2017 NEC Change Proposals

14 replies [Last post]
meby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-04-17

The next edition of the NEC is now open for Public Input. This was previously known as the Public Proposals stage. So who has a few good ideas for change? Does anyone have any interesting proposals they plan to submit?

genpowerman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014-04-04

I believe there is a need to have work and equipment required to be performed by licensed electrician better defined. Here in Michigan -- on the book but not well enforced is -- work on hard wired equipment where the repair cost is over $125.00 shall be performed by a licensed electrician.

mdshunk's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014-03-14

While it's true that work by a licensed individual generally means that the work will be performed properly, it's no guarantee. I would not support any model code, that has the force of law, that would require a tradesman to have a special permission slip to earn a living. Besides, there are still many states where no such license exists, even if a man wanted it.

pvandemotter@pkgandhi.com's picture
Joined: 2013-10-28

There should be a requirement that conventional receptacles protected by GFCI be marked "GFCI protected." Many believe this is part of the Code, but in fact only applies where an equipment ground is not present. This is largely common practice. Time to codify it.

BrusselsSprout's picture
Offline
Joined: 2013-11-07

[quote=pvandemotter@pkgandhi.com]conventional receptacles protected by GFCI be marked "GFCI protected." Many believe this is part of the Code, but in fact only applies where an equipment ground is not present."

This is currently covered by the NEC requirement to follow the manufacturers instructions. As an example, Leviton has installation instructions to "Place a "GFCI PROTECTED OUTLET" sticker on every receptacle" on the load side.

ecmjacomen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2013-10-08

I’m referring to NEC Annex D Example D5(b). The result shown for the Main Feeder neutral load (107,650VA) is copied from the result in Example D4(b). However, D4(b) is served at 120/240V (where 220.55 doesn’t apply), while D5(b) is served at 208Y/120V (where, 220.55 does apply). This should be taken into account for the neutral load of the Main Feeder as for the Service Equipment Feeder to the Meter Bank (For 20 Dwelling Units).

Note: Excerpt from 220.55: Where two or more single-phase ranges are supplied by a 3-phase, 4-wire feeder or service, the total load shall be calculated on the basis of twice the maximum number connected between any two phases.

rbarnett's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014-03-04

Hi all. Some very interesting input could come from the previous comments. Looking forward to some good input and discussions over the next couple of years!

rbarnett's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014-03-04

The UL standard for GFCIs has changed. I am looking at some equipment that provides protection at 480V and giving some possible input (proposal). All of the GFCI requirements continue to expand and I am NOT a fan of increasing requirements. However, electricity is the number 3 killer on the construction site. That needs to change!

Arc Vapor's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016-02-17

I would propose to change/eliminate the GFCI protection requirement for dishwashers. GFCI protection is intended to protect personnel. So how does a GFCI receptacle under a kitchen sink (that becomes inaccessible when people live in a home) protect anyone? At the absolute least I would suggest that the dishwasher circuit GFCI be required to be located in an easily accessible location for testing and reset. This addition to the NEC was motivated purely by greed and not for hazard protection. In my 30 years of trade work, I've NEVER heard of anyone being electrocuted by a faulty dishwasher. This addition was bought. It's time to also question the motivation by the panel that added this requirement.
Now that corporations can sponsor and buy their way in to the NEC for profits, it won't be long until our careers will be for the purpose of making profits for appliance manufacturers.

yahk's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016-01-23

I would like to see Sec. 240.81 revisited, which requires vertically operated circuit breaker handles to be “up” when in the ON position. The lack of application of this rule in some areas suggests it's not considered necessary in practice. The weight of the handles is negligible compared to the force applied when the breaker operates, or the resistance when it's manually moved up and down. When a typical long panel has to be installed horizontally due to space constraints, you would have to have two panels to provide the same number of positions, if the rule is applied.

David Morris's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016-02-22

My issue is in 210.19(A)(3). I believe that counter mounted cooking units should be moved to a different location or there needs to be a 3rd Exception which reads, "Counter Mounted Cooking units are not required to have a neutral conductor" due to 98% (based off of the slim chance that I just haven't found one that is supplied with it) of all electric cooktops are of a 3-wire configuration consisting of 1-black, 1-red and 1-green wire. I have visited several appliance stores and looked at both low-end and high-end (clocks and timers installed) electric cooktops and have found this to be a fact. Why should the contractor have to pull a neutral to a box that is not required by the equipment being supplied?

dkelec's picture
Offline
Joined: 2015-12-26

i agree with arc vapor. Change benefits no one except the manufacturers. In reference to residential work: if we put the "GFCI protected" stickers on the outlets from the load side of a GFCI outlet (especially kitchen counter outlets), the home owners will peel them off no sooner than the inspector will have signed off on the final.

