no election; all officers who are willing
to remain in place do so. We did not get around to discussing
cooperative publicity, an issue explicitly deferred for the
March meeting. Wayne Robinson did not bring the information that
he had hoped to provide regarding lightning strikes and about
aluminum GECs. Nonetheless, we kept ourselves gainfully
occupied.
Programs
The
educational component featured two speakers. Erica Woodkilll,
our District Sales Manager for FLIR cameras, brought a
presentation on thermography. Bill Zimmerman of Biben Marketing
Group, a Leviton representative, talked about GFCI developments,
about some 2008 Code changes, and about various new, relatively
new, and forthcoming Leviton products.
Thermography
Thermography
produces radiometric JPEGs, indicating temperature differentials
of as little as 0.05 degrees C, if you’re willing to pay
enough for an IR camera. Their prices are down from $30k and up
a few years ago. FLIR’s cheapest is now $5750. It can be
rented for about $500 a week. The color palate of the image is
changeable at the user’s discretion. Whatever palate is
chosen, the image’s colors will correspond to temperatures
shown on a scale on the left side of the image. Furthermore,
moving the cursor to any spot on the image will result in a
color reading–and not only at the time of image-taking,
but later, from the stored image.
Erica
spent a fair bit of time describing other purposes to which IR
cameras can be put, including detection of paths moisture takes
to immigrate into or through a home, causing mildew and worse.
Closer to our interests, it can be used to identify the paths
taken by radiant heating lines embedded in floors, so drillers
can avoid them.
There’s
an important caveat regarding their use, particularly as
locators. If a source of heat or coolth has been operating for
too long, the temperature differential will dissipate as its
surroundings are warmed or cooled, and the source will not show
up distinct from its surroundings. A secondary, contrary one is
that IR cameras show surface temperatures, so to the extent that
deeper temperatures do not penetrate to the surface, these
cameras are blind to them. This was demonstrated as Erica
scanned the room and displayed the live image through her
projector. Head hair showed up as markedly darker than head
skin, and bearded chins markedly darker than non-bearded areas.
A momentary, perhaps-inconsequential surface temperature change
will show and be recorded: she put her (clean) hand on the wall
for a second, and after she removed it, the IR hand print was
clearly visible.
FLIR
offers a one-day course (actually, 4-5 hours) introducing their
use, for new purchasers. Asked whether renters could attend, she
responded that some spots may be available to potential
purchasers. There also are free half-day seminars, with a
slightly different focus–an expansion of the introductory
pitch that Erica provided to us.
Robert
asked how tough these cameras are. She replied that her
company’s units are “almost milspec.” Wayne
asked about their warranty; they are bundled with a one-year
warranty. He asked about the need for calibration. Yes, she
said, at least yearly you really should send it in for a 5-day
calibration costing between $700 and $2k, depending on the unit.
There
was a bit of har-de-har, for instance questions about taking the
temperatures of co-workers to confirm that they are alive. Erica
took this opportunity to mention that her company’s
cameras were used in China to check airline boarders for fever,
to help combat the SARS epidemic.
Ed
Holt mentioned that the Office of the Architect of the Capitol
purchased a high-end thermography unit last year, and he
considers it the way to go. He has been using it to document the
temperatures of some problematic feeders. Wayne noted that
Prince George’s County has a requirement on the books that
each time a switchboard terminations’ torques are
confirmed, a record be kept of the terminations’
temperatures. Unfortunately, there is no strong reason to
believe that thermography actually is performed each time.
Leviton
After
Erica and her crew left, Bob Zimmerman came up to the plate. He
started out by acknowledging the efforts of Robert Welborne to
bring him. Robert had met him at a Rexel counter day and kept
nudging him with daily phone calls, till he showed up this
evening. Bob mentioned that he had neglected to bring a shirt
that normally is donated for use as a door prize, but that it
remained earmarked for us. We voted unanimously that he send it
to Robert in acknowledgement of his recruiting efforts.
While
Bob may not have had all the answers to questions about Leviton
that a senior factory rep might have been able to provide, he
did offer an informative and light-heartedly entertaining
session. Leviton is the fifth-largest privately-held company in
the U.S. They supply 60% of the wiring devices installed in U.S.
residences. They use manufacturing plants in the U.S., in
Mexico, and in China. (Bob had no idea what the proportion of
product comes out of each.)
Bob
started getting down to detail with GFCIs. All those ones
manufactured under the standard that held through mid-2006 have
been sold. At least the big players are out of stock of those
less-reliable GFCIs. Bob didn’t know of any marking that
can be found reliably on GFCIs, across brands, to indicate
whether they were manufactured under the old or under the new
standard.
The
finding that 20% of GFCIs in the field were nonfunctional
eventually may be relegated to history, as an increasing
proportion of this new style are put in place. Even now, 50-80
lives a year are saved by GFCIs in the U.S.
Ed
Bihlear spoke up on the subject of defective GFCIs. Examining
newly installed GFCIs, and using brand-new LED GFCI testers of
various brands, he has found consistently that a disturbing
proportion of the GFCIs trip in response to their own TEST
buttons but do not respond to the idiot light’s test
button. These are not GFCIs that have been in place long enough
to somehow have reached end-of-life, or GFCIs that have been
exposed to massive surges, or GFCIs that have been miswired or
that are nongrounded. A similarly disturbing proportion trips in
response to the tester, albeit not to its own TEST button.
Ed
Holt brought up the fact that in his rural area, there are many
ungrounded circuits. While they may be GFCI-protected, and
downstream ones may even be marked as GFCI-protected, they may
very well not also be marked, as they should be, “No
Equipment Ground.” Consequently, an inspector using an LED
GFCI tester may complete the circuit to ground through his or
her own body. If the GFCI works, there may be a momentary sting;
if it fails, the consequences could be more serious, depending
on how well the inspector is grounded.
At
one point, faced with all our technical questions, Bob invited
us to sign on to Leviton’s site and take their “Easylearn”
courses, which allow participants to print themselves up
certificates when finished. (He did not claim that these qualify
as evidence of CE activity.) Continuing with his show-and-tell,
another product combines an LED night light with a receptacle,
for hallway or bathroom use. There is a GFCI version, and one
that incorporates a photocell.
With
the 2008 NEC, we may see a requirement to install childproof, or
at least tamper-resistant receptacles throughout residences. We
had a chance to look at a sample. They have offered
tamper-resistant receptacles for some time in the hospital and
commercial grade. Bob says they are in the process of coming out
with a tamper resistant GFCI in hospital grade. The
residential-grade tamper-resistant receptacle, to meet the new
need under the 2008 NEC, is not yet available. (So we install
"commercial grade.") Another change, earlier mentioned
by Robert and David, is the forthcoming requirement for
weather-hardened devices in outdoor use, notwithstanding their
installation in weatherproof enclosures. These too will be
available. (Bob didn’t know when, though the flyer said
“March availability.”) Next were pigtailed
receptacles, which eliminate the need to use push-in,
back-clamp, or screw-terminations. These should cost about 50%
more than familiar basic units. They appear to have triple-wipe
brass contacts. The pigtails are brazed–Bob first said,
“soldered,” but David brazenly pointed out that
electricians are forbidden to use grounding connections that
rely solely on solder. These are available in a Hospital Grade
version as well as standard.
Next,
Bob talked about their intelligent switching lines. The
radio-frequency version operates any corresponding device within
45 feet, 75 within a straight line. I presume that “straight”
means without shielding in the way. A dimmer might run $60, a
programmable unit $100, a receptacle or light module $40. These
also can interface with any other, non-Leviton modules utilizing
z-wave technology. He mentioned someone setting all his lights
to go on when his smoke detectors operate.
Miscellany
After
the presenters left, we chatted widely about Code and safety
issues. Once again the new waterfront complex was a topic. Wayne
noted that the big bucks building similar centers in Florida,
Tennessee, and Texas have carried through with plans that
involved running 13.8 kV above dropped ceilings in cable tray.
Not in Prince Georges county, though. This is a legitimate use
of cable tray in industrial applications. However, Wayne defines
these centers as Places of Assembly, and convinced his division
head. Inches of concrete lie between the 13.8 kV feeds and the
people in those buildings. Someone noted that powerhouse walls
are marked to indicate where the conductors are hidden, so no
one setting an anchor in a wall need risk hitting a live
high-voltage line.
Ed
Bihlear brought a number of panoramic photos of the convention
center. He also brought in some dead devices. One example was a
bonding bushing with a burned lay-in lug–zinc rather than
the copper it should have been.
Wayne
continues to believe that Prince Georges County may end up not
adopting local amendments to the 2005 NEC, just going directly
from the 2002 to the 2008. Apparently a number of engineering
firms offering Third Party Inspection services in DC have lost
their eligibility. Rules for documentation of Third Party
inspection services have become more elaborate.
David
brought in a letter from Tyco encouraging the use and the
acceptance by inspectors of Amp in-line NM splices and taps.
Nobody was enthusiastic about them, though Ed Holt noted that
similar products have been around for years. Ed Bihlear talked
about 3M Scotchloks used in fluorescent fixtures having a
similar design. In his experience, if they get moved around,
they tend to start arcing. Ed Holt and David talked briefly
about push-in, as opposed to general insulation displacement
connections. David has seen problems with line fluorescent’s
terminals that did not have the leads pushed in far enough. Ed
has seen others whose leads were pushed in too far, so that the
wire missed the contact, which grabbed the insulation instead.
Wayne
asked whether anyone had seen undercarpet ribbon in current use.
Ed Bihlear has seen some used on the North side of Baltimore Jim
has, too. Jim also reported inspecting a Laurel hotel that had
wired their clothes dryers in zip cord.
David
next brought up correspondence with Randy Dollar, the AFCI
product manager at Siemens. A recent Siemens mailing strongly
pushed the use of AFCIs. In response, David had asked whether
they had any response to a piece in EC&M in which Mike Holt
guesstimated that under proposed regulations, there would be a
half-Billion dollar expenditure for each live saved by AFCIs.
Furthermore, David asked about reports that they
nuisance-tripped in response to some paddle fans and surge
arrestors.
Before
he could share Mr. Dollar’s response, Ed Holt chimed in
with the information that Mike Holt has, in Ed’s
estimation, turned 180 degrees in his stance on AFCIs, and that
Holt now considers the technology mature enough to make it
worthwhile to enforce the new requirements. Others commented
that the CPSC used to want GFCIs throughout the house, but the
proposal was shot down. Now the CPSC proposes similar widespread
residential application of AFCIs, with the support of the
association of State Fire Marshals, and it seems that the
proposal will become Code.
As
for the latter part of Dollars’ response, he told David
that the nuisance tripping was a response to leakage current.
Siemens’s early AFCIs set their GFP at 10 mA; moved up to
30-50 mA and delaying response for several half-cycles solved
the problem.
This
did not make people happy. Ed Holt reminded us that early GFCIs
would “nuisance-trip” in response to leakage current
from bath exhaust fans. However, it is so long since the UL
standard for equipment reduced the permissible level of leakage
current to below what a Class A GFCI detects that raising AFCIs’
GFP trip level seemed unnecessary, perhaps even suspect.
Subsequent
to the meeting, Siemens's Randy Dollar added these comments:
"I
wish I could agree that all equipment installed had leakage
currents below the Class A GFCI levels, but we measured far too
many paddle fans that leaked current in excess of 10 mA for me
to agree. Many of these fans did not leak that current
continuously but rather on "turn on", at the
initiation of the dimmer control, if so equipped, or at some
other transitional stage that may or may not have been directly
controlled by the customer. We did not investigate why this
happens since we do not manufacture and/or sell these products,
just that it does happen. We originally operated under the same
assumption that Mr. Ed Holt stated and, therefore, did not
expect these results that we later found.
"In
regard to the surge arrestors, many of these devices also
provide some level of filtering. Most of these devices
accomplish this by diverting noise on the power line to ground
intentionally. This noise is well above the 60 Hz line current
but was nevertheless detected by some of the earlier AFCI
production units. Raising the fault current trip level and
delaying the response time slightly allows these products to
perform their intended function without nuisance trips by the
AFCI.
"Our
complaint rate for AFCI products on either side of this solution
also strongly support the fix I stated was indeed the solution.
I hope this helps to better explain those issues."
Next
Most Recent Meeting
This
is the report of our January 16, 2007 chapter meeting. Attending
were six associate members, four inspector members, and five
guests. We’ve now officially moved to the basement lounge
of 9201 Basil Court, until such time as we find a venue that’s
more convenient to, say, Montgomery County members.
Programs
Despite
considerable effort on the part of Harry Langway and Robert
Welborne, none of the speakers they attempted to contact came
through with a program for this meeting. Harry discussed his
educational plans for 2007, which will include regular
CEU-earning activities. We agreed that our last program would
have thoroughly warranted the granting of CEUs. So long as Harry
can get the information to David in time, David will contact the
IO with requests to grant official IAEI CEU certificates.
Harry
hopes to have a program on thermography for March. He’ll
investigate when we can enjoy a return of the fine team of UL’s
Cangemi and NEMA’s Moniz–he’ll ask whether
they can come back as early as this May. There was extensive
discussion of possible programs, with a number of our members
stepping forward with ideas and contacts. Ron Breuer from 3M may
have a program on low voltage cable. There are a number of
exciting demonstrations that we might be able to schedule–one
blowing up a 200 amp panel, another shorting across a
distribution transformer with a metal ladder, that sort of
thing. We have no seminars scheduled for the near future, but
Wayne has agreed to teach a 2008 Code Changes seminar in March,
2008.
Quorum
Quandary
This
was to be our official annual meeting, with our Board meeting
and our election. However, we feel short of a quorum for each.
David described the procedure needed to change our bylaws, for
instance to permit proxy or electronic votes. We did not come up
with any motions to modify to our rules; proposing one for
higher review would have required a quorum, anyway.
Officers
Meanwhile,
lacking a quorum, all officers who are willing to remain in
place do so. Because we are short two officers, Jim exercised
his authority to appoint a new membership coordinator. Robert,
who has energetically worked on this and on our educational
programs, agreed to take on this responsibility. Harry suggested
that Joey Panizari might be willing to fill our At-large seat,
and will broach the matter with him.
