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.

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

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

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.

~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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One of the many products they showed us was a two-compartment nonmetallic surface raceway. They mentioned that the low-voltage section fills up much more quickly than the 120 volt section, which has room for 18 12 AWG conductors. Wayne challenged them on the utility of that branch-circuit wiring volume, noting the need for derating with that many conductors. Jim asked them about the PVC's toxicity. They identified the material as Vee-zero, which takes longer to ignite and is not as toxic right away as other versions.

The final product we looked at was a removable, adjustable bracket containing intumescent material that serves as a firestop. It clamps onto a nipple of four-inch EMT that passes through the wall containing cable(s). A number of people were interested in this product as a promising alternative to non-removable firestopping compounds.

The nipple proved a bone of contention. Wayne was concerned about the need to bond it. It has a #10 green screw, but can that take a 6 AWG conductor? You'd need a copper lug. David protested that the nipple is covered by the exception in 250 for short enclosures or raceways provided for mechanical protection. Wayne disagreed, saying that if there's any chance at all that metal can become live it needs to be bonded.

Next Most Recent Meeting

This is the full report of the meeting of the George Washington Chapter Tuesday evening, May 18, 2004, at the County offices in Largo, Maryland. Counting the speaker, we had 14 attendees, of whom 4 1/2 are inspectors.

The Executive Committee meeting, open to all, started some time after 6:30 pm. It segued into the business meeting and then our educational program. We had a lot of laughs.

Our chapter president, Wayne Robinson, graciously invited the executive committee to meet out at his home at some point this summer. Moving on to more-general business, the Treasury report was terse. David said that since the last meeting we spent $37 on postage, and the International Office sent us $470. Meeting refreshments cost us nothing. Once again, our former Education Director, Dick Bissell, cooked and donated a fine tray of barbecue-sauced meatballs and miniature sausages.

The next business item was a request for information from a representative of the Minnesota Electrical Association. No one expressed interest in learning about the materials that association offers. Similarly, nobody volunteered to call them to answer the questions they have about our local rules and needs.

Wayne noted that Prince George's County has done away with the homeowner's test. The County still does insist that work be permitted and inspected. Furthermore, it restricts what work a homeowner can perform. Before that restriction was established, Wayne says, too much work covered under homeowners' permits was performed by someone else entirely.

Jim Wooten asked about where a Master Limited can obtain the CEU credits that now are required. Wayne said that many sources have been approved, including a couple of electronics schools. The form stating course completion must, he emphasized, list the number of contact hours. The county will provide a pre-approval form on request. On it the licensee can list a school or course, to ask the Board whether contact hours of attendance there will be accepted for CEU purposes.

Our secretary is to prepare a letter by this summer's Executive Committee meeting that Wayne will submit, requesting that the Electrical Board approve attendance at IAEI programs for CEU purposes.

Finally, we changed our meeting schedule. Noting a conflict with the Master Electricians and Electrical Contractors Association's meetings, we determined that the second Tuesday may work better. Until further notice, we will go back to meeting on the second Tuesday of every January, March, May, September, and November. Our next one will be September 14, 2004, probably at the Prince George's County offices at Peppercorn Place in Largo, MD

Program

Our new local UL representative, Gary Babb, talked about what he and UL what he can offer us.

Some of what we heard was "old news" to anyone who's been an inspector, or in the trade, for a while, so I'll zip through it. Free UL directories still are available on request by AHJs that prefer hard copy; likewise product guides; likewise the Code Authority newsletter. Information is available through the "Regulators" link on the web site. UL-recognized products are components, not for field application but for factory use. At the factory UL only samples items. UL relies on reports from us to help them catch problems. Field modification of Listed products remains a sore spot. Labels are designed to self-destruct when removed for application elsewhere, but some cheaters succeed.

Gary offered some details, information that we found valuable or fun. He said that field inspection now can be provided within 24 to 36 hours of a request. That's worth knowing, though it would be nice to know how much the evaluations tend to cost, too. Pricing is hard to average, of course, and Gary does not get involved with that end, anyhow. Field evaluation of a new product, as opposed to inspection of a product lacking a sticker, can take longer. Another bit of worthwhile information is that Gary has spent a lot of time doing factory inspections. These included more than the unannounced aperiodic checks that UL relies upon for its Listing/Labeling program. He also has inspected for compliance with many European standards and with the ISO 9000 standard for quality (well, for documented quality improvement procedures).

A fun item was Gary's explanation of the history of UL's recognized-component mark, as told to him. He heard that UL had submitted a proposed mark that consisted of a forward-facing "UR" on film, but it was rejected. The copyright office considered it to infringe on the mark used by United Railways. UL's designers finally just turned the film over and said, "Let's try it this way."

We also learned that, many years ago, products used to be marked, "UL Inspected." Unfortunately, this misled some to presume that every single item had been looked at, rather than output merely being sampled. This concern led to the revised wording, "UL Approved," and then to today's "UL-Listed." Factory Mutual still uses the language, "Approved."

Gary also had a lot to say about electric signs, an area of particular expertise and one where Jim Wooten, in particular, has a lot of irritation. We had quite a lively discussion of how to interpret the requirement that Listing labels shall be visible after installation. Are they visible, if you need binoculars? A ladder? A rooftop perch, because the label was stuck where it can't mar the sign's appearance from the ground?

I'll offer snippets here, but not go into full detail. What I will report is that we hope to have Gary back in the Fall to offer a two-hour presentation, good for CEUs, on the NEC as it relates to signs.

He spoke happily of the relative safety of the new LED signs, whose 12-volt wiring poses so much lower hazard than traditional high-voltage signs. Sign transformers incorporating GFCI- protected secondaries have been required for two or three years, and these as well constitute a major change in the direction of greater safety. For one thing, a poorly-grounded system will not light, or will light only briefly, when fed by one of these. UL has field-investigated outline lighting for more than two years.

