2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

[bphgravity]

More Info Here

National Electrical Code?
NFPA 70, National Electrical Code?
Accepted as Amended
Accept Comment 2-91
Accept Comment 3-157
Accept Comment 3-520
Return Identifiable Part of Comment 7-14a
Return Identifiable Part of Comment 7-51a
Return Identifiable Part of Comment 7-60a
Reject Identifiable Part of Comment 7-67
Return Identifiable Part of Comment 7-75a
Return Identifiable Part of Comment 11-3a
Reject Comment 16-11
Accept Comment 16-109
Accept Comments 16-226
Accept Comments 16-227
Accept Comments 16-397
Accept Comments 16-715
Accept Comments 16-716
Accept Comments 16-717
Accept Comments 16-718
Accept Comment 18-107
Accept Comment 18-110

 

[rbalex]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

Well the price of new houses just went up even more. Accepting comment 2-91 requires AFCIs just about everwhere now.

 

[charlie]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

You might wish to read my comment in the 2005 thread.

 

[rbalex]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

I did and I appreciate you comment.

You're right there's no telling what the CMP will do and I don't know the differential of the floor vote. After last times NM debacle there's no telling what the Standards Council will do either.

[ May 28, 2004, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]

 

[charlie]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

Before railing against the Standards Council, consider how the Panels are put together. That article is grouped with the raceways and cabling Articles. The makeup of the Panels can be no more than 1/3 of any interest (manufacturers, labor, contractors, utilities, etc.) and they each have their own agenda. UL is paid by manufacturers. NEMA is manufacturers. Labor doesn't want to lose conduit. Inspectors generally like conduit. That doesn't leave many to champion the cause of safe and inexpensive Type NM cable. Both the steel tube industry and the plastics industry want conduit to be required. The electric utilities are working to support our customers by making the requirements customer friendly without sacrificing safety.

The Standards Council had to step in to permit this wiring method where it has been proven safe.

 

[rbalex]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

Hey, I like NM too. I don?t get to use it much since I work predominantly in petro-chem.

The Standards Council action itself didn?t affect me much ? at all actually. My concern is that they overruled a consensus Technical Committee decision. There is no question they had the authority; however, if they felt the CMP was ?imbalanced? they should have dissolved and reformed it and let the next CMP handle the technical issue. If necessary, they should have solicited direct consumer participation on the CMP. ?Consumer? is already a recognized ?Interest? under current Standards Council rules.

 

[iwire]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

Originally posted by charlie:
The Standards Council had to step in to permit this wiring method where it has been proven safe.

If you see them tell them thanks.

 

[charlie]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

Dissolving and reforming a panel will not do anything unless the panel members can not get along. Most of the panel members have directed votes and can't vote the way they want, some of the time.

My directed vote works like this:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I vote the way I want to in the panel meeting straw vote</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I bring the issue to EEI (all the other EEI panel members, Principal and Alternates) for discussion</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I explain my position and why I wish to vote that way to the group</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If the group disagrees with me, I am directed to vote their way on the written ballot</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> It seems like I have no freedom but I usually get what I want. The bottom line is that most (all?) of the directed votes work the same way or similar. This keeps a loose cannon from doing their own thing that is off the wall. It will also keep the vote close to the same if a panel is dismissed and replaced.

 

[lle]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

Can soemone tell me how Article 2-91 is going to read, or is there somewhere I can go to read all the proposed changes?

Thanks

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

Links to proposals, draft copy and comments for the 2005 NEC.

don

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

Here is Comment 2-91

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

Look here too for more information and a video of a house fire!

http://www.firemarshals.org/issues/home/electrical_fires.html

There are five types of AFCIs listed in UL 1699 although the NEC has only required branch circuit AFCIs to date.

Another type is combination breakers, which are going to be listed in the 2005 NEC BUT with an effective date of 2008.

This is due to the fact that there are no Combination AFCIs available at this time and since everyone has seen some of the learning curve associated with AFCIs to date, there is sufficient reason to make sure these work properly in the real world.

Fires in older homes are a bigger problem by virtue of so many older homes in existence.

There are many issues that AFCIs would help with such as detecting faults in Al wiring, insulation breakdown in older wiring like knob and tube, etc.

AFCIs will benefit there and one of the current proposals for the 2005 NEC is to have them for any service change outs/upgrades.

The 2005 NEC will not be finalized until the end of May 2004 so this is still open.

[ December 04, 2005, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: joe tedesco ]

 

[lle]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

Just how many NEC code changes will there be for 2005?

At an update seminar for 2002, the lector made a comment about that code update containing the most changes he could remember in a long time.

Just curious.

 

[stanley]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

The rewording of Comment 2-91 was incorrect and I bet it will not make it past the Standards Council.

The heading of the comment is "Dwelling Unit Bedrooms". Under this subheading the requirement for AFCI's in all rooms was inserted. Might seem like a technicallity. However, it's probally enough to get the whole issue put on hold.

 

[stanley]

Re: 2005 NEC Adoption Results at TCR Session

The rewording of Comment 2-91 was incorrect and I bet it will not make it past the Standards Council.

The heading of the comment is "Dwelling Unit Bedrooms". Under this subheading the requirement for AFCI's in all rooms was inserted. Might seem like a technicallity. However, it's probally enough to get the whole issue put on hold.