Cooperative
Publicity
David
raised another policy issue. We were approached by the
representative of a local supply house that is sponsoring a
couple of Code-related seminars by a well-known presenter, with
the request that we publicize his talks. Given the lack of any
seminars on our schedule, this cooperation did not seem to be
problematical–particularly given that this supply house
publicizes various local activities on their web site (including
ours, when they receive adequate notice). However, while an
off-the-cuff decision to cooperate was made this time, it seemed
wise for us to think it through as a group. Our president asked
that we put this off till our March meeting.
Eats
Another
decision concerned food. Robert had suggested that it might be
helpful to people coming to meetings at 6 PM, right from work,
for us to provide real food. Especially now that our Meatball
Maestro has stepped down and out, hard-working people might be
facing the idea of lasting through the evening on sodas; not
promising. David picked up $70 worth of sandwich makings,
crudites, drinks and suchlike, and they were appreciated.
However, the cost seemed excessive, especially with our cash
reserves down to $220. At future meetings, attendees will be
invited to hit the soda vending machine if they want more to
drink than fountain water (except that the few sodas and
non-perishable juices left over from this meeting will reappear
next time). As for food, we will have something on the order of
one sliced-up giant sub sandwich, and eaters will be
incited–invited, if we eliminate the typo--to throw a
couple of dollars into the basket toward their dinner.
Chat
Big
and a Bit Scary
Most
of the evening, when we weren’t discussing our chapter’s
plans for future meetings, we chatted. The new waterfront
complex was a prime topic. Wayne Robinson has responsibility for
plan review, and some of the plans that have come to him are
disturbingly inadequate. The reviewer becomes the designer, in a
sense, given the number of comments the plans demanded as he
evaluated them. Ed Bihlear has been working on the project, and
he described a number of hair-raising episodes. To the best of
his knowledge, there have been no fatalities yet, and this says
something positive.
Miscellany
Here’s
something that was very positive: all the members present at
this meeting got into the conversation, whether by suggesting
resources for programs or by relating stories. Wayne again
discussed the hard-to-install Homeline Main Bonding Jumper. Ed
Bihlear brought up the recall of a Square D disconnect with an
ergonomically-shaped handle. David talked about the confusion at
Schneider/Square D over the availability of combination-type
AFCIs, particularly in Stablok, which is owned by a subsidiary.
Wayne promised to bring some information that he picked up at
the meeting of a Texas chapter regarding lightning strikes and
also aluminum GECs. Harry expressed bemusement over the fact
that people will run aluminum as the GEC from a loadcenter to a
cold water pipe when the distance is a mere three feet. Robert
countered that he’s amazed at some installers who choose
to put in new services filled with half-size breakers.
Who’s
to Enforce Safety?
Two
of our members who carry some AHJ responsibility threw up their
hands (metaphorically). trying to take it lightly but not
looking as though they succeeded fully. They were expressing
their unwillingness to agonize over the fact that those with
authority over them prevent them from doing what they should be
able to do to ensure electrical safety.
We
discussed various jurisdictions that functioned without chief
electrical inspectors for some time. Ed Holt asked about his
ability to carry a Maryland State inspection license, just as an
added credential. Wayne reads the Annotated Code of Maryland as
saying you have to inactivate your other Maryland licenses if
you want to carry any Maryland inspection license. He also
reported that the State Fire Marshal’s office now has been
given a bank of 250 new, improved questions to select from. A
number of people talked about the old questions as having been
both too easy and too unclear, so it’s a good move that a
competent group was asked to provide replacement items. Finally,
Jim Fridell warned that you need to keep an eye on your
licenses’ renewal dates; he failed to receive the notice
he expected when his was about to expire.
NEC
Sales, Code Adoption
David
asked about the disposition of the NECs the chapter owns. Is
anyone yet likely to be adopting the 2005? Wayne reported that
Prince Georges County may end up not adopting local amendments
to the 2005 NEC, just going directly to the 2008. This said,
although the County presently is enforcing the 2002 NEC, when
people who bring in plans cite the 2005 he is quite willing to
go along with them. There still is hope for our 2005 texts.
Adoption of the International Building Code drives NEC adoption,
Wayne believes, even more in Virginia than in Maryland. Since
they just adopted the 2003 IBC, they just brought in the 2002
NEC. However, they don’t skip versions, so eventually they
will be adopting the 2005 NEC.
Licensure
Proposals
Wayne
has hopes that eventually, even if masters have to arrange for
local licenses as they move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
journeymen will be able to carry a single Maryland license that
is accepted statewide with no further fussing. He also hopes
that a rule will be adopted requiring journeymen to earn ten
CEUs every two years, just like masters.
Good
and Welfare
We
learned that Art Hesse just went through surgery for cancer in
his face. He’s in pain, and expects to be out of
commission for a couple-three months.
Next
Most Recent Meeting
11/21/06
meeting, GW Chapter, 6:30-9:20 pm.
17
attendees + 2 speakers: attendees included 5 inspector members,
5 associate members, and 7 potential members.
The
previous meeting’s minutes were summarized and approved.
David Shapiro pointed out that we lack a Membership committee or
officer. He suggested that, rather than taking up the issue now,
people consider filling this vacancy later on, so as to avoid
taking time away from tonight’s presentation.
David
also reported that the treasury is rather hollow, and why, but
that we’re solvent. He mentioned a mistake he’d
made--misplacing the Chapter’s checkbook and register.
While no checks have been misappropriated, he’s stopped
the absent checks (at his own expense), just to play it safe.
Dick
Bissell announced a cookbook sale to benefit one of the
charities he supports.
We
welcomed the seven apprentices that Robert Wellbourne had
encouraged to attend.
EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM
We
were extremely fortunate to have Gil Moniz here representing
NEMA, and John Cangemi for UL. They entertained and informed us
for two hours, so that portion I can report will be limited,
mostly to tidbits that I personally found to be eye-openers.
∙ In
the introduction of our speakers, I mentioned Gil’s value
as someone who can answer questions such as, as an example,
whether any NEMA member offers, or is working on,
weather-resistant receptacles. These may eventually be required
if a 2008 NEC proposal goes through. (Gil’s response is,
“I am not aware of any weather-resistant receptacles
currently available and I do not know who is or is not working
on them at this time.)
∙ The
general theme for the evening was 110.3(B), but oh my we roamed.
∙ Section
110.14, specifying the temperature limitations on terminations,
originated in the UL White Book. Until being brought into the
Code as a separate section it was enforced via 110.3(B).
∙ Near
its handle a circuit breaker might have a marking authorizing
connection to 60 degree C wiring, or 60 and 75, or whatever. On
its body, typically, it will have a marking of 25 or 40 degrees
C. This latter number is not for terminations but refers to the
maximum acceptable ambient temperature of the environment in
which it will be installed.
∙ Dick
asked whether there are any jurisdictions that accept products
Listed by other agencies but not by UL. (No, not so far as our
presenters know.)
∙ Next,
whether there are any that accept only some Listed products.
Both our presenters sit on the New York City advisory board and
its Code committee, so they were able to answer with certainty.
New York City demands, for example, that fluorescent fixtures
use thicker metal than the minimum that the UL Standard permits,
and rejects fixtures with snap-in terminal ends.
∙ On
to GFCIs. Wayne Robinson asked about Class B GFCIs, which used
to be found in the White Book, but seem absent from the latest
edition. Apparently 1965 and earlier swimming pools with
intrinsic lights had leakage levels requiring Class B GFCIs’
20 mA maximum leakage level, to prevent nuisance tripping. (We
did not discuss whether there is anything inappropriate about
characterizing potentially deadly levels of leakage as
“nuisance.”) The disappearance of Class Bs, Gil
suggests, is due to the fact that no one is making them any
more. Ed Holt brought up GFPE, for the protection of pipe- and
vessel-heating lines and snow-melting tapes. John said that
these devices sometimes still are needed to avoid nuisance
tripping that would occur with Class A GFCIs. GFPE devices have
specified trip levels set between 6 and 50 mA.
∙ Compliance
with Listing includes following specific instructions. In the
case of GFCI receptacles, the manufacturers have established
uniform instructions. At one point, the requirement for “bubble
cover” protection was added, for wet-location
installations. This was not an NEC
requirement, except via 110.3(B). A point that John repeated
several times is that Listing means that a product complied with
the relevant safety standard at the time it left the
manufacturer’s control. Listing is not removed, but it
also does not indicate that the product remains safe, or
complies with the very latest version of the standard. For
example, in 1978, the requirements for making copper-to-aluminum
connections were upgraded to safer, more-rigorous ones. This did
not mean that connectors manufacturer up till then were
“De-Listed.”.
∙ We
were challenged several times to examine slides and identify
which products are Listed for which purposes. A number of
two-screw squeeze connectors were shown, some turning out to be
Listed for use with SE only, some for NM, many but not all of
the latter suitable for use with either one or two NM
connectors. Looking at them offers no indication. The
connectors’ box is the only source of that knowledge.
∙ We
discussed clamps for building steel, with respect–they
thought--to the problem of removing fireproofing to make clamps
permanently accessible. (A 2008 proposal should change that
requirement.) The slide they showed did raise several other
questions among our group. Other grounding clamps were shown and
discussed, in another listing-guessing game. John noted that the
clamps’ basic Listing indicates suitability for use on rod
or pipe electrodes. That’s it, unless they are also or
instead marked for use on other items such as tubing or rebar.
∙ John
talked briefly about the difference between splicing and
termination, and David brought up King’s setscrew-type
wire connectors John spoke highly of their compactness, as well
as the fact that they keep copper and aluminum terminations
separate.
∙ John
led from this to the restriction of receptacle and switch
push-in connections to 14 AWG wires. This came, again, from a
change in the UL standard. The reason is that failures were
being reported only with 12 AWG conductors. John suspects that
this is because 14 AWG wire is more flexible, and when
installers fail to fold wires and tuck them back, 14s don’t
push and pull at the connections as much as do the stiffer 12s.
∙ Back
to GFCIs. John observes that nervous homeowners tend to mix up
line and load terminations less commonly than do hurried
professionals, who don’t take the time to determine which
conductors entering the box are which.
∙ Another
point regarding terminations. Some, but only some, aluminum
conductors are compact-stranded. These must be installed in
connectors that are Listed for such conductors. UL will not List
connectors for compact conductors only, but does List some for
standard stranding only.
∙ One
reason that AC cable installation requires the use of anti-short
bushings, but MC does not, is the greater antiquity of AC.
Another is that MC connectors have smaller openings. openings.
Consequently, they tend to center the conductors away from any
risk of being cut by sharp armor edges.
∙ AC
cable always requires the insertion of a red hat; according to
the Standard, it is not enough to use it with a connector that
contains an intrinsic plastic bushing.
∙ There
are legitimate, officially designated “Hospital grade”
receptacles. However, there are no actual “Hospital grade”
or “Healthcare” cables, although some may be
suitable for certain Article 517 uses. AC cable with a
green-insulated conductor is suitable. In the new type of MC,
originally sold by Alflex but now a Southwire product, with the
oversize bare grounding wire, its armor and the grounding wire
in close contact with it are together considered a grounding
system. Provided that in addition to this it contains a
green-insulated conductor in the wire bundle inside the plastic,
it too can be used in patient-care areas. An older-style MC
containing two green-insulated conductors sometimes was referred
to as “Healthcare” cable, but was not suitable for
this use. A use that is in keeping with its Listing is for
wiring Isolated Ground circuits for reduction of electromagnetic
interference.
∙ When
we moved on to kitchen exhausts, there was a lively discussion
of range hoods versus microwaves. This could have gone on
longer, after the end of the presentation proper, but a portion
of the audience was flagging. Wayne did mention that Calvert
County inspectors require installation of a receptacle above any
range, for future use in wiring range hoods or microwaves.
∙ On
to luminaires and lamps. Ed Holt came right up with the answer
to what the numbers in lamp designations refer to: eights of an
inch in diameter. Thus a tube with the T8 designation is one
inch in diameter, and a pear-shaped, A-designation light bulb
marked A-19 is not quite two-and-a-half inches in maximum
diameter. This has an important implication when it comes to
retrofitting, upgrading, modernizing a luminaire. A fluorescent
designed for T-12s may not work right with a replacement ballast
used with T8s. The problem is that lamps generally need to be
within a certain maximum distance from a grounded surface,
normally half an inch. Otherwise, they may have trouble
starting, and try repeatedly–not a good thing.
∙ Another
pop quiz concerned whether a bath light/exhaust fan could be
installed legally over a tub or shower. The answer was yes,
provided the manufacturer’s instructions are complied
with. The instructions may require you to protect it with a GFCI
We had a bit of discussion over the fact that the sample
instructions we were shown specified protecting the entire
circuit, not just the device. Was this additional protection
necessary? Superfluous? Intended? How much of a chance would you
be taking by ignoring the literal wording?
∙ This
discussion of the wording led to John’s differentiating
between a circuit–the wiring between any two points–and
a branch circuit, meaning the wiring downstream of a branch
circuit overcurrent device. Hence the difference between a GFCI,
merely protecting a circuit under the first definition, and an
AFCI, which is defined in the NEC
as protecting an entire branch circuit.
∙ John
mentioned the www.UL.org,
with its regulators’ corner, and its downloadable pdf
White Book. Gil mentioned www.NEMA.org,
with downloadable documents, for example one on dealing with
water-damaged electrical equipment.
∙ We
went over a few of the items in the six pages of notes from the
Eastern Section Code Workshop that David had distributed to
chapter members. John discussed UL Standards, and availability
of information from them. Standards tend to be 8 ½ by 11
inches by half an inch thick, containing mostly test procedures.
About 80% are ANSI documents, but Standards are not something UL
can afford to give away to anyone and everyone. If an inspector
needs particular information from one of the standards in order
to better make a call on a particular job, sure, the odds are
that this can be accommodated. There has been talk of making all
the standards searchable online by AHJs, through the use of
passwords. It is possible that something like this might some
day come to pass.