We talked some more about UL and sign installers, and about lightning-protection certification, . . .you had to be there.

Code Discussion

After our meatball break, we had a bit more Code chat. Art mentioned that in Laurel smoke detectors in bedrooms must be on AFCIs, and yet when he's turned off AFCI circuits, the smoke detector lights have stayed on. Does this mean they are not on such circuits? Opinions differed. He did not want to have to require that the batteries be removed. One option suggested was to just ask that this be done at a single smoke detector. Another was to check the manufacturer's instructions.

David asked a question about recessed lights. Can they be supported merely by the stabs on the ends of their support bars, or do they require nailing, if the manufacturer's instructions don't say? Many of us agreed that the stabs are unreliable, but Wayne pointed out that the blankety-blank old-work recessed lights aren't nailed in even to that extent. He agreed that it's not good to let even Type IC contact insulation or combustibles, but as Gary pointed out, if the manufacturer's instructions permit it, it's permitted. John Hoff noted that he's bought some non-IC lights that are convertible to Type IC.

Finally, we discussed a sewage-pumping question that had been emailed by an electrician out west. The basic issue is how to protect the line going out to the panelboard from any gases that make the sewage area a Class 1 Division 1 location. David Noted the presence of hydrogen sulfide, heavy, and ammonia, light. Wayne added methane, light and very combustible. John believes that this issue was covered within the last couple of month's as the Code Question of the Day. Wayne pointed out that the systems do occasionally fail, at which times the effluent rises-- not just gases. Finally, we generally agreed that if the cord was a specialty item designed to lock out hazard, standard hazardous-location seal-off fittings might be adequate. Otherwise, it would need its jacket split, and the conductors separated and packed in a fitting that would ensure that no gases could travel up through the cord and then through the conduit sleeving it to reach the panel.

Previous Meeting

This is the full report of the meeting of the George Washington Chapter Tuesday evening, March 16, 2004 at the Laurel, MD town hall. As usual, refreshments were enjoyed. This time once again Dick Bissell not only was kind enough to deliver our drinks, but cooked and donated a fine plate of barbecue-sauced meatballs and miniature sausages. We had 12 attendees, including the speaker, evenly split between inspectors and non-inspectors (5 ½ of each).

Like the previous gathering, this was one of our chattiest meetings in memory. Joey Panizari started off by describing some very dangerous installation he has come upon. He lamented the fact that they either escaped inspection or somehow passed despite their clear danger. Jim Wooten suggested that this often comes about because inspectors are not given sufficient time to carry out their duties effectively. Others chimed in with similar stories. Pete Bowers, though, was the life of the party. He started out by describing similar observations, but went on to detail how he has documented them and reported them to Washington, D.C.’s head of inspections. He also regaled us with fine stories–as did Jim Wooten and others–of finding ignorant, careless, or defiant violations and refusing to pass the jobs, or red-tagging them. An example mentioned by more than one person was finding electrical cables left in place after plumbers scorched them sweating nearby fittings. Jim found a twelve-by-twelve trough that was extended with wood, stealth-painted grey. Contractors, we were told, are pulling permits for unlicensed persons to perform incompetent work–and accepting payment by check, moreover. Low voltage work very rarely is being inspected, or covered by permits.

We had a bit of a dispute over a couple of the items that one Third Party Inspector tends to fail. We all agreed with him that when the drywall goes up before concealment inspection, it’s got to come back down unless, at the least, someone takes the responsibility of meggering the installation. We agreed that boxes recessed beyond the maximum permitted quarter-inch are not acceptable. However, the gentleman goes further.

He has been rejecting jobs with boxes that protrude from a wall, on the grounds that a child might conceivably get scraped on the edge of a cover plate. We tended not to agree with him that these should be considered in violation. Another issue was studs with drywall installed on one side before concealment inspection. Seeing how much harder these make it for the electrician to install his boxes, he gives the G.C. a hard time about these, at the least. It appeared that he was alone in doing so. One final controversial issue that he brought up was wiggly boxes. On final inspection, he goes around and tries every single receptacle with his idiot-light tester. When he withdraws the tester, the receptacle had better not pull out a quarter-inch or more or he considers it an improper installation. Our Education Director, Ed Holt, pointed out that with metal studs, most especially when there is drywall on only the one side, this is rather to be expected. Dino Panizari noted that some plastic boxes have tabs/ears that bear against the back of the drywall on the side not supported to the stud, and these prevent such movement. Other options noted included the use of Madison straps, or of 1900s instead of gems.

David put forth a slightly-different concern: partly-covered boxes. While sometimes it is clear that the drywall finisher or painter puts our receptacle into violation by recessing a box or leaving too wide a gap around its edges, sometimes the problem is the opposite. When the drywaller closes the opening around a box by running drywall tape and joint compound alongside it, he or she can get over-enthusiastic. Sometimes instead of running right up to the edge of the box, it runs over the edge of the enclosure, even right up to the edge of the receptacle or switch. While we agreed that this is undesirable, we also failed to find a Code section it violates. It’s not actually reducing the box’s volume.

We discussed other amusing challenges of the “find the section this violates” variety. We noted some changes that snuck up on us. Receptacles over baseboard heaters are not explicitly forbidden. There are Fine Print Notes in a couple of locations (210.52 and 424.9) alerting installers to the possibility of a 110.3(B) issue, but whether this is a violation depends on the individual heater’s Listing. David also argued the inadequacy of common wording. He pointed out the absurdity of asserting that any receptacle installed above a heater would put equipment cords at risk, using the example of a clock-hanger six feet up. Ed brought up a “whoops” in the 2002 NEC. Closing panelboard openings no longer is explicitly required. We agreed that this is meat for a T.I.A.