Paul Abernathy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-12-21

[quote=Arc Vapor] I would propose to change/eliminate the GFCI protection requirement for dishwashers. GFCI protection is intended to protect personnel. So how does a GFCI receptacle under a kitchen sink (that becomes inaccessible when people live in a home) protect anyone? At the absolute least I would suggest that the dishwasher circuit GFCI be required to be located in an easily accessible location for testing and reset. This addition to the NEC was motivated purely by greed and not for hazard protection. In my 30 years of trade work, I've NEVER heard of anyone being electrocuted by a faulty dishwasher. This addition was bought. It's time to also question the motivation by the panel that added this requirement.
Now that corporations can sponsor and buy their way in to the NEC for profits, it won't be long until our careers will be for the purpose of making profits for appliance manufacturers. [/quote]

Greetings Arc Vapor,

Being that I sit on that NFPA 70 CMP, I came into the process only at the 2nd draft meeting stage. First, you never have been given the demand to locate the GFCI protection at the dishwasher itself. The Code clearly permits the use of a GFCI device or circuit breaker to accomplish the task at hand.

The mandate for your requested testing and resetting is covered by the language of the NEC when it demands it to be readily accessible. However, I will let the AHJs of the world argue over that statement as some believe that placing a GFCI under a sink would be readily accessible. I happen to not agree with this since my 76 year old mother can't get below the sink, so it is not readily accessible to everyone.

Now, with a little effort on Google you can find plenty of accidental electrocutions from dishwashers. I would post one here but I am sure it would be removed since it directs away from this forum. The fact is the NEC is a minimum safety standard and it allows for the minimally safest home that the standards will allow to be constructed and that should always be considered.

Do I believe the electrician or homeowner should be responsible for the manufacturers of dishwashers issue of the end of life issue....most certainly not. And I can promise you the 2017 NEC moving it to Art. 422 still does not solve that issue, it only offers an option for manufactures to include it (GFCI), not demand they actually do it, which I disagree with. But it is what it is.

However, I do not believe it is a profit ploy by the manufacturers of appliances simply because they have nothing to gain as they do not manufacturer GFCI devices and clearly the end user has many options to install one as mentioned earlier. As for the panel members and them being "bought" as you say, we always seem to forget that "Individuals" submit public inputs and public comments and not everything is "MADE UP" by the members of the Code Making Panels.

Again, simply do a search on dishwasher electrocution and you will find those deaths you never heard of.

Paul Abernathy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-12-21

[quote=dkelec] I agree with arc vapor. Change benefits no one except the manufacturers. In reference to residential work: if we put the "GFCI protected" stickers on the outlets from the load side of a GFCI outlet (especially kitchen counter outlets), the home owners will peel them off no sooner than the inspector will have signed off on the final. [/quote]

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but that is an ignorant statement. You can't fix stupid and if individuals wish to disregard warnings and important safety statements then that is on them. The electrical contractor lives in a world where liability is prevalent so following the rules maintains their safe position to the minimum code standard.

Everything you buy today benefits someone or some group. Just because one company stands to benefit from an advancement that cost them thousands if not millions to produce, some would defend their right to free enterprise while others would argue pure socialism as the intent.

It is a proven fact that GFCI devices save lives. This has been proven since the early 1960s and when a manufacturer of a product series comes forward and warns consumers of an end of life issue we sometimes have to protect the consumer from others poor acts. Where the NEC falls short in this case is that the manufacturer should be mandated to solve their own problem. This is where I feel CMP 17 (to which I am on but was not a part of due to coming in late to the committee) may fall short on this one.

The new rules will permit the manufacturer to actually install a GFCI component into the dishwasher, but it does not mandate they do it. So in light of their declaration of end of life we have a duty to protect the consumer in this minimum safety standard and the use of GFCI as that level of protection is well documented so the group (and I remind you that none of the GFCI manufacturers sit on CMP 17 to the best of my knowledge) determined that protection is needed. No Money Grab here, just common sense to try and solve a reported issue.

Paul Abernathy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-12-21

Explain to this family why a GFCI on the dishwasher would not have potentially saved a life. Search for "Dishwasher, Rescue 911, Episode 630" on YouTube.

We do not just have codes to ensure the electricians do the right thing. We have minimum safety standards in order to ensure the end user is also safe.

Please or Register to post comments.

What you need to know?

1. Forum Rules 2. Forum Login

 

Featured Video

EC&M Learning Center


Connect With Us

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×