∙ Ed
asked about the need to recertify lightning protection systems,
perhaps every second year. To the best of John’s
knowledge, this is not required on the ground that some change
must have been made, but only when the setup is indeed known to
have been modified.
∙ David
asked about AFCIs, and the issue of whether their running warmer
than standard circuit breakers could cause problems in older
panels with narrower troughs. The short answer: no problems have
been reported. So far, there is no indication that the CBs would
need to be staggered. AFCIs do run warmer, but don’t
actually run hot.
∙ Finally,
Wayne asked whether a T.I.A. had been adopted regarding the
derating of conductors in cellular metal floors, as in other
raceways. To the best of Gil’s knowledge, it had not been
adopted.
Next
Most Recent Meeting
9/19/06
meeting, GW Chapter, 6:10-9:40 pm.
26
attendees: possibly 11 inspector members, 14 associate members,
and 1 nonmember
Our
president’s arrival was delayed. Due to our plan of
providing 3.5 hours of continuing education, we started without
him.
We went all over the place, touching on easily a couple
of dozen aspects of grounding. Forgive an assortment of notes
that are more scattered than usual.
Harry
and all thanked Wayne for his services to the Chapter and to
IAEI in teaching the mini-seminars.
David
mentioned the forthcoming Eastern Section meeting in
Philadelphia. He also talked about the UL/IAEI-sponsored child
education program, “I am safety smart,” encouraging
members to sign up to participate. Finally, he invited members
to buy the books we have for sale. (One Code book sold.)
Wayne
started quite promptly. To begin, he said his intention was not
to provide the basics of grounding. He recommended Soares
highly. Later in the evening, he mentioned that in the back of
Soares there’s a list of the lengths of each raceway that
can be relied upon for grounding. Pete, an old-timer and
hard-line inspector who relies on his Soares, sits on a CMP, and
works at keeping up to date, had never used this (but plans to,
thanks to Wayne’s having brought it to his attention).
Wayne’s
first comment was that you size grounding conductors as you
would ungrounded.
We spent some time on the differences
between grounded and ungrounded systems. For grounded systems,
grounding facilitates the operation of overcurrent devices.
Ungrounded systems are not designed to trip overcurrent devices
on ground faults, except when they turn into phase-to-phase
faults.
There are three types of wiring system between 50
volts and 1000 that must be grounded. Then over 1 kV, systems
supplying mobile or portable equipment are required to be
grounded, while systems serving non-portable equipment are
permitted to be grounded.
In
general, high-voltage systems operate ground fault protection
via relays. (We had an extensive discussion of what to
characterize as “high-voltage.”) Ungrounded delta is
grounded only via capacitance in metal raceways. As of the 2005
NEC, all delta systems require ground detectors. The first
ground fault to occur creates a corner-grounded system, and a
relay operates to alert whoever’s monitoring it. This
gives them time to complete any important process and shut the
system down. Any second ground fault, though, creates a nasty
phase-to-phase short.
High-impedance
grounded systems are much safer than ungrounded. With an 8 AWG
neutral conductor going to ground, fault current is limited to
less than 10 amps. Tracking down the fault was very hard in
ungrounded systems. It could be anywhere in the system. You
could have 10 feeders in a building. In such a case, you have to
go to the service and find out which feeder it’s in, and
then which phase. We also had quite some discussion regarding
the installation of separately derived systems based on
generators. Most manufacturers insist on a local ground rod.
Pete and David and Ed Holt and Wayne had a nice little go-round
on this. Grounds are common to both systems; they tend to be
connected through building steel even if by no other path.
There
are systems that are not permitted to be grounded: Class 3,
health care isolation transformer systems, low voltage lighting,
and electrolytic cells.
Pete
reminded us of an IAEI News article published some years ago
about South African paper mills with problems of flashovers to
ground. This was due to their burning off cane; the smoke was
conducting.
Parenthetically,
Wayne noted, overvoltages and surges are burning out downstream
surge protectors.
We
turned aside for a while, as Wayne told us how he hates Homeline
panels due to “small terminations,” and a too-short
MBJ. He was there just to observe his son install a Homeline,
but got sucked in to the painfully difficult job of trying to
secure the Main Bonding Jumper. Ed Holt, on the other hand, says
he never has had a callback with Homeline panel, but has with
Cutler Hammer CH panels and Schneider QOs. Ed did not say how
many of each he’s been involved with, though, so there may
well be a baseline effect. (In other words, his sample of
Homelines might be on the small side, biasing his findings.)
In
the course of reviewing options for identifying return
conductors, Wayne mentioned using a white with three colored
stripes. Ed Holt said he is familiar with computer circuits run
in a common raceway, normally with separate neutrals. Nowadays a
grounded conductor with three white stripes, on a base color
other than green, is a regular production item. For example, he
is used to seeing a raceway containing a white grounded
conductor with three black stripes as the identified conductor
for a circuit whose hot conductor is black, with three blue
stripes for a blue hot, etc.
Next
Wayne showed us a picture of a silvery ground lug screwed to the
back of a cabinet. The first thing that made him uneasy is that
it was not copper. We had a big discussion of the suitable
material for grounding lugs. Another question was Listing. Drill
and tap a panel and you may not have enough thickness for the
lug to be secured properly. Wayne figures that the locations for
pre-tapped holes for securing grounding terminal strips or MBJs
may be thickened. Another member disputed this observation, at
least as a rule.
Another
interesting morsel was that if you have an ungrounded system
serving a building and add a grounded system in the building,
you must add a grounded conductor to the first system.
Otherwise, faults in it could travel to the first system’s
MBJ via the grounding electrodes. Main bonding jumpers strike
Wayne as tiny for the fault they may need to carry and survive.
The
next topic was zigzag grounding of delta transformers. The
arrangement appeared to consist of connecting a y-transformer
superimposed on/into a delta, their windings connected together.
Another discussion concerned the need to bond greenfield
extending from a separately-derived system.
Wayne
reminded us that delta systems cannot use slash-rated circuit
breakers, such as ones marked 120/240 Volt.
Back
to sizing grounding conductors. Realistically, nowadays, the 12
1/2% sizing of conductors over 1750 kcmil is only going to be
found with paralleled conductors, Wayne pointed out.
We
had a fun discussion of how to bring service conductors from a
wireway into multiple disconnects. Wayne showed a picture of
such a setting, and discussed the need for bonding bushing, with
special emphasis on the fact that the jumpers from the bonding
bushings have to be sized appropriately. Wayne often sees 6 AWG
bonding jumpers whatever the conductor sizes, rather than larger
size jumpers that might be required. A member pointed out that
this expense and complication could be eliminated by using RNMC,
and Wayne granted the point. In the course of this, someone
pointed to the field-cut threads of the steel nipples in the
slide. We learned that as an apprentice, Pete used to use red
led to paint cut threads before handing conduit to the
electrician.
What
about the use of reducing washers in service equipment? Some are
listed for grounding and bonding. Wayne is not enthusiastic
about this, especially because of their not being made up tight.
He said, “If I can spin it, add a bonding bushing.”
He
noted that a 2005 change requires remote metering to be adjacent
to the service. Otherwise, the frame could be a
current--carrying conductor.
Wayne
spoke highly of CMI’s rebar clamp. Pete warned that some
water pipes have a shiny protective coating giving a really high
impedance where the grounding electrode connector tried to dig
in. unless you rough them up with plumber’s paper.
Wayne
spoke distastefully of the permission to ignore grounding
impedance when two ground rods are installed. Pete, often the
Tartar, spoke proudly of his use of a grounding meter, and
talked about his insistence on satisfactory grounding
electrodes.
We
puzzled over reports of a couple of utilities disapproving
Ufers. Allegheny Power in Garrett County rejects Ufers, as does
DelMarva Power on the Eastern Shore. Both insist on driven
ground rods, despite rock in Garrett, and sandy soil on the
shore.
Noticing
a slide showing a ground rod with a GEC diving underground from
a house on its way to the rod, David asked inspectors what they
consider adequate protection for a GEC heading away from a house
toward a ground rod. Pete said he requires they be run 18"
deep, “standard shovel depth,” to protect it from
gardeners. Wayne and some others questioned this idea of a
standard shovel depth. Ed Holt cited 300.5, requiring three-foot
depth. Wayne said nope, it’s not voltage related. Simply
run it below soil level.
Jim
asked about bonding gas pipe. Wayne said yes. David noted that
doing so via an appliance such as a furnace is okay. Wayne
pointed out that Washington Gas is supposed to have a
nonmetallic fitting in each gas meter. Jim said they don’t
ground or bond gas pipes in Annapolis. Wayne cited 250.66 as the
place to look for bonding-conductor sizing if you don’t
have a gas appliance.
Joey
asked about using a stove igniter's plug for bonding a gas
system. David rejected this on the ground that a plug-in
appliance does not offer reliable system bonding. Wayne
aphorized, “If you have to ask yourself, bond it.”
We
learned that Fairfax County requires the use of a 6"-plus
piece of 4" PVC with a female fitting and plug atop each
ground rod, to help inspectors locate the top of the ground rod.
Ed
mentioned that 15 years ago the end of a ground rod was required
to be accessible, but then an old lady tripped and fell, hurting
herself against it. (She did manage to drive herself to the
hospital.) In response to her experience, they removed a
requirement the end of ground rods be accessible. Harry said
that eight years ago, in Baltimore City, a woman tripped over a
bush and put her eye out on the top of a rod.
Next,
some stories of greed. Wayne said there is a big problem of
people stealing copper in Prince George’s County. Ed said
that classy copper downspouts and gutters are being stolen.
Clean #1 Cu brings close to $3 a pound now.
Wayne
mentioned that during his trip to California, when he might have
been playing, he spent some time observed grounding systems. He
learned that they’re using lots of the armored GECs which
look like BX. Clearly, these still are being made.
Finally,
Pete told us that Bill Davidson’s DC’s new chief
electrical inspector.
Pete
had mentioned, early on, that comments on the ROP, which are due
by October 20, now can be submitted online. The URL is
http://submissions.nfpa.org/onlinesub/onsubmain.php
Previous
Meeting
This
is the full report of our May 2006 meeting.
26 attended:
about 4 nonmembers, 17 Associate members, and 5 inspector
members.
Business
Minutes
President
Jim Wooten surprised secretary David Shapiro by not asking for a
reading of the minutes.
Money
In
other standard business, David reported our treasury at nearly
$1200–it ended up at a bit more, actually, once some
attendees paid for their workbooks.
Contacts
In
new business, David mentioned concern that he had been asked to
send meeting notices to Richard Keely, John Gomolijak & John
Nelson, but not provided with addresses or edresses for them.
President Jim Wooten had one, and Richard provided his own; Jim
has promised the third.
Space
Wayne
explained that the meeting room actually had 37 chairs, so we
had not needed to turn anyone away. We’ll keep that in
mind for subsequent meetings that do not move to a larger venue.
Unfortunately, only one of those registered who could not make
it let us know ahead of the meeting, enabling a wait-listed
member to attend.
Our Education Committee are actively
seeking suitable meeting spaces with more room.
Next
Meetings
Attendees
at our September 19 meeting will enjoy the last mini-seminar for
this year, on grounding. A tentative plan, based on a model
David thought derived from the practices of the Lancaster, PA
chapter, is to encourage all interested members of the industry
to attend, presuming we have enough seats, but to issue CEUs
only to IAEI members. At our November 21 meeting we anticipate
learning from representatives from UL, NEMA, and at least one
manufacturer.
Code
Issues
Darrell
Robinson showed us literature associated with the Colorado Jim
cable straps. In the course of his inspections, Darrell had
needed to correct some installers who used these for purposes
other than those for which they are intended. While these are
Listed for use with as many as four 6-2 NM cables, some
installers try to make them hold more. Interestingly, their
limitations vary depending not only on whether they are used to
secure cables to wood studs or metal ones but also on whether
they are used in the U.S. or Canada. (Canada lets them hold
fewer cables of a particular size than we do.)
David
also brought up three issues of products standards or Code
interpretation. Most concerned outdoor installations. One is
wording in Article 312 seems to greenlight product use in
violation of Listings. “Are NM connectors suitable for
damp locations?” one member asked. No, only dry. Yet we
use them as installers, and accept their use as inspectors,
outdoors on the undersides of wet-location enclosures, even when
we don’t consider the interiors of the enclosures to be
dry locations. We have accepted this practice forever. The same
is true of SEC and SER connectors, which we accept even on the
sides of outdoor enclosures, clearly wet locations. (This is in
keeping with 312.2.) One member mentioned that he never has seen
a watertight connector for SER, only for SEC; nobody chimed in
to say that they remembered seeing one for SER. His point was
that if a wet location connector for the purpose is not
available, its use can’t be required, for example where
SER exits a meter stack to feed the indoor (sub)panel.
David
mentioned a warning by Gil Moniz, our NEMA rep. While gland ring
cable connectors for hubs on the tops of meter cans pass
rigorous tests, what’s actually installed may not keep out
water. The problem is that each connector is designed to seal a
certain range of cable sizes, and different manufacturers’
cables have slightly different dimensions. We agreed that to be
safe, adding a little duxseal, as we have in the past, is the
way to go.
(An
additional issue was mentioned recently in the “UL
Question Corner.” All watertight hubs are designed to mate
with conduit and conduit only, because of their threading. Given
this, arguably we also should use duxseal around the rim where a
connector enters a hub.)
Then
there was an issue concerning the interiors of wet-location
enclosures. When an FS or FD box is mounted against a building
wall, should UF enter it from the building, or is NM okay? Wayne
noted that he considers the space between the building and the
box a wet location, and we agreed that it needs to be sealed if
NM and an NM connector are used. Still, there was the issue of
bringing dry-location conductors into a box whose interior is
not dry. One member noted that he considers the interiors of FD
boxes dry enough for practical purposes, condensation not being
a significant concern. However, he has been less satisfied with
FSs. Then Rich said that the problem isn’t real: he’s
sure that all the NM he sees has dual-rated THHN/THWN
conductors. We agreed that if that’s what’s being
sold around here, the problem is resolved.