Our speaker was exceedingly patient. Our meeting notice had gone out late, because we were awaiting confirmation by our speaker. Unfortunately, what we received was disconfirmation, so our Education Director, Ed Holt , arranged for a replacement presenter. Our local Caddy and Rayco rep, Bernie Schreiner of Paul Bloom Associates, Inc ., generously filled in at the last minute. After our break, he presented a short and lively show-and-tell . Some products received very-interested responses, others skepticism regarding their usefulness or cost-effectiveness. We particularly enjoyed the “magic trick” associated with undoing Caddy’s multi-use low-voltage cable ties. We took heed of his warning that they are not for power wiring, and moreover only the red version, not the yellow, is for plenum use. Another warning he offered is that of two Caddy items that position boxes with respect to ceiling grids, only one is Listed for support. He also noted that there are plastic grommets for use in steel studs not to protect NM cable but simply to expedite the pulling of armored cable and to keep it from rattling.

At the start, Bernie brought up couple of startling points concerning prices. In the first few months of 2004, steel prices have escalated to where conduit prices have doubled. The Chinese are buying up scrap steel, worldwide, he explained. Copper prices have gone up 30% from late January to mid-March. Presumably he mentioned this because electrical customers might be extra-concerned about installation value after experiencing sticker shock over materials.

We were interested to varying degrees in the items Bernie offered to speed up installation. They tended to be quite a bit more expensive than what has been used in the past, but if they do a better, faster job, they could be worth the price. No one will be interested in them if they do a worse job. Pete questioned whether using aircraft cable rather than threaded rod to support luminaires would cost important anti-sway benefits from the rod. Others asked whether 480/277 volt installations required connectors rather than internal clamps. With Bernie’s help we determined, via 250.97(D), that boxes with internal connectors are perfectly satisfactory to bond 277 volt cable sheaths-they are tested to 600 volts. The question that remains is whether one can apply this in Montgomery County, MD and Washington, D.C., which remain in the 1996 NEC. The applicable section, 250.97(D), was new in 2002.

Following the presentation, we addressed business briefly. As no local jurisdiction has plans to adopt the 2005 NEC, we will not be pre-ordering books from the IO. We also do not plan to call on them for a cooperative seminar, though we do need to get our seminar program rolling again. Our books have been audited, reconciled, and blessed. We noted the availability of Listed wet-location EMT connectors, but only in sizes ½", 3/4" and 1". No attendee expressed interest in details of September’s Eastern Section meeting. Finally, Pete offered to help David fill a strange little request he received from a Florida contractor, asking for help locating a Trilliant circuit breaker.

Treasury Report

As of late March, with the meeting's mailing and refreshments, and the bookkeeping audit, paid for, based on the audit David believes we have $1485 in our checking account, and a bit under $170 in petty cash.
Former Education Director Sir Dick Bissell still has a Code Change Analysis book or two that we'd be happy to sell, plus quite a few 2002 NECs.

Education

We still look forward to scheduling another seminar with the great team of Bob McCullough and Andy Cartal, but the date has not yet been scheduled. If you have an idea for some other seminar, pleasde contact Ed Holt, our Education Director.

PERSONAL MATTERS

These notices and, especially, our snailmailed flyers, serve as a convenient means to get the word out to fellow members. We do not take advertising. However, if you have, for example, a job announcement around the time when we are sending out a mailing, feel free to ask that it be incorporated.

SEMINARS

Our next seminar, on April 15-16, will cover major 2005 NEC changes. It will be presented by the great team of Bob McCullough and Andre Cartal. Stay tuned, or get in touch, for further information.

General Notes:

Seminar registration fees are non-refundable, unless a seminar is postponed or cancelled. However, registrations are transferable. Therefore, if it turns out that you cannot make it, you can give your ticket to a colleague. There are two caveats, "yes-buts." First, if you claimed a member discount, and the colleague is not a member, the difference must be paid. Second, we need at least a few days' notice in order to prepare a Continuing Education Certificate.

Credit: Several area jurisdictions require participation in Continuing Education activities in order to renew your license. Virginia is one that does not presently require documentation of the specific coursework. Prince George's County requires that Continuing Education activities be approved, and this approval is up to the Electrical Board, which meets every other month. We expect to receive their blessing.

For further information on chapter activities, contact Ed Holt < eholtjr@comcast.net>, our Education Director, or telephone Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro (9 am - 9 pm only, please) at 301-699-8833, or email him at <GWIAEI.org>

The Central PA Chapter has meetings that might not be too far for a few of our members. Their September 12 talk was on infrared imaging to detect points of overheating. Their November 14 meeting featured a speaker from Square D on AFCIs. While their website access is temporarily on hold, Larry Griffith, their Secretary- Treasurer, can be reached at 717-872-2618 or emailed at larrygriffith@paonline.com

Code Books

If you are a member whose dues have been paid up continuously for three or more years, you should have received your copy of the 2002 NEC from the International Office long ago. We still have couple of copies of the errata available for members who cannot download them. To be reading this, though, you clearly have web access. You will find them on NFPA's web site. Go to http://www.nfpa.org/nec/ and select the third item down on the left-hand navigation bar.

If you are a newer or a rejoined member (hence ineligible for the complimentary copy), and still have not purchased a 2002 NEC, you can buy one from the Chapter at a reduced rate. Contact Dick Bissell, our former Education Coordinator, at 301-277-5823.

This is the report of the meeting of the George Washington Chapter Tuesday evening, January 20, 2004. It was held in the first floor conference room of the Prince George's County offices in Largo, MD. As usual, refreshments were enjoyed. This time, our former Education Director, Dick Bissell, not only was kind enough to deliver our munchies and drinks, but cooked and donated a fine plate of barbecue-sauced meatballs. We had 14 Attendees, including 5 inspector members and one non-member, John Hoff, who joined up at the meeting.

This was one of our chattiest meetings in memory. We started out with a lot of grousing about the lack of support for qualified electrical inspection, its implications for the morale of decent inspectors and honorable installers, and the likelihood that only tragedy, if even that, is likely to turn the tide.

