advanced search

1996 NEC issued with zone concept.

Aug 1, 1995 12:00 PM

The hearing

The Council held a hearing on the question on July 19, 1995. Speaking in favor of sustaining the floor action and including the zone concept included Don Zipse and Craig Wellman, who had submitted formal complaints to the Council. Under NFPA rules, a complaint is "any request submitted in writing to the Standards Council for a reversal or modification of any action taken by any Technical Committee, Technical Correlating Committee, the Association, or the Standards Council, at any time in the document development process."

They, along with others, made the point that the concept was well supported by widespread international experience. Due to world-wide acceptance, it would promote international harmonization of standards. It could increase safety in the high-hazard Zone 0 areas, where power wiring is prohibited.

Bill Wusinich, representing the IBEW, had also submitted a formal complaint, in his case opposing the floor amendment. He was joined by brother union member Jim Naughton and also by Joe Ross of NEMA and Lon Ballard of Crouse Hinds. They argued that there is significant confusion over the concept that could lead to improper installations. They questioned if the proposal was completely thought through. For example, Article 501 is about five times the length of new Article 505 on the same subject. Joe Pipkin, who works for OSHA and sits on the Correlating Committee, expressed the opinion that OSHA wouldn't go along with the new approach.

Although the panel had said the new approach shouldn't be intermixed with traditional classification procedures, the actual text doesn't match that intention. For example, Sec. 501-11 provides specific rules for mixers that travel in and out of open mixing vats, which is normally a Zone 0 location (hazardous vapors routinely present in ignitable concentrations); would designers be able to describe this as Class 1 Div. 1 and then classify immediately adjacent areas as Class I Zone 1 simply based on which classification is more convenient, or even jointly classify the same area?

The concept has been discussed for over 25 years, beginning with a 1969 proposal to include it in the 1971 NEC. The arguments at that time are striking in that they are so identical to contemporary views on the same topic. Those in favor mentioned international trade and analogized to the subdivision of hazardous locations in the 1947 NEC (the advent of Div. 1 and Div. 2) so the tightest requirements would be targeted at areas with the greatest hazard. Those opposed questioned whether the effort was really needed, since the present system had proved its safety.

Don Zipse pleaded with the Council to proceed, noting that Article 780 ("Smart House") went into the Code before any facilities using those concepts had ever been built. If that could go ahead, why not a concept that had been used for a quarter of a century in extensive areas of the world? Surely if there were problems, and he acknowledged that there were, they could be resolved over the normal course of the standards making process, using Tentative Interim Amendments (TIAs) if necessary.

The decision

The Council voted to uphold the action at the Annual Meeting, and to correlate that action with parallel action on related comments. The result is that a number of public comments (14-13, -30, -45, -171a, -174, -174a, -177, -178, -179, -182), which had been reported as "reject" are now in place as accepted at the panel meeting.

In its decision, the Council noted the long history of this proposal in the NEC revision process and the widespread use of the concept throughout much of the world. The Council noted that at the end of the process, it had received the support of both the Association membership and the Code Making Panel. Therefore, the Council declared that technical consensus had been achieved.

The Council noted that the Correlating Committee had not cited any technical objections to the concept, but that instead the basis for its objections lay in correlation problems with other actions. The Council's actions on the related proposals resolved some of those issues, and the others will be addressed in future actions.

Mr. Wellman also raised the issue of how the Council judges Technical Committee (particularly CMP 14) balance in his complaint. He felt that the user classification should be allotted greater representation (up to 50%). The user members of CMP 14 had consistently voted unanimously in favor of the new Zone concept, and they had been thwarted by other interests at times.

The Council voted to deny this portion of the complaint and to reaffirm support for the present procedures, with no interest group having more than one third of a committee. The Council concluded that "the need for a balance of interests on committees continues to be served by this rule."

The issues in this appeal are so important, and the opposing sides so intransigent, it is a virtual certainty that the Council decision will be appealed to the NFPA Board of Directors. If that happens, the 1996 NEC will still be printed as released by the Council, but a disclaimer will be printed in the front of the book notifying users of the pending appeal.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!

© 2012 Penton Business Media, Inc.

---

Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus

Browse Back Issues Select an Issue November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 1, 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 1, 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 1, 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 2006 March 1, 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 1, 2004 January 1, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 September 1, 2003 August 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 June 1, 2003 May 1, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 1, 2003 December 1, 2002 November 1, 2002 October 1, 2002 September 1, 2002 August 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 April 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 February 1, 2002 January 1, 2002 December 1, 2001 November 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 June 1, 2001 May 1, 2001 April 1, 2001 March 1, 2001 February 1, 2001 February 1, 1995 January 1, 2001 December 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 October 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 August 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 1, 2000 May 1, 2000 April 1, 2000 March 1, 2000 February 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 December 1, 1999 November 1, 1999 October 1, 1999 September 1, 1999 August 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 June 1, 1999 May 1, 1999 April 1, 1999 March 1, 1999 February 1, 1999 January 1, 1999 December 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 October 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 August 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 June 1, 1998 May 1, 1998 April 1, 1998 March 1, 1998 February 1, 1998 January 1, 1998 December 1, 1997 November 1, 1997 December 1, 1996 November 1, 1996 October 1, 1996 September 1, 1996 August 1, 1996 July 1, 1996 June 1, 1996 May 1, 1996 April 1, 1996 March 1, 1996 February 1, 1996 January 1, 1996 December 1, 1995 November 30, 1995 November 1, 1995 October 1, 1995 September 1, 1995 August 1, 1995 July 1, 1995 June 1, 1995 May 1, 1995 April 1, 1995 March 1, 1995

browse e-newsletters