The
last question David brought up is that a raceway can be used as
a protective sleeve for NM cable, in recent Code cycles, but
when the “protective sleeve” continues on to
enclosures, is it a protective sleeve or is it a wiring system?
If it’s a wiring system, it seemed to him that the
transition should be made in an enclosure, whether or not the
cable sheath is stripped back. The distinction between a wiring
system and a protective sleeve is not defined explicitly. Nobody
shared his concern. In the course of the discussion, Ed said
that there needs to be a transition fitting, at least, between
the cable and raceway, but only where accessible.
Wayne
asked whether anyone has used the MC cable with a bare aluminum
bonding wire. No one had. He noted that it’s quite light,
and the bare wire does not need to be terminated–it can be
clipped. David asked how this differs functionally from BX,
whose skinnier bonding conductor permits its armor to be used
for grounding. It appears that its having a fatter wire inside
its sheath enables installers to follow the rules for the MC
cable, Chapter 330, rather than AC cable, 320, without having
grounding conductors to terminate. Perhaps if we have a
representative of the manufacturer over, we will learn the
tradeoffs between this and corrugated-sheath MC.
A
few members brought up the practice of temporarily substituting
cable connectors for bugs. Although one or two respected members
did not think this was anything very wrong, no one was prepared
to stand behind it as a legitimate practice, even in service
work where the utility was going to come by fairly soon to
re-terminate.
We
talked briefly about circuit breakers and the unlikeliness of
decalibration. Jim Holt pointed out that this certainly wasn’t
the case with FPE, whose infamous fraud meant the calibration of
breakers manufacturing had been totally untrustworthy. He worked
with UL on clearing up that mess. If we’re lucky, maybe
we’ll get him to tell the story from his firsthand
perspective at one of our meetings.
Other
matters
A
few members bemoaned the standards of our educational
institutions. They are finding new hires not sufficiently
literate to handle their job requirements. A disturbing number
are helpless at performing simple arithmetic without a
calculator–no one mentioned slide rules!--can’t take
reliable measurements, can’t read and write adequately to
fulfill the modest demands of their jobs. Parenthetically, this
is not just a matter of a couple of contractors bellyaching
about the local high schools, and no one bothering to contradict
them, nor even merely a local issue. Even high school graduates
who get into college have this problem. Reportedly the March 10
Chronicle of Higher Education stated that 40% of these kids need
remedial work.
One
of the disillusioned contractors made an unexpected side
comment. He is concerned about the affect of such electricians
on the status of our industry, which he sees as relatively low.
None of us who have different opinions of the status of
electricians felt strongly enough to speak up and dispute that
comment.
Someone
asked about testing and reciprocity. Two points were made.
First, journeyman tests have had pass rates on the order of 33%.
Second, Charles County has accepted journeymen on the basis of
grandfathering rather than testing. In consequence, no other
county is known to have accepted a Charles County license as the
basis for reciprocal licensure.
Seminar
Last
time, Wayne showed dozens of slides that he had prepared, some
with sketches, some with sketches and calculations. This time,
no slides. He had prepared a spiral-bound, colored 100-page
workbook, though we didn’t actually work from it. People
who didn’t make it to the meeting and want to receive
copies may order them from the chapter secretary for $25.
While
we spent a certain amount of time on Code calculations, at least
as much of the evening was devoted to discussion of Code
changes, and how they modify the numbers we come up with. For
instance, with the 2002 Code, a small change in the article on
SE cable used indoors meant that its 75 Degree rating now can be
used. Through the 1999, there was no exception to the rule that,
indoors, it has to follow all the installation requirements for
NM cable--including the 60 Degree ampacity limitation. Coming
forward, there is a significant change in feeder taps’
wire sizes, and those on the secondary sides of transformers.
One
of the first points Wayne brought up is that up to 800 amps,
fuse sizes can be greater than conductors’ ampacities.
However, he emphasized, the conductors must be sized to be
adequate for the loads they serve.
Soon
we moved on to calculating the load for a sample residence. He
noted that in the 2005 NEC, “Fixed appliances” are
referred to simply as appliances. Just as in Article 430, we
look for the largest motor load in a home, to take at 125%. This
does not mean guessing or extrapolating: if there are major
appliances whose loads are not specified as part-motor, they are
not to be considered. The largest identified motor load may
merely be the garbage disposal.
The
former Note 3, now Table 310.15(B)(6), appears to be the source
of some confusion. Wayne reminded us that it only applies to
single-phase services and feeders. Because it only goes up to
400 amps, it does not apply to some multifamily dwellings.
Patiently, he clarified someone’s confusion about its
applicability. After a small tussle, the member took in the fact
that indeed 310.15(B)(6) applies to a feeder from the service
disconnect to an apartment, although not from an apartment panel
to any subpanels. For other residential services and feeders, we
revert to 310.16.
Shifting
from residences, Wayne talked about load calculations for other
buildings. Wayne pointed out that Section 230.42 sets the pace
with the rule for service calculations, and the same logic
applies in 215.2 for feeders and 210.19 for branch circuits.
Conductor ampacity needs to be adequate to carry 100% of
noncontinuous load plus 125% of continuous. Historically, all
lighting in commercial buildings has been continuous; this needs
to be taken into account in performing calculations.
He
described 220.14(K) as a clarification. With banks and office
buildings, you need to compare the load added to the basic
square-footage requirement by multiplying the number of
general-use receptacles by 180 VA with the load added by
multiplying footage by an additional 1 VA. Then you add the
loads required by receptacles for specific equipment.
Section
220.14(G) is different, at least to some of the inspector
members present. Wayne does not believe a show window can be
calculated optionally. The Code says to figure it one of two
ways, either at 200 VA per foot, or at the per-outlet figure.
The latter might be 180 VA for receptacles. If it’s a
known “specific load,” that nameplate rating would
be the figure. If it’s a track, it would be 75 VA per
foot. Any of these is taken at 125% for continuous operation. He
reports a consensus among Code authorities he’s read that
it should be taken as the larger of these two means of
calculating the load. Ed Holt pointed out that the NEC does not
say so explicitly.
He
reminded us that we need to allow for a sign circuit when
performing design and calculations for any commercial building
with grade access. This includes any non-residential building–a
school, for example.
Wayne
walked us through sizing a wireway for service conductors.
Members appeared surprised at the fact that conductors in
nonmetallic wireways require derating as they would in conduit,
whereas derating in metal wireways depends on fill. After
talking about fill, he brought up wire-bending space. As an
aside, he noted that conductors in 200 amp panels often violate
the requirement in 312.6 for wire-bending space.
Proceeding
to a transformer calculation, he gleefully noted a change in
conductor sizing, improving safety. The fuse on the primary side
of a transformer can be upsized to 250%. Why? To handle inrush
current.
Consider
a 112.5 kVA transformer. Primary current rating will be 135 A,
secondary 312 A. The permissible 250% upsizing of primary-side
protection yields 337 A, permitting use of a 350 A fuse. Up till
the 2002 NEC, under the 25-foot tap rule there was no minimum
size for secondary conductors to feed a 100 A panel, beyond the
100 A rating of the load OCD. Now, though, 240.21(C)(6) says
that the secondary conductors need ampacity 1/3 the primary
protection X the transformer ratio. This can mean these
conductors will need to be upsized, unless the primary
transformer protection is downsized or secondary protection is
provided at their origin.
One
issue that was not resolved is where a 10' feeder tap can
terminate.
Section 240.21(B)(1)(b)limits the ampacity of a
feeder tap to either of two numbers. The second phrase of the
sentence mentions the rating of the overcurrent device fed by
the tap. The first phrase, though, mentions the rating of the
device fed by the tap. We did not come to a clear agreement as
to an example of such a "device." It seemed like a
strange term to use for a switchboard or panelboard.
Previous
Meeting
This
is the full report of our March 2006 meeting.
Wayne
Robinson, who has been teaching Code topics forever, has agreed
to offer at least two mini-seminars in association with our
chapter’s meetings. At the end of our March 21, 2006
chapter meeting (which started around 6:30 p.m.), we enjoyed an
overview of Article 430, addressing motors and motor
calculations.
With
our usual venues unavailable, we were grateful for the kindness
of Prince George's Community College, which let us use the space
without charge. The only cost, as it were, was that we were not
permitted to charge a fee for attendance. The room seats only 30
people, and we nearly filled it, with 13 associate members, 4
nonmembers, and 8 inspector members. If not for six no-shows, it
would have overflowed. A couple of members showed up without
having registered, on the off chance that there would be room.
(Our May meeting is booked to capacity, unless we can arrange
for a larger venue.)
Business
President
Jim Wooten started by asking for a reading of the minutes.
Secretary David Shapiro did not have them with him, mentioned
that they are available on the chapter’s web site (and in
shorter form appear in IAEI News), and furthermore warned that,
given their length, reading them could use up a significant
portion of the meeting’s time. Jim has asked David to
bring summaries to our future meetings.
In
other standard business, David stated that our bookkeeper, Pam
Panizari, reported our treasury activities proper. As of early
April, we have more than $1300, a healthy start on our main
annual expense, paying for representation at the Section
meeting. An annual report has been forwarded to the IO. This
ensures that we will receive our share of dues money this year.
In
new business, David mentioned a concern that was brought to his
attention. Some inspector members, he was told, avoid our
meetings and seminars, or at best attend but sit quietly at the
back of the room. This is because if they speak up at meetings,
it can come back to hit them in the face. Certain contractors
who have attended these meetings have asked for Code
interpretations from the inspectors in attendance. Later, on the
job, they have used their memories of these interpretations to
challenge the on-the-job rulings by colleagues of these
inspectors.
There
were quite a few responses to this, and they varied
considerably. One was, “If you’re confused about a
Code issue, come up to me privately to ask my opinion; don’t
embarrass yourself in front of the whole room.” Someone
pointed out that in his opinion there isn’t a lot of Code
that takes interpretation. Most of it is clear if you read the
text. Others disagreed. Another suggestion was, “The
inspector on the job is the AHJ, and he rules. You can appeal
his ruling to the chief, but for this effort the dispute is
going to have be over the need to make a change that results in
real cost." Yet another voice piped up with, “Inspectors
who have that kind of worry are just the sort of people who
would get the most benefit from these meetings.” Another
comment was, approximately, “If I expect to do this kind
of work, I just can’t be too thin-skinned.” There
were many more. One thing that did not happen was for any
consensus to emerge. Certainly the invitation is there, for all
every member to attend, and it does not carry with it the
obligation to ask or to respond to any question, for any reason.
Seminar
We
didn’t wait too long before letting Wayne get started, not
with two and a half hours of education to fit in. He showed
dozens of slides that he had prepared, some with sketches, some
with sketches and calculations, and relatively few devoted to
text. Wayne kept largely to the intention he stated up front of
not reading slides. Instead, he asked us questions, he answered
some of ours, and he added comments to the material we were
looking at. Here are some examples.
What
are torque motors? Belt drives are an example.
What
are adjustable voltage motors? Printing presses are an example.
Their brush locations are moved in accordance with the applied
voltage. Six- and nine-wire motors can have different circuits,
with differently-sized wires, for each speed.
The
2005 NEC removed reference to Design E motors. They never were
built in quantity, not being sufficiently energy-efficient.
Until
the 2005 NEC is enforced, there could be motors with higher AIC
ratings than their controllers, with the result that the
controllers and equipment can be destroyed.
Wayne
and others recommended obtaining Bussman’s information on
AIC and selective coordination. It can be found in their catalog
and online at www.bussman. com.
Wayne
mentioned that he prefers getting numbers from 430.251 over
using his formula to calculate locked-rotor current. This is
needed mainly for fire pumps. Wye-delta starting lowers starting
current by 50%. He advised getting hold of NFPA 20 for work on
fire pumps, as 680.95 does not have all the information you’ll
need.
“What’s
duty cycle?” he asked. It refers to the number of minutes
out of every 60 that equipment will run.
We
spent a little time on taps. Wayne pointed out that motor taps
send you to 430.28, unlike feeder taps.
Ed
Holt piped up when we got to 430.57, which requires fuseholders
be sized to accommodate Table 430.52 fuses. Can you have larger
fuseholders, and use reducers? Wayne came back with, “Are
fuseholder reducers Listed?”
Safety,
always safety: 70E, Wayne mentioned, is the NFPA’s biggest
seller after the NEC.
Looking
at 430.72(B)(2), Motor Control Circuits, he noted that the level
of overcurrent protection they require varies depending on
whether they are fully within the controller enclosure, or
extend beyond it, as with remote start-stop stations.
The
NEC is not the only player when it comes to legitimizing motor
work.. Listing laboratories are involved, too. UL spent months
going over the Mitsubishi presses at the Washington Post and the
Gazette. European motors are rated in kW. You divide this by 746
to get the equivalent HP rating. They are very high quality, and
the voltages are specified to accommodate wide ranges.
As
the evening continued, we all wore down a bit, with this coming
at the end of a regular work day. Some of the impromptu asides
concerned UL’s follow-up of Listed products, after they
have made their way successfully through the initial
investigation. We were left with these comments: If the agency
receives a letter complaining about a product, they may take a
serious look at the factory. Otherwise, one knowledgeable person
complained, their checking can be entirely too superficial.
This
is the report of our January 17, 2006 meeting at the Prince
Georges' County Offices at Peppercorn Place, in Largo, MD.
President Jim Wooten called us to order around 6:40 p.m. Besides
our two presenters, we had 18 attendees: seven inspector
members, nine associates, one lapsed member, and one non-member.
We
started out with Executive Board and business matters.
Treasury
David
reported that our treasury continues to be healthy. We are due
for an audit, but he sees more than $1400 in our checking
account, before paying for our next flyer mailing.
Job
Descriptions
David
proposed that we explain the duties associated with each office.
This is what we came up with, accepted unanimously:
Duties
of all the Board: Attend regular meetings regularly; discuss and
vote on matters that can’t wait for a regular meeting,
either by phone and email or at a special executive meeting
should this strike the president as necessary, as has been the
case once so far.