Eventually we moved on to more positive topics. First, we learned that Maryland jurisdictions are finally adopting the 2002 NEC. Carroll, Calvert, Saint Mary's, Charles, and Ann Arundel Counties already enforce it. Prince George's County (PG) and Laurel, MD will adopt it by the last week of January, 2004. They will share identical local amendments. PG's local amendments, to be adopted simultaneously with the 2002 NEC, will be available to people who email or visit Wayne, the Chief Electrical Inspector, or eventually, by downloading from the County's web site.

Montgomery County does not yet have plans to enforce the 2002 NEC. Montgomery County, we were told, has a long-standing local amendment limiting even residential receptacles to 12 on a 20 amp circuit, 8 on a 15. The City of Rockville shares this rule. Another variation is that they don't require AFCI protection. (We were told that multi-hat inspectors in PG generally have not been enforcing this rule, although it certainly is on the books.)

Presently only PG and Cecil Counties require Sparky to earn CEUs to maintain his or her license. Wayne has letters out to the electrical board to grant us the power to award CEUs for attendance at our training programs.

All useful information. Next, this being our annual meeting, we had elections, fruitful ones. Two executive board members who simply have not been around have been dropped. Two of the chapter members who had been speaking up at this meeting, deploring the fact that so many don't seem to care about the issues that IAEI is about, were persuaded to join our executive committee. We now (sigh of relief) again have an Education Director. This is the final slate, which was voted in by acclamation:

PROGRAM: MATERIAL QUESTIONS

David Shapiro presented a program on Listing issues. His thesis: what you don't know about even common products can hurt you. Unlike most of our programs, he is not ethically able to provide exhaustive notes about the presentation for IAEI News . They would conflict with a feature, covering some of the same material, that David sold to Electrical Contractor.

What we can say, emphatically, is that in order to comply with Code it is not enough to have a copy of the NEC, because 110.3(B) demands that you follow the rules for the materials you install. Only a small portion of them accompany the materials in the form of written instructions. While those of us who are blessed, if that's the right term, with computer access can go to UL's web site and look up the guide card on a product, the big problem is that if we don't know about restrictions, we may not realize the need to look things up.

Some of our members, particularly Ed, Art, and Wayne, were surprisingly savvy, but no one seemed in the least certain about, for example, whether EMT installed in concrete needs supplemental protection. Look it up: Category FJMX. Another category with information that surprised attendees is KDSH, "Grounding and Bonding Equipment, Communication.

We had much entertaining discussion, as the presentation was quite low-key. We wandered all over the map. Ed shared a troubleshooting trick: his system for finding bad connections. When a circuit goes dead, he beats on the walls near the various receptacles. When he finds the right area, whatever is plugged in will come to life again, telling him where to go to tighten a termination.

LOOKING AHEAD

It appears that our next meeting, March 16, will be held in Laurel, MD, thanks to the good offices of Chapter godfather Art Hesse. Starting perhaps in May, several meetings' programs may be devoted to a multi-hour, CEU-granting program on Code calculations, being prepared by Wayne.

Next Most Recent Meeting

This is the report of our meeting Tuesday evening, November 18, 2003. It was held in Laurel, MD, thanks to the good offices of Chapter godfather Art Hesse, who not only arranged for the meeting space but came early and set it up despite suffering from bronchitis. We had 11 Attendees, including 5 inspectors and one non-member.

We started right off with our scheduled program, which gave us a head start asking what we wanted of jolly old Mr. Nick. Our good friend at NEMA, Gil Moniz, brought Dave Mercier, Technical Director of Southwire's electrical division, the world's largest building wire and cable manufacturer, and owner of the"Romex(R)" brand. He came to talk about how to and whether to! repair cable jackets-and lots more. Dave is an alternate member of Code-Making Panel 7, and former member of CMPs 6 and 8. He is involved in NFPA's study of aging residential wires, the Copper Development Association's study of elevated ambient, and other important projects.

Dave started out with a light touch, warning us of the risk associated with traveling with wire samples, post-9/11. "You'd better have a business card, to show the security people what you're doing with it."

He talked about the fact that in some commercial work there is a cycle of regular, planned, rewiring, but this is not the case with residential work. He figures that if wiring is 30 years old or newer, it's fine. Older, and he just can't predict status. Some folks have a rule of thumb that says if you touch wiring that's over 30 years old, you replace it. This is not based on any studies, which is why he considers the NFPA Research project so important.

The ambient temperature study also is quite important. One 2005 change coming out of it is that cables bundled for 24" or more no longer will be the only ones requiring derating due to bundling. Bundling for a shorter distance and covering with draft-stopping insulation will also require derating. Running raceways outdoors in the sun will mean adding 30 deg F to the high end of the general expected ambient temperature.

When Gil visited us previously, he made a splash by noting that the transparent nylon covering THHN/THWN, while arguably making them sexy compared to THW, is not required to maintain the conductor's dielectric properties. Therefore, if in the course of installation the nylon suffers the odd nick, or unsightly run, or even is scraped off, the conductor is fine so long as the insulation underneath remains intact. Learning this much, we had to have Dave over for more of the story.

Unless conductors are exposed to gasoline or oil, or submerged for an extended period we're talking many months--the nylon covering offers strictly a mechanical protection, Dave explained, with the underlying PVC supplying the dielectric properties as Gil had told us. The nylon actually is stripped away for the UL acceptance test. Therefore, if the nylon is scraped off, but the plastic underneath is intact, an appropriate response usually is "Good; it's done its job," and a green tag.

It's not just the nylon covering on THHN/THWN, we learned, but the sheaths on cable assemblies also often are optional. A cable installer nicked the sheath of a nonmetallic cable installed in a dry indoor location, and responded in a curious way: he turned the cable so the nick faced toward the wall. Not a bad response, Dave opined (while not wholeheartedly endorsing); this way, people glancing at it in passing wouldn't be unnecessarily concerned.

You may detect from this that Dave is quite an engaging speaker; moreover he's one with 19 years' product and Code experience under his belt to give plenty of clout to the information.