President: Preside over meetings; Call for
a special meeting, if deemed necessary; make any command
decisions required. For example, decide if a meeting is to be
cancelled for bad weather.
Vice presidents, in order: take
over when the president is unavailable.
Past President:
Provide guidance to the president as desired; take over when
both the president and the vice president(s) are unavailable.
Secretary-treasurer: Get out flyers, record and post the
minutes, maintain the web site, look up answers to bylaws
questions, handle correspondence and generally any other writing
or printing, generally interact with the IO, maintain our bank
account, and normally represent the Chapter on the Section
Board, attending their meetings.
Education: Arrange for
programs at meetings, and notify the secretary in good time for
him to inform the membership.
Seminars: Arrange for other
educational programs, particularly more-extensive ones; normally
enable the chapter to raise funds by doing so; handle associated
logistics.
Membership: Welcome new members; recruit members;
contact inactive or departing members and try to resolve any
concerns they express.
At Large: No specific duties.
Godfather: Keeps us steering right.
This is not an
exhaustive list of possible offices.
Note: The bylaws
restrict the presidential and vice-presidential offices, and
them only, to Inspector members.
Election
Subsequently,
we voted in this year’s officers. Our 2006 Board consists
of the following:
President: Jim Wooten
Vice President:
Wayne Robinson
Second Vice President: Vacant
Past
President: Wayne Robinson
Secretary-Treasurer: David
Shapiro
Education: Harry Langway
Seminars: Wayne
Robinson
Membership: Dino Panizari
At Large: Susan
Flashman
Godfather: Vacated by the death of Art
Hesse
Assistant Godfather: Vacated by Dick Bissell's dropping
out of IAEI
At
our last meeting, Jim urged that flyers be sent out so as to be
received a week before meetings, and a consensus supported him
at this. David unilaterally decided to wait till after the
meeting and send out a special mailing, giving attendees at our
January meeting first crack at signing up. This turned out to be
a good idea, as we decided to amend them slightly.
The
members of our new education committee, Harry Langway and Robert
Welborne, want to begin general distribution of flyers shortly
after Valentine’s Day, presuming that any seats remain
available. Therefore, the flyers mailed out now to members will
give them a deadline of February 13 by which to get their
registrations back, in order to receive preferential treatment
over non-members.
David will be responsible for collecting
registrations and printing up CE certificates.
Later
in the meeting, Wayne expressed concern over logistical matters
for the mini-seminars: seating and the availability of a
projector. He will investigate solutions.
Wayne,
Jim, David, and Ed were applauded for their service.
EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM
We
enjoyed an excellent introduction to firestopping.
Ron
Breuer from 3M had a quite-distant appointment early the next
morning. Still, we got a lot of questions answered. One
indication that Ron is a master of his subject matter is that he
showed no defensiveness. He talked freely, and generously, about
Nelson, Hilti, and STI. He praised competitors’ web sites,
recommended this competitor as having field representatives who
give fine presentations, acknowledged that company as having
originated one type of fire sealant, this company another. I
don’t mean that he ignored 3M’s contributions.
Still, this added up to give him a feeling of solid
trustworthiness.
I
can’t hope to convey most of what he taught us, so I’ll
give you a handful of useful snippets.
Firestops
can have three types of rating. Electricians are most concerned
with “F” and “L” ratings, but there are
also “T” ratings. An “F” rating says
that the barrier will not allow flame to pass through for a
specified time. A “T” rating says that heat rise on
the other side of the barrier is limited to a specified extent
for a certain amount of time. An “L” rating says
that the rate of air --meaning smoke and toxic gases--leaking
through is limited in a specified way.
There are four types
of firestop.
The first is intumescent, meaning that it
expands when heated. After you insert backing material in a
hole, a half-inch of this caulk or putty does the job.
The
second is endothermic, meaning that it releases chemically-bound
water once it reaches 600 deg F, and cools the penetration.
The
third is ablative, meaning that it slowly sacrifices itself,
keep fire from penetrating by burning away. Only 1/4-1/2"
is needed over the backing material.
The fourth is
insulative. As it is packed in, it blocks fire from penetrating,
without any need to expand.
Packing
materials vary, and they, unlike the active firestopping
materials, are fungible; you do not need to use one from the
same manufacturer whose firestopping materials you are
installing. The best is mineral wool, but others include
fiberglas and alumina silica fiber or strips, and barrier duct
wrap. Unlike packing, you must not mix and match different
manufacturers’ products when it comes to other firestop
materials, the active components, because these are Listed
systems. Whatever the firestop, it cannot improve the
fire-protective rating beyond the rating of the wall or floor
system itself. It is pointless to firestop to a greater level. A
wall with 5/8" sheetrock on each side commonly has a
one-hour fire rating; with double 5/8" sheetrock on each
side, two hours. A four-inch thick concrete floor commonly has a
two-to-four hour fire rating. A firestop is not a material as
such; it is a system, meaningless unless installed in the manner
specified by the UL Fire Resistance Directory. This
specification can be found in the installation guide, available
as a book from the manufacturer, on the manufacturer’s web
site, or both.
Generally,
a floor needs firestopping installed on either the top or the
bottom, but a wall requires it on both sides. It is important to
firestop all the way around cables or conduits in holes (between
them as well, especially when they run vertically), rather than
leaving them in contact with the hole on one side, and
consequently not getting firestop between them and the hole on
that side. It is far preferable not to have the hole a great
deal larger than what needs to pass through it. If it is too
large, a composite sheet can be installed, secured with fender
washers, to reduce it to a blockable size. With cable tray, one
issue is how many conductors are in the tray, because only the
wires inside the plastic are reliably noncombustible and
nonmelting.
UL
distributes product ID numbers to the various manufacturers.
They share common elements. If the ID starts with an “F,”
it is for use in firestopping floors only. If the ID starts with
a “W,” it is for use in firestopping walls only. If
the ID starts with an “C,” it is for use in
firestopping either. The number following the letters tells you
whether the system is for firestopping empty holes, holes
containing metal conduit, holes containing plastic conduit,
holes containing electrical cable, and so on.
Here
are some other notes.
Fire
blocks, unlike firestopping systems, only block smoke and toxic
gases. Still, if a barrier has no fire rating, these can be
suitable, and less expensive than firestopping. They may be
colors other than red, to distinguish the materials. Seams of
drywall spackle separate in fire. Mortar repairs of cinderblock
result in multiple seams: the one where the mortar hits the
cinderblock and the one where the mortar hits the item
penetrating. Both are vulnerable. Firestopping pillows are
mineral wool with intumescent material on each side. Four
pointers about using them: (1) do not remove the plastic
wrapping. (2) step on each one to compress it tight before
installing it. (3) stick them the long way into the wall, using
more of them. (4) They can block only so large an opening. If
necessary, repair the wall between penetrations, in order to use
pillows to block them. Telecom wiring takes putty sheets molded
about it. It costs $3.– to $4.50 a sheet. Putty goes
around metal boxes, but not plastic. Add 5/8" of caulk, and
you get 50dBa soundproofing. The loose material looks like duct
seal. Mark Bryant, the product rep who introduced Ron, used to
represent Carlon. He described plastic boxes’ behavior in
fire. They transmit the heat to their content less than do metal
boxes, whose contents bake. After the fire reaches a certain
point, the plastic boxes melt, further protecting their contents
(in a manner Mark did not have time to explain). Too much
intumescent caulk or, protecting telecom wiring, too much
intumescent putty can be not merely useless but harmful. It can
overexpand and break the seal. A final and important note: If
you don’t have UL’s red multi-volume fire-resistance
directory, and don’t want to have to visit web sites when
you install or inspect these systems, you need
manufacturer-specific literature. Call 3M at 1-800-245-3573 and
you will be given the option of requesting theirs. Members
attending our meeting loaded up on it.
Code
Matters
ASHI
home inspector Bob Sisson, a member whose attendance usually has
been impeded by meeting night conflicts, described some puzzling
restrictions on receptacle installation. All of us agreed that
the NEC says nothing about putting the ground up or down, right
or left. (Actually, David mistakenly thought that in flammable
anesthetizing locations there was or had been a requirement; a
little checking proved this wrong.) Some jurisdictions,
apparently, did impose rules in this regard. Specifically, where
receptacles are used as the required switched lighting outlets,
some builders like to specify that the lighting outlets be
installed in the opposite orientation to the other receptacles
in the room, as an indication that they are the switched
outlets. This was forbidden by some inspectors–some
jurisdictions outruling the practice entirely, and others
calling it a violation only when the receptacle was split-wired.
As he went though such houses, Bob was stuck with the option of
using a permanent marker to indicate which receptacles were
switched. None of us could explain these restrictions in terms
of Code rules, nor even in terms of documented local amendments.
Montgomery County, Maryland had been one of the jurisdictions
named. A subsequent check with Phil Waclawski confirmed that
they have no such requirement. If an inspector insisted on
anything with regard to receptacle orientation, this was
independent action, and could be challenged. He also mentioned
that they hope to move on the 2005 NEC, with luck sending it to
Council for adoption this year. They will work on paring down
amendments.
Bob's
comments led to some other wild and wonderful stories. (These
followed the "truth can be stranger than fiction"
violation photos to which a couple of members treated us.) One
member inspected an installation with switched lighting outlets
in the corner of a room far from any place where they would be
usable for floor or table lamps. Another inspected a development
that cheaped out by installing switched receptacles in dining
rooms in place of hard-wired luminaires. Another had a
most-peculiar story about a consultation concerning a marine
dock–but he asked that this be left out of the minutes. If
you can’t make it to our meetings, you miss out.
In
other matters, Wayne mentioned having been asked about
reciprocity between Prince George’s County licensure and
Washington, D.C.’s. It is possible that journeyman
licensure will be reciprocated, so long as it remains local. If
licensure goes statewide, reciprocity wold have to be statewide.
This is why Prince George’s County cannot offer reciprocal
master’s licensure. It is possible that journeyman
licensure will not go statewide, as Baltimore County opposes
this.
Washington,
D.C. still looks for adoption of the 2005 NEC any day. The
matter remains in council, so Mr. Ali (who subsequently
mentioned that he regretted having had to miss our meeting)
could not even discuss local amendments whose inclusion is
anticipated.
-END-
Report
of Our Previous Meeting.
This
is the report of our November 15, 2005 meeting. We've returned
to the Prince Georges' County Offices at Peppercorn Place, in
Largo, MD. President Jim Wooten called us to order around 6:45
p.m. We had 16 attendees, once again: five inspector members,
ten associates, and our presenter.
We
started out with Executive Board and Business matters. They
included a note that former Executive Board member Sam Levinrad
has dropped away. When the IO provided a certificate
acknowledging his 35 years of membership, we sent a note asking
him if he’d like to pick it up or have it mailed. We
didn’t get a response to the note. Susan, our at-large
member, suggested that we mail it anyway. Member welfare seems
close to her heart, as she and Dick consistently supply
snacks–this time including home-baked cookies.
Lead
Time
One
of the first substantive matters concerned the timeliness of
flyers announcing meetings. Jim urged that flyers be sent out so
as to be received a week before meetings, and a consensus
supported him at this. So it will be done, at least so long as
the necessary information is at hand in time.
Seminars
On
to education. It’s been a while since we’ve offered
a one- or two-day seminar. Harry proposed, and all agreed, that
we will experiment with something different for a while. Wayne
has agreed to teach comparatively short seminars, preferably on
topics which are not too stale for him. These mini-seminars will
take place on meeting nights, and we will grant CEUs.
Members
will attend free, non-members for $25 (non-transferrable and
non-refundable). Members will have first crack at registering,
just in case we should reach the 50-person limit on attendance
that is set by the meeting room’s size. We will accomplish
this by including sign-up sheets in the flyers mailed out
announcing the previous meeting to that at which we offer each
mini-seminar. Closer to the event, flyers and sign-up sheets
will be distributed at electrical supply houses. The
generally-distributed flyers will make note of the fact that
people who join IAEI and attend two seminars will recoup more
than half the price of a year’s membership, due to not
having to pay the seminar fees.
On
March 21, 2006, we will have an overview of Article 430,
focusing on motors and motor calculations.
On
May 16, 2006, we will have general calculations, largely Article
220. The latter, at least, will include a workbook–one of
well over 100 pages.
Treasury
David
reported that our treasury is healthy. He mentioned that the
Eastern Section generously voted to subsidize registration at
the annual Code Workshops for members of its Executive Board, so
long as the Section has funds available. This reduced the hit
our treasury took to send representation.
Code
Matters
Wayne
mentioned that D.C. should be adopting the 2005 NEC soon; its
consideration is in Council.
Cable
Support.
David
brought up a couple of Code questions on the difference between
supporting versus securing cable within a foot of connectors. By
and large, inspector members’ consensus seemed to be that
the Code can be complied with as written.
First,
whether or not this is enforced commonly, the fact that a cable
passes through a hole, even very near a box, does not eliminate
the requirement to secure it. Second, if a recessed light is in
a non-accessible ceiling, the cable must be secured within a
foot of the junction box that is part of the frame-in kit. Wayne
emphasized that a tie wire going up to the ceiling is considered
adequate to secure, not merely support, the cable. If stapling
cable to a joist means the frame-in kit’s junction box has
to be too close to the joist for easy splicing access, well,
installers can gain access from below, just as would be done
once the ceiling was in place.
Wayne
also expressed some dismay, or at least considerable concern,
over a development under the 2005 NEC, with luminaires in
accessible ceilings. It seems connectors can themselves be
treated as means of support, where cables go from luminaire to
luminaire. David pointed out that he presumed such connectors
have to be Listed for the purpose; we don’t know that any
are so Listed. He told the strange story of the standard for
raised covers suitable for bonding devices attached to them, as
recounted by UL’s Chuck Mello.
Subsequent
to the meeting, David checked with UL, and his impression was
corrected. Here’s what Chuck Mello wrote back:
I
checked the Code sections you cited for the AC cable and also
for NM cable and then went to the listings for those connectors.
Both are listed under UL 514B and both have a fairly strong pull
out test. The recent harmonization of this standard with Canada
and Mexico actually reduced the pull test requirements (in terms
of pounds of force) for smaller sizes of cables but generally AC
cables for 1/2 inch KOs have to support a weight of 75 pounds
and this goes up. The NM cable connectors have to support a
series test of 25 and then 60 pounds with some other things
thrown in between. So it would appear that for the areas where
not more than 6 feet of AC cable can be left unsupported, except
for the connector, then the connector can clearly support the
weight of the cable. The same is true for NM cable. Any cable
connector that is listed would also be listed to provide this
support without any additional markings or provisions indicating
it was suitable for this use.
Other
Code Matters
A
number of jurisdictions have adopted their own color coding
requirements for conductors used at different distribution
voltages, or associated with particular transformer terminals:
Brown-orange-yellow, black-red-blue, white for the phantom phase
in open delta . . . .
Jim
brought up the problem of installers overlooking 334.10's
restrictions, attempting to install NM in commercial buildings
of Type I or II construction (or, perhaps, installed exposed in
other Types). Wayne pointed out that, while you have to go to
the Building Code for the clearest discussion , NEC Appendix E
does a better job in the 2005, in his opinion, than it did in
the 2002. Sparky needs to check with the G.C. Where there is a
building permit, someone noted, the Construction Type should be
right on the application.
EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM
Frank
Peri, President, Communications Design Corporation, was our
presenter. He represented Dupont Communications Cabling
Solutions, pinch-hitting for a couple of their scheduled
speakers who had to bow out. He is a member of NFPA, and sits on
the committees for NFPA 90A and NFPA 75. He authored the article
in May’s IAEI
News
on the same topic he covered for us.
It
was well worth reviewing, and of course there’s a great
advantage to having the expert there in person, answering
questions. Incidentally , he noted that he has lots more to say
on the topic. He has discussed with Dupont the possibility of
offering a presentation of perhaps 2 ½ hours . As with
many of our meetings, what I report here is only a taste of what
we learned.
Frank’s
topic was twofold. One, the fire hazard associated with
abandoned communications cabling. Two, the advantages over
present cabling, in terms of fire performance of
limited-combustibility cable, which is not yet in the NEC. It
melts rather than burning. (In response to a question, he noted
that Circuit Integrity cable, which is required to hold up for
at least two hours in a fire, doesn’t even have organic
material in its insulation.) His sponsor, Dupont, does not make
limited-combustibility cable but manufactures material used in
the cable.
One
of his major points was that, typically, low-voltage cable is
not the source of a fire (this is evidenced, presumably, by the
NEC’s easier requirements for running it). However, once a
fire starts, such cabling eventually ignites and then sustains
and spreads flame and smoke. The 1994 Rockefeller Center fire,
for instance, appears to have been started in power wiring, but
then spread from the fifth to the tenth floor–or maybe the
tenth to the fifth? With the fire and smoke damage that the
communications cabling exacerbated, no one can tell.
Another
point was that perhaps 95% of damage can be attributed to smoke.
Even without obvious damage, incidentally, smoke compromises
electronics. Equipment may seem to work after smoke exposure,
but often will become unreliable, and fail early. It used to be
thought that smoke somehow was corrosive . Eventually the
mechanism was clarified: fine soot particles get into things,
and combined with moisture, create internal shorts. Smoke also
endangers people by producing low visibility, hampering exit and
rescue efforts, and by producing poisonous, odorless carbon
monoxide.
He
was asked why the NEC requires removal of accessible portions of
abandoned communications cable, rather than accessible portions
of all abandoned cable. His answer was that there is far, far
more abandoned communication cable. A given mass of power
wiring’s PVC sheath, though, should represent a similar
hazard. Metal-jacketed cable is less susceptible to fire, but
eventually will contribute, as the jacket is breached. Cables in
metal raceways, though, are not considered combustible.
Interestingly, he knows of no data on the actual fire
performance of exposed power wiring in fire. In contrast, there
are alarming studies of how power wiring in metallic conduit
performs in a fire.
Wayne
mentioned his concern that the NEC permits MTW leading to motors
to be exposed in plenums, whereas communications cable in
plenums requires a plenum rating. Frank brought up a conflict:
the NEC permits communications cable in not just plenums but
ducts; this is something forbidden by NFPA 90A, the standard for
air conditioning and ventilation systems, which, incidentally,
sets smoke standards for plenums.
Frank’s
last code point was his interpretation of NFPA 13, the sprinkler
standard, which is referenced in the NEC. He believes it
requires that if you install combustible cable in any concealed
space, you must install sprinklers within that concealed space.
In
a final note, he mentioned that several companies, including
Dupont, offer guidance in arranging for the safe disposal of
abandoned cable, and will give building owners certificates of
safe disposal. Not only the copper but the plastic is recycled,
the latter often as the spacer inside new cable.
Checking
afterwards wtih DuPont, David confirmed that Dupont points
callers to sources of assistance in disposing of communications
cable only, not other cables.
Report
of Our Previous Meeting.
Due
to some well, can I say crossed wires, the secretary got to the
meeting quite late. Fortunately, Wayne Robinson stood in for him
and took notes during the first part of the evening. He reports
that after James Wooten called the meeting to order, four items
were covered. One, our next meeting will move back to Largo/New
Carrolton. Two, anyone interested can contact Harry Langway
regarding seminars. Three, there was some discussion over the
interpretation of NEC Section 250.52(B)(3)--Ufers. Four,
adoption of the 2005 NEC in Prince Georges County will be
addressed by a committee consisting of Art Hesse, Wayne
Robinson, and David Shapiro.
David
brought a notice from a New York inspection outfit that is
recruiting inspectors; there were no takers.
Program
Education
Director Ed Holt had a tentatively-scheduled presenter fall
through at the last moment. (He does have commitments for the
November and January programs.)
Fortunately,
Jim Wooten had invited Ann Arundel's John Gomoljak to come and
to bring his laptop, with slide shows of his twelve days of
volunteer work restoring Louisiana in the aftermath of Katrina.
Like many other parts of the country, Maryland sent lots of
volunteers--perhaps 500 all told--and equipment. They included
fire department personnel who worked at retrieving corpses. John
was quite glad to have a different set of responsibilities.
From
Maryland to the Gulf took them 25 hours, driving as fast as they
wanted--no tickets; a great feeling, John said, the National
Guard waving them through. They kept going from 6 AM to 11:30
PM, working hard, with no personalities getting in the way,
setting up six clinics at elementary schools, hooking up
generators.
I
won't go over the sights John showed and described. It's enough
to say that John made it sound like a thoroughly worthwhile
experience, and more than one of us expressed interest in doing
something like that.
Previous
Meeting
On
May 17, 2005, we held our much-postponed annual meeting, We had
16 attendees, counting the presenters: six inspector members,
three nonmembers and seven associates.
EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM
We
learned about the application of the 2005 Code changes governing
the use of manholes and handholes, with particular reference to
a line of products he represents. In addition, we received a
fascinating, flash-fire quick briefing on circuit-integrity
cable. Mr. Tom Kidwell, of Electrical Sales Associates, brought
us Mark Phipps and David Chase to give the presentations. As
with any of these reports, what you see here does not capture a
tenth of the information you would have gotten had you attended
the meeting.
New
in the 2005 NEC is an Article 100 definition of Handhole
enclosure, and Section 314.30, requiring handhole enclosures to
handle all loads likely to be imposed. Until 2002, there was no
standard for underground enclosures, whether handholes or
manholes.
Our
presenters represent a manufacturer of UL-Listed precast polymer
concrete enclosures. They spent several minutes discussing the
downsides of alternatives such as polymer-reinforced fiberglas,
which can break; thermoplastic, which deforms too easily;
concrete. . . they had much to say about the relative drawbacks
of concrete compared to newly available alternatives that absorb
much less water. They did acknowledge that concrete is the
appropriate material for manholes, at least for the enclosures,
though not for the covers, a role in which it is at too much
danger of cracking. They also warned us about problems with
polymer/concrete enclosures consisting of layers of dissimilar
materials. They spoke of potential liability arising when
enclosures fail, collapsing or becoming inadequately grounded.
Even
their enclosures are not suitable for use in all locations. Only
boxes of cast iron or reinforced concrete and suchlike are
suitable for "deliberate traffic areas," such as the
middle of a roadway.
Raceways
need to be brought into the underground enclosures, not stopping
short of them, but need not be secured to the boxes. All
conductors and, where used, splices and terminations must be
suitable for wet locations. This is because even closed-bottom,
gasketed underground boxes will fill with water within a month.
Most of those sold, by far, are the open bottom type.
They
also need to be installed properly. This means setting them on
at least six inches of gravel, with the gravel extending well
beyond the edges of the box. Otherwise, they can sink,
gradually. This can mean an edge cutting into a conductor's
insulation: bad news. Suppose the wires energize the cover!
Circuit
Integrity Cable
First,
Mark Phipps talked about MI. He described seeing it
manufactured, an awesome process. It is indeed, as he said,
"almost invincible." Unfortunately, it is awfully
expensive-and the fittings on it are not fire-rated! Circuit
Integrity Cable, the new stuff, is expanding its use in the 2005
and will doing so even more in the 2008 NEC. A coaxial version
for communications, another for lighting, for signals. It still
does need to be installed in metal conduit, with steel fittings,
not die-cast, it has a 2-hr fire rating with support every 5
feet. Furthermore, it's rated RHH, with no W, so it is no good
for wet locations. Junction boxes are okay for pulling but there
are no splices that are fire rated, so you have to fire-proof
any boxes that are used for splicing. This means the expense of
UL-Listed fireproofing kits suitable for the specific box and
environment. Circuit integrity cable insulation is silicone
rubber that ceramifies in a fire, hardening, but also, in
consequence, getting brittle. It is available in sizes 14 to 750
AWG.
Two
types are Listed: CI, a version of power-limited circuit
integrity cable not requiring conduit, and CIC, "Circuit
Integrity in Conduit," requiring conduit--steel EMT is
fine. The reason for the conduit is that with its protection the
fire fighters' water hose won't blow off the ceramified
insulation.
Next,
refreshments were served, courtesy of our outgoing Meetball
Maestro, Sir Dick Bissell, who was unable to attend, due to one
of his many other commitments.
EXECUTIVE
and BUSINESS MEETING
This
was our much-postponed annual meeting, We finally voted in a
slate of officers. It took a fair bit of discussion, given that
a number of people affected were not present. We were greatly
concerned about doing right by Wayne Robinson, our current
president. According to our best knowledge, his back is
improving, but he continues to be tied up on meeting evenings
teaching. On the other hand, a couple of people had the
impression that he may have wanted to be more involved in our
seminar program. Dick Bissell, on the other hand, made it very
clear that this time he is absolutely unavailable to continue to
serve as seminar coordinator. Ed Holt also wants someone to take
over for him, but manages to continue while we wait for someone
to volunteer to take his place, or at least help out.
Therefore,
the following slate of officers was nominated, and elected
unanimously:
President:
Jim Wooten
Vice President: Art Hesse
Second Vice
President: Vacant
Past President: Wayne
Robinson
Secretary-Treasurer: David Shapiro
Education: Ed
Holt
Seminars: Wayne Robinson
Membership: Harry Langway
At
Large: Susan Flashman
Godfather: Art Hesse
TREASURER'S
REPORT
We're
not doing real well financially. Our checking account is down to
less than five dollars! Aside from that, we have $100 in petty
cash, and 22 stamps. We are owed $1644 by one agency that sent
six people to our last seminar, and that check should show up
within the next week or two. However, most of that money will be
earmarked for our representation at September's Eastern Section
meeting.
Summer
CEUs?
Shall
we offer another seminar, perhaps even as early as this summer?
Normally, our chapter's activities are on hold during the
summer, as people get busy doing other things. Also, while our
last two seminars were quite successful educationally,
attendance was somewhat disappointing. Still, apparently there
is a perceived need, due to looming Continuing Education
requirements associated with license renewal. If enough meeting
attendees spoke up for another seminar it is possible that
something could have been arranged-especially if volunteers came
forward to help. However, those members who had called in to
inquire about this did not show up at the meeting and speak up,
and no one came forward at the meeting to volunteer to help with
the seminar program. In fact, the person we nominated and
elected to run it is Wayne, who had to be absent. Therefore, our
next seminar most likely will take place in the Fall. Still,
that is up to Wayne. If he sees fit to put something together
this summer, he's the man to contact: he's been elected to that
position, so he's in charge.
Electrical
Fires
John
L. Allen, P.E. is a member who has not been to our chapter's
meetings before. He is a senior electrical engineer at the ATF's
Fire Research laboratory in Ammendale, MD. He mentioned two
possibilities he will explore for us. One is a tour of the lab,
in association with one of our Fall meetings. That's something
he can talk over with Ed Holt. The other is a seminar, good for
C.E.U.s. The topic would be electrical fires, something that
most of us just have not been trained in evaluating. None of
this is a certainty by any means, but the promise is intriguing.
Show
and Tell
As
always, there was additional spirited free-ranging discussion of
unforseeable topics. David shared a UL recall announcement
concerning a counterfeit extension cord. John Allen mentioned
the CPSC recall web site, www.CPSC.gov, noting that today's CPSC
gems included a Glock pistol recalled because it tended to fire
in its holster, drilling into the owners' foot.
David
brought a sample of a non-Listed product, a block of rigid foam
plastic, that is being advertised in the trade press for use as
a thermal insulator around and behind electrical enclosures. It
did not receive a favorable response. The consensus was that its
use *in a single-family dwelling* is not a Code violation, but
that its flammability, and the tremendous heat and toxic fumes
generated if it was ignited by fire spreading from an electrical
box, mean there are better ways to do the job.
"It would
be good if it had a two-hour fire-rating; otherwise, it would
make a good bird's nest."-Jim.
"Plastic baggies
filled with mineral wool would be better"-Ed.