Damage is not necessarily limited solely to cable sheaths, of course. If a cable appears damaged, Dave recommends cutting a window in the sheath so you can examine the conductor insulation beneath. If that's good, you can "reinstall the window."

What should you do when you do want to, or need to, repair a cable sheath? Vinyl tape does just fine, Dave said, except in a wet location, and self-sealing mastic tape does even better. Best is a layer of self-fusing tape covered by a layer of vinyl. It even can be used outdoors on UF or SE cable, so long as it is not buried. For that, you need the sealing coverings that come with a Listed underground splice kit.

Art asked whether NM or SE cable repaired in this way still meets the UL standard. Dave commented that it is tough to say. There needs to be a dialogue between the manufacturer, AHJ, and installer. A qualified installer of repair materials should be able to make a repair acceptable to the AHJ, and Southwire's warranty will remain in effect. "Qualified?" Jim Wooten asked. "Someone who has received certified training in using the material, either in an apprenticeship class, or continuing education such as is offered by tape manufacturers." Even damaged Medium Voltage cable remains warrantied, so long as the shielded jacket, which is there for mechanical protection like that of MC, is fixed using a Listed repair kit installed by a qualified person.

We hope to co-sponsor such a class with 3M or Raychem or some such organization.

Taping certainly is not the only option for repairing insulation or sheaths. TED magazine ran an excellent article by 3M on available options. Industrial electricians tend to prefer to use heat- shrink tubing. Dave warned, though, that there is more room for error in using that than in taping! One problem is applying the right amount of heat all over. In addition, unless you get the "zipper sleeve" version, shrink tubing is pretty much limited to the ends of conductors. Cold shrink tubing tends to be more reliable than heat shrink, because it provides a constant, even pressure around the conductor and is not dependant on the need to apply heat uniformly, like heat shrink. It does not do a good job of resisting hard objects, though, which is one reason it is not Listed for direct burial. There is also an "armor repair" material for larger cables, which requires a bonding wire to bridge across it. (These are way bigger than our AC or NM.) Parenthetically, he noted that many distributors seem to be ignorant of which fittings are suitable for larger-size cables, so for the present Southwire is supplying them.

Dave neither smiled or frowned on the use of liquid vinyl repair material. Does "vinyl mender" use restore warranty? How would anyone become a "qualified installer" of that stuff? Unfortunately, he didn't have the definitive answer to every possible question. The only use of vinyl mender he is familiar with personally is as paint, to field-reidentify the ends of conductors.

Dave fielded one question that had an interesting Code twist: "Do you have concerns about pulling cables (as opposed to insulated conductors) through raceways, including long runs, and bends?" Presently it is legal to do so with "short lengths" (undefined) for mechanical protection, and for up to 10 feet entering a panelboard. Dave answered that he strongly favors the practice. A difficult run, which might damage conductor insulation, might be even a little harder to pull if you add the stiffness of cable sheath or armor! However, if what gets abraded during the pull is sheathing or armor, this may well spare the conductor insulation itself. Furthermore, the fact that it is not legal to pull cables through complete raceway runs, enclosure-to-enclosure, is a fluke, an unsubstantiated change, the result of a lack of correlation between CMPs during Code amendment. The NEC should accept the practice as in the past, as a general rule, unless a cable article forbids it. Instead, for the 2002 cycle it forbade the practice, as a general rule, unless a cable article specifically authorizes it. A Tentative Interim Amendment may be forthcoming, pending the 2005 correction.

This said, you can't just yank cable in to a raceway. Manufacturers supply tables of maximum force. You need to apply these guidelines, taking into account sidewall pressure where pulling around bends. (People often fail to monitor it putting their work at risk!) You also need to be sure to pull on the sheath or armor, along with the conductors.

Here's another big question Dave helped us gain insight on: about how much heat, or moisture, can cable withstand without needing, at the least, evaluation? The heat part of the answer is simple for THHN/THWN (and Dave can't remember seeing any THHN that isn't dual-rated as THWN): 90 deg C. This is 90% of the temperature it takes to boil water. Hence the mere fact that a cable is running "hot," even too hot to keep your hand on, may indicate that you have a problem, but not that the conductor insulation is being damaged by the heat. You have to take its temperature.

Cables of standard building wire with hotter withstand temperatures are not particularly in the works, in part because if you go to a whole lot higher temperature you are installing a cable that theoretically can get hot enough in normal use to set wood afire!

So much for heat. If cable has been subjected to flood water, the results can be particularly unfortunate, in part because of all the nasty materials the water can deposit, some of which are conductive, and in part because of hazardous mold and mildew, which can develop within 48 hours if materials are not dried. Mildew will attack plastic. Jim mentioned that flooding in Annapolis resulted in armored cable falling apart within a week after being submerged .

How should we go about evaluating cable suspected of having suffered damage? Replacement is always the safest approach. It's not always a welcome option. Whether the issue is heat, flood, or simply age, visual inspection is by far the most important inspection. Inspection involving testers can be misinterpreted. For instance, the concept, "It tests good, therefore it is good," without inspection, is just wrong. The one time you can rely on a tester is if it says something is wrong. Some testing of medium voltage, Type MV cables is in fact potentially damaging, so that the next time you use the cable after it passes the test, it will fail due--to the test.

This said, testing can be useful. The two approaches are go-no go high-potential (hi-pot) testing and insulation resistance measurement. The latter is more of a challenge, because it requires interpretation. Cable and tester manufacturers offer tables of values to look for. It is pretty clear that in normal building wire, measured in the vicinity of something grounded, insulation resistance below two megohms should fail, and above 50 megohms should pass. Measurements between those numbers warrant further investigation of the cable, especially near terminations.