Code
Discussion
David
then mentioned a stinker of a Code issue concerning 300.4(d)-one
of those cases where "We know how we've always interpreted
the rule, but the literal wording allows something altogether
different." Phil Waclawski checked it in his Code book and
confirmed that 300.4(d) indeed lets you hang cable on a masonry
wall a couple of inches to the side of a furring strip, or any
other structural member, without any protection. Jim Wooten
said, in his inimitable manner, that he didn't want to pass it,
he didn't have a Code section to hang his objection on, but he
was thinking.
Ed
Bihlear then mentioned that back in the mid-1990s, the
contractor he was working for used 2 ½" studs with
holes drilled right in the middle. Four counties permitted them
to run cable in the middle without nail plates on both sides, he
said, including Prince George's. None of the Prince George's
County inspectors present agreed that they had permitted this
practice. Funny thing.
Ed
also mentioned in passing that aluminum GECs on cinderblock in
old buildings wears away because of the block's caustic
qualities.
Our
last item was a question by Jim Wooten. In 2005, there is a
change in 334.12. NM cable no longer is permitted exposed in
dropped and suspended ceilings in other than one and two and
multi-family dwellings. Does a scuttle hole in such an occupancy
constitute the same thing in terms of hazard?
In
subsequent exploration, it turned out that Jim was asking about
wood-framed ceilings with scuttle holes. ROP research by John
and David suggested that, as Ed’s and others’
discussion had indicated, one main concern leading to this
change was damage caused by dragging cables across metal
structural members. Hence Jim was satisfied that no parallel
exists.
HAZARD
ALERT!
Defective
Chinese Luminaires
www.seagulllighting.com
Sea Gull Lighting Recall Hotline: (800) 347-5483
Hazard:
“Due to a manufacturing defect, the light fixture could
fall and strike a person beneath the light fixture. The fixture
also poses a laceration risk if the lamp breaks.”
Description: “The light fixtures were sold in a variety of
styles and shapes and hang from the ceiling. Models 31021-794,
31022-794, 66022-794, 5217-02, 5217-746 and 5217-786 are
included in the recall due to a component part problem with the
screw collar. The model number is printed on the inside of the
ceiling canopy, and also on the packaging and receipts.
“Contractors
sold and installed the 5217 model fixtures from October 2003
through October 2004, and the 31021, 31022 and 66022 models from
June 2004 through October 2004.”
CPSC
Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
Next
Most Recent Meeting
Our
meeting took place Tuesday evening, January 11 in the first
floor conference room at the Prince George's County offices at
9400 Peppercorn Place in Largo, MD. We had five inspector
members and three associates, an extraordinarily-low showing. We
speculated attributed this to the unusual scheduling--but it may
also have been related to the fact that we did not schedule a
formal presentation.
It’s
worth emphasizing that this took place the SECOND Tuesday of the
month rather than, as is normal, the third Tuesday, because
Martin Luther King’s birthday was celebrated on the third
Monday.
EXECUTIVE
and BUSINESS MEETING
This
was to be the annual meeting where we would vote in a slate of
officers to run the chapter for the new year.
We
needed, and still need, volunteers willing to serve as officers,
or simply as committee members. They needn’t be inspector
members, for many of the offices. So long as you take on tasks
that you can handle, it can be rewarding to help out. There’s
probably a place for you . . .
Would you be willing to
contact possible speakers for our meetings? To distribute our
flyers to supply houses or permit counters or other electrical
organizations? To perform some of the ground work for seminars?
To pick up refreshments for our meetings? To get in touch with
new members, or lapsing ones, and find out what we can do for
them? To find a way to help other area jurisdictions get more
involved with the chapter?
Perhaps you can think of other
ways you could serve the chapter, and, in turn, you can become
known to other members as someone who pitches in--just enough to
make a difference.
We
are going to be putting on some seminars, and one thing we did
finalize at this meeting, about an hour in, is what you’ll
be able to sign up for to receive Continuing Education credits,
and when, and where. The 2005 NEC
changes were high on our list, because the new Code
will be coming up for adoption.
The
first order of business in January was to be elections. However,
because we lacked a quorum, they have been put off till our
March meeting. Therefore, the slate of officers in place as of
last year remains in office for now. They are:
Prez:
Wayne Robinson;
Veep: Sam Levinrad;
Second Veep: vacant;
Sec'y_Treas: David Shapiro;
Membership: Joey Panizari;
Education: Ed Holt;
At Large: Harry Langway;
Past
Prez: Jim Wooten;
Godfather: Art Hesse.
Meatball Maestro
and Seminar Setter-upper: Sir Dick Bissel
The
bulk of the meeting was devoted to free-ranging discussion.
Larry Griffith, visiting from the Pennsylvania chapter, talked
about how things are done in that local-option state. Where a
township selects his agency, its inspectors do enforce the NEC
and associated codes, including for example requirements for
firestopping--which installers cry isn't electrical. But then
there is no licensing requirement for electricians.
Wayne
mentioned that in Prince Georges County, MD, with requirements
in place for licensure and continuing education, homeowners’
permits still work much like Pennsylvania permits. No longer are
there even open book questions before someone can pull a permit.
Theoretically, the homeowner has to stay resident at the address
at which the work is done for at least a year subsequently. Is
there any assurance thatt he homeowner actually performs the
work? Well, no. The main point is to ensure that work gets
inspected.
They
really do try to make sure that work gets inspected. The County
has a $45 minimum for permits, and they audit outstanding
permits monthly, and rotate inspectors from area to area. For
$80, though, you can have a yearly unlimited permit, covering
whatever work you want to perform on a property, including
heavy-ups.
Wayne
offered two items of new business related to how he is trying to
do things in Prince Georges County. First, he shared a clipping
from Gil Thomson about how two dogs were killed at utility
junction boxes in Baltimore. There, the utility can install
lighting at private parking lots, and use the neutral to bond
equipment. Wayne is fighting against such utility independence
on his turf.
Second,
he shared a bulletin about the enforcement of 680.26(b) &
(c). He is concerned that using encapsulated steel for swimming
pools (epoxy-coated rebar) means that there ends up being no
equipotential grid under pools. He will require bonding under
pools and 3 feet around, BOTH. You can make your own grid using
uncoated one-foot by one-foot squares of rebar mesh.
In
an aside, looking across the line, Wayne noted that Montgomery
County took adoption of the 2002 NEC to committee on 1/11/05.
This concerned Dick Bissell, who is sitting on our stock of Code
books from the last seminar we sponsored unilaterally. Art
suggested that Dick can look at a MEECA article regarding which
jurisdictions will remain on the 2002 NEC for a while, to know
who might want to buy our remaining 2002 NECs.
Dick
is going to finalize plans for our April 15-16 seminar on major
changes in the 2005 NEC, with Bob McCullough & Andy Cartal.
It will offer not only education and entertainment, but also
CEUs, Code Change books, lunch, and break refreshments.
Provisionally it will run 6-9:00 Friday evening and from 7:30 am
to 4:30 pm Saturday. We have no venue as yet. Several members at
our last meeting volunteered to investigate possible venues and
report back; we have not heard from them as yet.
Larry,
who has given seminars on 2005 changes, noted that there's lots
of nuance to the 2005 changes. Wayne mentioned that he likes
Western section seminars’ not having early mornings. We
have lots of faith in Bob McCullough & Andy Cartal, based on
experience.
Next,
we moved on to various show-and-tell discussion. David brought
in a new product by Wago. Their best-know wire connectors are,
essentially, variants of the “backstab” design so
strongly distrusted by many of us in wiring devices such as
receptacles, due to experience of those wiring devices’
field failure. (Larry did mention that he knows of one large job
that is employing the Wagos exclusively.) The new Wago product
we looked at, though, uses a lever clamp on the wires, a much
more positive connection. None of us faulted it as we do
backstabs. Interestingly, though, some of the members argued
that it took too much finger force and would not be worth using.
Next
was a cover plate: Chinese, “child-resistant,” and
not even pretending to have a NRTL marking. Is this flammable?
Would anyone accept it on a job? Wayne answered, and none of the
other inspectors disputed him: they would reject any homemade
cover plate made of combustible materials, and that includes
plastic. He’s also seen home-made panelboard
covers--non-combustible, but still not acceptable.
After
this we considered a question brought to David by Michael
Clendennin of the Electrical Safety Foundation International. If
an appliance is turned off, should it be unplugged to save
money? Does any current flow, assuming it does not contain a
clock or some other smart device that needs to keep running?
Larry mentioned that a maximum 1.4 mA of fault current
permitted, worst-case scenario, due to capacitance in appliance
cords to pass UL listing. Hence the cost would be a penny a
year. (It turns out that the home appliance manufacturers
recommend unplugging appliances not to purportedly save money
but to reduce the chance that kids will hurt themselves by
chewing on cords.)
Robert,
our new member, asked and received confirmation that in Prince
George’s County, electric water heaters need disconnects.
Larry talked about an electrician who was required to pull in
new wiring to feed six new clothes dryers. He had 1" rigid,
and tried pulling all of it in there. This did not pass. Jim
Wooten was inspired to mention a job with dryer that used zip
cord; it went downhill from there.
Someone
asked whether knob-and-tube still is permitted in Prince Georges
County. Yes, but it cannot be extended. Larry did mention a
class he taught at a location were he learned that knob-and-tube
wiring still is required. Along the Mississippi, in one area,
they require 3-wire knob-and-tube--so the wiring can dry out
afer flooding.
Next,
David passed around violation photos of a couple of panelboards
hidden under a sink counter, with a few inches of clearance–not
enough even for their doors to open far. The 110.26 violations
clearly were not created by the electrician, but we agreed that
the sink needed to be yanked! Larry’s notice to the
Pennsylvania chapter of their next meeting had some rather
extreme violation photos as well.
Recall
notices from the UL web site caused some surprise and dismay,
particularly the one showing holiday displays of outdoor
“animals” that can shock or start fires. Finally, we
discussed a new invention, a circuit breaker analyzer. A member
immediately suggested its use for FPE breakers--but then the
tester is only good for single pole circuits, and the big FPE
problem–Pushmatic, too, for that matter– was with
two-pole breakers!
Our
next-to-last item is a head-shaker of a story from Wayne. A
friend was buying an aluminum-wired house, and Wayne recommended
that, if he was going to live with aluminum wiring and
terminations, he at least consider AFCIs. The friend asked Wayne
to put them in for him. Wayne went to a shall-be-nameless home
center, asking the clerk for AFCI breakers. She handed him GFCI
breakers. He said, “These aren’t what I asked for.”
She said, “The inspectors only look for the test button.
They don't know the difference.” Wayne kept his tongue
macerated, and politely said, “You're probably right,
Ma’am, but I don't need these.”
Finally,
we heard a story of terminal temperature ratings. A 1200 amp
circuit breaker was fed by three 500 kcmil conductors. ‘You
need a fourth,” the inspector said. “No,” said
the electrician, “I was using the third column.” The
next time the inspector came by the job, by gumbo, a 90 degree
sticker had appeared on the breaker. -END-
Next
Most Recent Meeting
This
is the full version of the report on the meeting of the George
Washington Chapter Tuesday evening,
November 9, 2004, at the Prince George's County offices in Largo
(theoretically New Carrolton), Maryland. Counting the speaker,
we had 15 attendees. Five are inspectors, two of whom also are
contractors. Happily, this
meeting was characterized by lots of volunteerism. To begin
with, Garrie Shope and Harry Langway distributed flyers at
supply houses. (Our godfather, Art, and our President, Wayne,
arranged for flyers at permit counters.) Our unofficial
refreshment czar, Dick Bissel, donated a plate of chicken wings,
and delivered the chapter's drinks.
To
begin, President Wayne Robinson called for old business.
Nothing.
We
discussed the free workshop put on for us on November 3, by
Michael Johnston, courtesy of NECA. Attendance at that seminar
was disappointing; the presentation was not.
David
mentioned a very cordial note we received from Montgomery County
Permitting Services Manager Phil Waclawski. Among other things,
it requested collaboration between our chapter and other kindred
groups. Pete Bowers volunteered to make some phone calls
exploring possibilities.
Pete
opened up the issue of pure inspecting versus
instructing/advising. He is strongly inclined to tell
electricians what they need to do to fix problems, and then say,
"I'll be back to morrow to see that you've done it."
Wayne responded with a rather stern admonition: If you find
violations, red-tag them, and cite the Code sections. If you
advise the installers, you're taking on liability for their
jobs." There was some discussion of the need for master
electricians to take responsibility for designing and
supervising what's done, and for ensuring that violations are
corrected.
David
next brought up the International Office's Train the Trainers
program. We do have the funds to pay tuition for one of our
instructors to attend. However, we may not have enough to pay
for tuition plus air fare plus a few days' stay for the
training. Wayne suggested that, while this sounds interesting
and attractive, we put off consideration of sending anyone down
till after we've fattened our account by holding another seminar
up here.
Here
a number of people chimed in, volunteering to explore possible
venues for a seminar. Garrie Shope will investigate high
schools; prospective member Richard Keely will look at the
possibility of our using the City of Greenbelt's multi-purpose
room; others had additional suggestions. They will report back
to Wayne or David.
We
discussed what seminar to offer, when, and by whom. Wayne is
proposing that journeymen be required to earn eight CEUs to
renew their licenses. There appears to be interest in
Code-change information even aside from CEU requirements, It was
hard to determine just when the 2005 NEC will come in locally,
but apparently electricians want to come up to speed on it.
Seminars by other groups have been well-attended, and more are
scheduled. Incongruously, Maryland's "PS1" licensure
exam continues to be based on the 1999 NEC, even though
installations must pass or fail inspection based on the 2002
throughout Maryland, except in Montgomery County, which
continues with the 1996.
In
the Spring, there will be a County meeting of the ad
hoc
committee for the 2005 Code change. It will consist of
representatives of IBEW, IEC, and MEECA, plus Wayne Robinson,
Art Hesse, and David Shapiro. We agreed to see whether the great
team of Andy and Bob will be available in March to talk about
2005 Code changes; Dick Bissell volunteered to contact them.
Wayne agreed to teach the seminar if Bob and Andy are
unavailable.
David
brought up the Eastern Section meetings. He passed around the
souvenir book from the 2004 Section meeting; it garnered no
comment, except for someone's negative aside about the Nevele
conference center. He talked up the 2005 meeting, and passed
around the materials he had been given. This elicited a little
more interest, especially the mention of the classic hotel--and
its classic switchgear.
In
keeping with this, Wayne mentioned that there are several local
businesses that still utilize paralleled fuses: Bergman's
cleaners in Bladensberg, and the CVS in the Bowie Shopping
Center.
Continuing
the gossip, we learned that in D.C., three employees of the BLRA
apparently lost their jobs the first week of November. They
included the director and his assistant. There had been talk of
extending licensure to most people performing contracting work
in D.C., but this rumor has been discounted.
In
response to another comment, David disconfirmed a couple of
product rumors, based on inquiries he had sent. On Friday,
November 5, 2004, he received responses from "Paul"at
Square D's customer service. All the following applies to both
QOs and Homelines. Schneider-Square D sells common-trip,
two-pole GFCI CBs; no independent-trip GFCI CBs, as would be
required to protect multiwire circuits; and only single-pole
AFCI CBs. They have a combination-type AFCI CB in development
(one that will protect against both parallel and series arcs).
However, it will NOT be available in the near future.
=========
After
a refreshment break, our patiently-waiting speaker gave his
talk.
Our
featured product speaker primarily discussed Metal Oxide
Varistor surge protection. John Sartorius worked for Joslyn
Manufacturing as a sales representative for these surge
arresters for a decade before becoming a representative for
First Line Associates-which picked up Joslyn. He appeared quite
knowledgeable about how they work, as well as enthusiastic about
what they can do.
Joslyn
produces secondary surge arresters rated from 120 volts to 100
kV, and have done so since perhaps the 1930s. They started with
expulsion-type arresters, then in the late 1950s, moved to
silicon-oxide gap type, and in the 1970s the metal oxide
(specifically, doped zinc oxide, fired into a ceramic) varistor.
Around 1990 they left the silicon oxide type behind entirely. I
the mid-1990s, they upgraded their product to create a safer
failure mode. It is filled with silica sand, to quench arcs and
prevent its exploding. The high-impedance sand makes it act like
a current-limiting fuse.
MOVs
have some limitations, John noted. The hotter they are, the
better they conduct; hence, the rating is not
temperature-stable. Each surge reduces their life. Moisture can
get in, even though they are potted, and this too can reduce
their life.
Joslyn
Manufacturing's products have windows that start out white, but
turn black in response to internally-generated heat when the MOV
is used up. When this happens, it is time to replace them. "How
often does one need to check," we asked? Very rarely. Sure,
if there's a direct lightning strike, all bets are off. However,
while there are no specific guarantees, because duration-energy
curves make prediction-and comparison-nigh-impossible, the
arresters normally take many, many hits without shrugging.
A
couple of possible limitations with respect to NEC rules were
brought up by our snippy members. (John did not claim to be a
Code expert.) John talked about hanging the products from
brackets at weatherheads. Well, what is one to do about the
leads? They don't seem to be sunlight-resistant. David suggested
taping. Others brought up the issue of how to splice them in to
line-side conductors. The lugs on main breakers or busbars
normally are not rated for insertion of, say, a 4/0 aluminum
conductor plus a 14 AWG copper lead. John suggested using
insulation-piercing bugs; the range struck some of us as
unrealistic.
=====
After
John completed this featured presentation, he loosened up a bit
and talked about some other products he represents. When
greeting him, David had been somewhat gingerly about shaking
hands, due to a glancing blow he'd given himself with a
sledgehammer while driving a ground rod. John talked about
ground rod drivers. He talked about a more-positive
GEC-to-ground rod connector than the acorn clamp. He then talked
a bit about improvements to Cadweld's exothermic welding system,
to reduce misfiring problems associated with moisture, as well
as some relatively-rare hazards.
We
gave him a good hand, and will welcome him back to demonstrate
some of these other products.
===========
After
John was done, our own Ed Bihlear passed around, and discussed,
pictures of very-high-power equipment testing performed for the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority subway system.
Apparently before he came along no one ever photographed the
arcs drawn as these breakers operate-or fail. Workers have to be
well away, and until Ed thought to set up
automatically-operating photo equipment that could allow him to
be safely outside the building, there wasn't a good way to do
it. As it was, digital photo equipment was affected by the
powerful magnetic fields generated ahead of and with the arcs.
Our
next meeting will take place on January 11, 2005. We will vote
on our officers, and finalize plans for our seminar.
Next
Most Recent Meeting
This
is the full version of the report on the meeting of the George
Washington Chapter Tuesday evening,
September 14, 2004, at the Prince George's County offices in
Largo (theoretically New Carrolton), Maryland. Counting the two
speakers, we had 17 attendees. Ten are current members; four are
inspectors, one is a retired inspector, and two are both
inspectors and contractors.
Before
the meeting started officially, the handful of early arrivers
chatted about matters such as the various injuries from which
we're recovering. The trade press talks about how the
construction workforce is aging; our friendly bull session made
this very concrete.
President
Wayne Robinson called the meeting to order at 6:35, after 10
people had arrived.
First,
he called for old business. No one responded.
He
announced a free workshop being put on for us and the Virginia
chapter in early November. Most likely it will take place on
November 3, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Michael Johnston will be
coming to town to present it, courtesy of NECA. There will be no
fee, so far as we know, and attendees will be eligible for
Continuing Education credit.
While
primarily intended for inspectors, attendance is not restricted
to them, nor to IAEI members. We are seeking 65-70 attendees.
One focus will be home generators, and the other fire alarm
systems. NECA is redoing the National Electrical Installation
Standard (NEIS) for home generators, and that guide will be one
leg of the program.
After
Wayne announced the workshop, we got into a good bit of
discussion concerning home generators. Wayne mentioned that
people often will install a 25 kW generator that feeds a 200 amp
panel directly through a (service-rated) transfer switch. This,
Wayne warned us, is illegal because the generator's maximum
output is 104 amps, per 702.5. To make it legal they need to
feed critical loads through a subpanel protected by a 100 amp
breaker. Despite the fact that he is far less knowledgeable than
Wayne, David argued against the interpretation that a loadcenter
with a 200 amp breaker necessarily has an intended load of 200
amps. Wayne and Pete both responded with observations that in
Prince George's County, new homes often have 400 and 600 amp
services and often have simultaneously-operating loads that
easily exceed the capacity of a 25 kW generator.
We
then digressed from the direct discussion of topics that Mike
Johnston will cover. There is a problem, Wayne noted, in
connecting well pumps that will serve sprinklers. The circuit is
not permitted to be connected ahead of the main in Prince
George's County. For residential fire pump sprinklers for homes
that have wells, they install storage tanks in attics, easily
holding 200 gallons, pressurized, that will pump into 2
sprinkler heads. This pressurized tank is relied upon to keep
the water flowing long enough to get people out of the house,
and so the well pump is considered a general purpose pump rather
than a fire pump.
How
do you know that the tank pressure is being kept up? Someone
said well, surely you'll notice that water pressure is down.
Not
good enough. One answer was to have installers use a multiwire
circuit to feed kitchen lighting on one leg, the well pump on
the other. Use a two-pole, rather than handle-tied, breaker.
This way, if the pump power kicks off, the lights stop working.
Here's the problem. If you install a 0.5 hp or larger motor, you
are in violation of 210.23(A)(2), in the 2002, or 210-23, in the
1999 and earlier. The fact that it's a multiwire circuit may
mean that this is a legalistic fluke, rather than a necessary
protection, but it is still the law. This rule will have to be
reworked, so homeowners are made aware that they've lost
sprinkler power some other way.
Next
came the secretary/treasurer's report. David announced the
availability of the minutes from last Fall's UL Inspectors'
Meeting. Some people appeared interested, but nobody took him up
on his offer to forward them, or the URL.
On
to money. We had not had an executive committee meeting over the
summer. This meant not being readily able to get together to
consider the Section's urging for support by buying an ad in the
program book for their annual meeting. At the same time, we
agreed that presently we are not flush enough to have helped
them.
This
led naturally to discussion of seminars, our traditional
money-maker. Ed asks what seminars to do, suggesting 2005 NEC
Code changes. Wayne supported this, mentioning that the IEC is
interested in our putting on such a seminar, that he hopes to
get legislation going toward adopting it by early 2005, and that
electricians generally want the CEUs it would provide. He
generously offered to put it on for us himself. He thinks that
DC may move forward from the 1996 to the 2002 NEC, and do so
relatively soon. In the Spring, there will be a County meeting
of the adhoc committee for the 2005 code change. There was no
objection to it consisting of Wayne, Art Hesse, and David
Shapiro.
David
suggested comparing the 2002, 2005, and 1996 NECs plus local
amendments, so contractors and third-party inspectors can keep
straight what is legal. He also groused about a local
jurisdiction where inspectors asserted a requirement that is not
in the NEC, claiming that it was a local amendment. He made the
requested change but then followed up. On checking and finding
no documentation that it is indeed a local amendment, he
inquired, first by email and then by registered letter. He
received no response, beyond the return receipt. Sigh.
Jim
Wooten asked whether there are any low voltage wiring seminars
going on. Wayne answered that he doesn't know of any. He's been
getting chewed out for some time by low-voltage people attending
his NEC seminars; they're not interested in what he's teaching.
He, Pete, and Ed all teach, and all have to deal with the fact
that some students are there strictly because they are required
to attend.
Wayne
noted that, despite his efforts, a major telecom provider in the
area has persisted in ignoring the NEC. These scofflaws drive
their own electrodes, for example, without tying them to the
buildings' grounding systems.
We
still didn't have a plan for a seminar. Wayne proposed that we
offer a 2005 Code Changes seminar in April. We'll vote on that
at our January 11 meeting. Ed noted that some counties such as
St. Mary's are pretty early adopters, another reason he believes
there will be plenty of interest.
Susan
suggested that she would find it useful to have a seminar that
would both look at 2005 changes and review differences
jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
David
mentioned another interest: a seminar on how the building code
affects electrical work. He gave as examples firestopping
requirements and separations between boxes. Wayne noted that
in
Prince George's County firestopping hasn't been required for 6
years.
David
proposed that our next two mailings give notice that this
decision is coming up.
Pete
voiced the opinion that a seminar on fire alarm systems will
fill a room. The systems are very simple, but computer-ignorant
people are scared of them. Therefore, many contractors forgo
that part of the job. There might even be room for multiple
seminars for different levels of training on fire alarm
systems-offering not only the NEC rules but hands-on exposure.
Some people want to understand more than just how to install
it--design, troubleshooting. Then there is training, nearby in
Northern Virginia, leading to certification for system
inspection. In D.C. and in Prince George's County, though, the
systems are inspected by 3rd-party engineers.
Sam
objected that fire alarm systems are not as simple as Pete
portrays them. On the other hand, he acknowledged, a
manufacturer's salesman will lay out a system for a potential
installer. Wayne suggested that Pete work with Ed on putting
together such a seminar. He will offer it to County inspectors
for free, to justify the jurisdiction's providing a room.
We
didn't take time for introductions, as our discussion had taken
so long, but we did take a break for refreshments before
enjoying the evening's program.
Program
We
enjoyed a presentation by two representatives of the century-old
Wiremold company, which also has been responsible for the Walker
line, such as Walkerduct, since 1994. They spent most of the
remaining time talking about their product line and their
services. This did, however, provide the opportunity for a fair
bit of discussion concerning Code and installation issues.
They
made mention several times of EIA/TIA (Electronics Industry
Association/ Telecommunications Industry Association) standards,
non-legislated guidelines for datacom installers. Getting to
Code issues, they talked about a UL scrubwater protection rule
(UL 514 A &C), new in 2003, that requires floor boxes in
carpeted floors be gasketed. They noted that if a product meets
the current tile floor requirement, it automatically meets the
carpeted floor requirement. For the test, nothing is actually
plugged in.
Wayne
commented that Walkerduct (cellular concrete raceway) is full of
water from the time they pour concrete around it till the
building reaches the end of its life. Our presenter responded
that the point of the UL rule is to ensure that (conductive)
washwater doesn't seep down around the receptacle.
The
presenter asserted that the floor boxes offered by many
manufacturers, and installed by many electricians, are not
Code-compliant (nor NRTL-Listed). Others have flip lids or
screw-in plugs, which make them compliant--unless the closure
devices are broken or lost. (Theirs have slide-open,
child-proof-type receptacles.)
Pete
asked what longevity the standard demands of the gasket in the
face of repeatedly being opened and closed? Someone is going to
get shocked, he noted, when it wears away and water gets in. No
ready answer was available.
One
of the matters David had asked them to cover is common Code
violations associated with their products. They have a couple of
observations concerning poke-throughs. Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standard 4.5 limits the slope of the bump
to a 1 in 2 rise to run change in floor level. UL's Fire
Resistance directory has rules that installations of
poke-throughs must meet to meet the two-hr fire rating as
complete manufactured assemblies. These include installing not
more than one per 65 sq feet, and locating them a minimum of two
feet on center. Some design engineers are ignorant of this. The
presenters also noted that thousands of floor boxes were sold to
schools with linoleum floors even though they were only listed
for installation in tile floors.
Finally,
getting to surface raceways, they noted that their product is
NEMA 1; not rated for wet locations. This includes commercial
kitchens, which sometimes want to use stainless steel raceway,
even though it costs $35 a running foot. Similarly, where they
periodically need washdown, laboratories are considered wet
locations and surface raceway installation is a violation.
People want to put floor boxes on patios, in botanical gardens.
No go.
People
wanting to run a surface raceway right along the top of a
baseboard, camouflaged, for use with receptacles, can run afoul
of ADA. ADA requires that receptacles be at least 15 inches
above the floor.
They
mentioned that their company has a white paper on thermal
derating, but did not have a copy at hand, nor a reference for
obtaining it. They gave the opinion that the paper is hard to
work one's way through.