Dave fielded lots and lots of questions. Harry asked Dave about NM-C. He's never seen it. "Use UF-B," he recommends. There just isn't enough call for NM-C: embedment in the walls of adobe or log homes, that's about it. Plain, old-fashioned UF is not an equivalent to NM-C, because the temperature ratings are different, but the only disadvantage of UF-B compared to NM-C is that it's harder to strip.

We learned a lot about where cables can be used, and also where they are used. There are a number of municipalities that forbid running circuits with conductors smaller than 12 AWG. Dave cannot urge the necessity of such a policy, especially where dedicated circuits have been run to take care of heavy loads and long runs.

SE cable is good for services because not only is the sheath sunlight-resistant, the internal conductors are, as well. Power and Control Tray Cable, Type TC, can be used for services as well, but while its sheath is sunlight-resistant, its internal conductors are not. (In accordance with Article 336, TC cable must also be installed in a cable tray or conduit system unless supported by a messenger wire outdoors or similarly protected in an industrial installation.) Ignore the restrictions and you're taking a risk. Some NM cable may withstand underground use, for example, although it is not Listed for the purpose, but such violations are chancy. What you may be able to get away with this week can be dangerous next week, as the formulation of the internal conductors can be changed without any indication from one that can withstand moisture to one that cannot.

The silicone rubber cable that is fireproof, turning to ceramic inside its steel conduit when baked, does indeed seem to do the job claimed. Sure, it needs to be replaced after the fire, and the traditional, far-more-expensive MI does not, but the odds are there is so much structural damage anyway that this may not matter.

Colored plastic cables, we learned, have a tendency to fade in sunlight.

Are cables being developed that are immune to vermin? Not really. There isn't enough call for that, and toxic chemical additives are frowned upon. Install something the vermin can't get their teeth around. In Texas, ants eat Romex(R). Squirrels have eaten right through an aluminum service conductor.

Jim asked whether there's a problem with knob-and-tube wiring. No, not so long as it is kept open, people don't touch it, and it is installed correctly, including the transitions to other wiring methods. It still is being installed in Louisiana and Texas.

Susan asked, "How is cable to be stripped?" Some of the apprentices she's supervised have trouble. Dave said there's no one answer, except . . . Whether you use a knife, a pair of side- cutting pliers, or a patent wire stripper, you cannot lose strands or nick conductors.

How about color-coding cable jackets and armor? Partly in response to inspectors' lesser skill, Wayne will be requiring that, in Prince George's County, armor be color-coded to indicate voltage level. Dave mentioned that Southwire has a White Paper on the problem of diminishing skill in the field. He noted the amount of gray hair in the room; Wayne riposted that the gray is premature. They also have a Building Wire and Cable Handbook, which he offered to send to those interested.

Dave invited us to tour Southwire's highly-automated manufacturing plant in their Carrollton facility outside of Atlanta, which is one of the largest facilities in the country manufacturing utility and building wire products. He talked briefly about the economics of U.S. manufacture versus importation. (Sorry--you had to be there.)

One last item Dave talked about was the restrictions on NM use. What used to be a three-story rule became what is essentially a five-story rule, as it shifted to being based on type of building construction. He sees little political support for extending NM use beyond this height. He noted that NM is illegal above a suspended ceiling. The fact that this is true even if it is in a raceway makes little sense to him.

We had a fine time with Dave, and he in turn confided afterwards that our group was one of the more knowledgeable and receptive that he has been with. After Dave was done, or rather after we were done with Dave, who was game to answer questions quite as long as they kept coming, Secretary-Treasurer David broached the matters of business that normally would have preceded the program. While the information is laid out at length below, there were only four items that caught anyone's interest.

First, yes, the I.O. proxy just seems to be a matter of housekeeping. Second, we're still solvent. Third, our next meeting, January 20, should be back at the Prince George's County offices in Largo, MD. Fourth, while we urgently need a new Education Director, Dick Bissell holds out some hope of a January 2002 Code seminar, at a PEPCO facility.

Ray Millet, Section Secretary, asked that we pass on the following highlights of the 2003 Board of Directors meeting. The web site, , has three new items: a New Member Application form, the opportunity to renew membership on-line, and the ability to update/correct information such as your address. I have previously mentioned that the site provides the opportunity to review Code questions and answers from the Jubilee. Ray also shared an estimate of the cost for the 2005 NEC: $65. The books they offer to prepare for exams and certifications will not be updated to the 2005. Instead, they recommend their $39. Comprehensive Study Guide. They're hoping to get the IAEI Analysis of the NEC updated to the 2005 version in time for 2004's Section meeting. Ray mentioned that you received a proxy request in the mail because IAEI is not incorporated in Texas.

Here is email I sent to our Executive Director, Jim Carpenter, on 11/9:

"When asked, I've been assuring members that this is just administrivia, enabling our representatives to move the organizational registration to where you'd prefer it, down where the IO is actually located. I don't know whether there are particular problems with having it registered elsewhere, but don't know of any reason for people to think twice about the proxy. Is there anything else I should know, and communicate?"

$ We may end up owing money for, or receiving some disbursement due to, the overall costs to and receipts to IAEI from the Jubilee, but we won't know yet for some months. We can expect I'd guess a couple of hundred dollars, a partial disbursement, from the IO in December. I figure we have about $220 in cash, $5 in postage, about $900 in our checking account (thanks to providing less-expensive refreshments than at other meetings), and enough paper and envelopes for our next couple of mailings. Our bank thinks we have a few hundred more in the account, a disagreement that has been true for a few years. This is much better than a disagreement in the other direction, but still one that I hope our auditor, Pam Panizari, can reconcile next time she goes over the books.

Previous Meeting

September 2003

The George Washington Chapter's regular meeting and program took place Tuesday evening, September 16, 2003, at a different location than usual, the Laurel, MD town hall. Four inspector and four associate members attended. Our president and vice-president were unexpectedly absent, so we handled things informally. The first thing we did, before the meeting even came to order, was to present our godfather, Art Hesse-also the evening's host--with a certificate acknowledging his 25 years of IAEI membership.

We started out about 6:45 with David reporting a conversation he had at the IAEI Jubilee with the Ohio chapter's secretary, Tim Curry, about building chapter membership and attendance. Tim was generous with his time, forgoing the opportunity to attend a training session at the jubilee, in order to give us the benefit of his experience. One response we took at this September 16 meeting was to gather a list of distributor personnel. Harry Langway has volunteered to approach them to publicize our meetings and seminars. Another response was to vote our thanks to Tim Curry for his help.

Harry talked about counterfeit electrical products, and mentioned that he recently has been sold old-standard GFCIs by a supply house and been very unhappy about it. There's nothing illegal about this, but Harry likes to work to the best standard available. David discussed the 2003 change in the standard for GFCIs. One member had understood this to include self-testing for proper function, which one brand claims to offer. David explained that this capability is being proposed for a 2005 revision of the GFCI standard.

Ed Holt brought up the fact that UL tightened the standard for raintight EMT connectors, such that the presently-manufactured ones no longer comply. David noted that the UL representatives at the jubilee said manufacturers may be offering redesigned connectors for evaluation for compliance with the standard. Ron Greenfield, our speaker, offered to contact a manufacturer he represents for information on this.

David mentioned the great wealth of information he recorded at the jubilee, and started to discuss the differences in marks for recognized components compared to Listed products. He offered to share more of it after the evening's scheduled presentation, should time allow.

Our presenter, Ron Greenfield, was quite helpful in suggesting people at supply houses for us to contact. Ron represents Ideal and quite a few other manufacturers. Most of his time was spent touting the features of the particular products he is hired to promote, so details seem inappropriate to reproduce. We did find it interesting when he said that current versions of the Suretest (TM) report as a false ground any grounding that relies on armor or raceways-on anything but a separate ground wire. Ron gave the impression that he believed a separate ground wire is Code-required in residential home runs.

Some of his information on the NEC and UL standards was at odds with the understandings of the rest of us. He finds 7 mA to be at the low end of what it takes to trip a Class A GFCI, according to the test instruments whose use he promotes, and he understood this trip level to be normal and proper. Based on our response to this statement, he did say he will check his information.

Codes and standards issues aside, he did offer a fair bit of interesting gossip. Advance, Sylvania, and Magnetek all are offering inexpensive electronic ballasts for residential use that produce more than 30% total harmonic distortion. Because he represents one brand of megohmmeter, he is often asked what level of impedance is reasonable. He has come up with no guidelines from manufacturers. Ed Holt mentioned that well manufacturers do have such guidelines, depending on the age of the well pump. Ron mentioned that solenoidal voltmeters are far more expensive to produce than electronic ones. He also told us that newer tic tracers no longer react to voltage in neutrals. After a couple of efforts, Ed was allowed to ask about the voluntary recall of Voltcon testers. Ron explained that the solenoid failed in two units, dated between 1999 and 2002, used to test voltages over 750 VDC. Nonetheless, Ideal is replacing all such units turned in.

Finally, Ron discussed the line of fire protection equipment he represents, Kidde. It includes smoke detectors, heat detectors, and carbon monoxide detectors. A garage might call for a heat detector set at 135 degrees, and an attic heat detector set at 200 degrees. The manufacturer does recommend vacuuming the units or blowing dust and suchlike out with a hair dryer. This was a surprise to Sam Levinrad, based on his (not necessarily up-to-date) understanding of NFPA 72.

Ron was done talking a bit before 9 pm, and we adjourned for fruit, soda, and shrimp. The consensus was that it was too late to resume, so we left after refreshments, taking Ideal pigtail samples provided by Ron, plus low-voltage books donated by Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc.

May 2003 Meeting

This is the report of our regular meeting starting about 6:40 Tuesday evening, May 20, 2003 in the first floor conference room of the Prince George's County offices at 9400 Peppercorn Place in Largo, MD. Fifteen members attended, four inspector-type and the rest Associate. We enjoyed the presence of several members of the Chesapeake Chapter and one from the Central Pennsylvania.

OLD BUSINESS

EDUCATION

Education Director Sir Dick Bissell made three attempts to confirm that the evening's scheduled speaker would be able to make it. Unfortunately, Dick received neither a yea nor a nay, and we had to announce our program on faith. (Our wait for a response was one reason the meeting notice was mailed out somewhat late.)

Coming up on the meeting, Dick still expected to bring back the great seminar team of Bob McCullough and Andre Cartal, probably in mid-June. Unfortunately, he was not able to obtain a good-sized venue. Art Hesse assured us we could use the facilities of the Town of Laurel, but Dick hopes we would get more attendees than Laurel could accommodate. Dick has hopes that PEPCO's Forestville facility might be available for us to offer a seminar, with seating for a hundred or more; and PEPCO would not charge us, or restrict how we ran it. As a result, we shifted our hopes to the Fall. More on that below.

Dick himself remains over-scheduled, and would like to step down. We still need a volunteer to take over as Education Coordinator.

Treasury Report

Dick still has a 2002 Code Change Analysis book or two that we'd be happy to sell, plus quite a few 2002 NECs. Dick brought some to this meeting, and we did sell three books. Once the check has been received for the two books purchased at the meeting and not paid for with spot cash, I anticipate that we'll have about $2700 in cash, savings, and postage. We still have a few months before we send representation to the next Section meeting, which will take place at IAEI's 75th Anniversary celebration in Orlando. Unfortunately, we anticipate no further income during that period, and in fact expect to spend money on an additional mailing.

Visiting Central Pennsylvania Secretary-treasurer C. Larry Griffith advised us that we will need to rely on seminars for more of our income, because the International Office is looking to the chapters to kick in more to support them, rather than helping us out financially.

OTHER BUSINESS

NEIS

Dick Bissell formally presented the collection of NEISs to Wayne. They were given to our chapter by Andrew Porter, the Executive Director of the local NEA chapter. Wayne has sent a thank-you note. Susan proposed, and we agreed, that these will circulate. Richard Velasquez was the first to take advantage of this, borrowing the entire set.

LONGEVITY

A number of members have stuck around long enough that we have certificates to present them acknowledging their loyalty. This meeting, we had agreed, offered the final opportunity for them to receive the certificates. None either showed up or called. Nonetheless, Susan proposed, and we voted, to mail them the certificates.

FELLOW TRAVELER

Harry Langway, Jr. is a local contractor who chooses to be a member of IAEI's Chesapeake Chapter. Nonetheless, he attended, and has asked to be on our mailing list. Sure thing.

COLLABORATION WITH THE IEC

IEC? IBEW/NECA? We don't take sides, or, to put it more piously, we're on the side of everyone who's concerned with improving electrical safety and the consistent application of the NEC. Some choices came up, though. Here's the situation.

Grant B. Shmelzer, Executive Director of the Independent Electrical Contractors' Chesapeake chapter, asked for assistance in marketing IEC continuing education classes to all the members of IAEI. It was not clear whether the IEC has publicized our chapter's continuing education activities or whether there is any possible competition for paying audiences. Not being a member of our chapter, he was careful to point out in his request, "We are members of IAEI." Despite quite a number of other pulls on his attention, he attended this meeting to urge his case. Asked whether there might be a conflict between our seminars and the IEC's, he said that would be hard to predict.

These are the points he made:

He puts out a monthly newsletter with 250 recipients.
In it he announces the IEC's continuing education activities.
In it he has not announced IAEI's continuing education activities.
He would like us to use our mailings to announce the IEC's continuing education activities, including the dozen courses the IEC will give during the remainder of this year (or as many of them as are still upcoming when we put out a mailing).
He would like us to consider using their facilities for a seminar. If we do so, they are willing to take on a fair bit of administrative work, and provide the food. They would expect a certain fee per head for the food, and half the net receipts.
Perhaps because he is Chesapeake, rather than D.C., oriented, he considers his Odenton, MD facility centrally located and convenient for our members.
He emphatically recommends using a local speaker rather than the IAEI team, but doesn't insist on it.
He strongly urges that we raise the fee for attending the seminar so that it does not significantly undercut the rates they and others charge. This is true whether or not we co-sponsor the seminar.
If we co-sponsor a seminar, he advises us to count on attendance by no more than 50 or so, not that sign-ups can be predicted.
He warned that we might not make any profit if we charge as we have (although we have come out ahead consistently, in the past).
If they co-sponsor it, he offers to try to get a distributor to kick in some money towards books or food. If they were successful in obtaining the underwriting, they would want the fee for attendance to stay as high as if the distributor were not helping out.
If we decided on co-sponsoring it soon enough, they would publicize it at the mid-June electric show, as well as through their newsletter mailing. It was not clear whether they would publicize our seminar if we used PEPCO's facilities rather than co-sponsoring with the IEC.
He suggests that we provide a link to his web site on our chapter's web site. He has a link on his web site not to our chapter's but to the IO's.

Wayne supported raising prices. Dick, David, and some others favored keeping them relatively low, with strong incentives for early registration, as in the past. Susan pointed out that we want to act like a non-profit devoted to electrical safety, whose main point in offering seminars is to teach people who otherwise might not take a class. As well as doing a great job, Andy and Bob give us a break on pricing, to support our mutual goals.

Wayne's opinion, echoed around the room, is that we should work with anyone interested in continuing electrical education. Larry mentioned that his local IEEE chapter has a link to the Pennsylvania IAEI's web site, and this brings some engineers to their seminars.

Dick brought up this question: In the fairly-recent past we chose not to publicize a Toastmasters(TM) club, open to all but sponsored by IBEW/NECA, because an inquiry to the IEC determined that some of their officers would see this as favoritism. How would the chapter working with the IEC jibe with this?

Grant responded that, having researched Toastmasters(TM) further, if asked again he would not oppose publicizing them. At the same time, he made the point that helping people with public speaking and leadership skills is not part of the IAEI's purpose, and continuing electrical education is.

David asked for a motion setting a policy regarding publicizing others' seminars; Wayne gave the opinion that none is needed. That's where it was left, basically up to whoever's on the spot.

We started thinking about September for our next seminar, but Larry pointed out that much of it would conflict with the IAEI Golden Jubilee meeting. Susan Flashman suggested that we look at the last three weekends in October for possible dates. Grant offered the IEC facilities for October 24-25, with the following Friday-Saturday also possible.

Program

Our presenter was to be Bill Grande, Product Manager for Safety Products at Leviton Mfg. He had offered to talk about electrical imports with genuine UL Listing and Labeling, but that violate U.S. copyrights. Unfortunately, he did not appear. He told us afterwards that he was on the West Coast when Dick's messages seeing to confirm his commitment to show up came in. We did enjoy some Code discussion on our own, though.

DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS

After the break, Larry discussed a couple of problems with materials. One, a large bundle of EMT, made in Colombia but UL-Listed, had a number of pieces that split when bent--just moderately. Another, a coil of Carol MC cable, dropped a substantial quantity of oil, used in its manufacture, from its cut ends. Carol reportedly said it's not their problem.

In the course of the discussion, Wayne said the UL now advises we contact them in South Carolina when problems arise.

LITERAL VERSUS APPLIED NEC

David brought up a couple of Code-interpretation concerns from installations he has been on recently.

FISH OR CUT WALL

Here's the first. The NEC focuses on new installations more than on old work, but not exclusively. There is an exception to the rules for securing cables in the case of fishing, for instance in 334.30 (B)(1); a question that it would be nice to hear from different members, especially, different inspector members, about is when and where old work is considered fishing, cable is considered concealed, and support impracticable.

Think it's obvious? What if cable is fished down from an unfinished attic to a switch box location? Certainly if the hole cut for the switch is no bigger than is needed to fit a self-holding box, or a gem box (single gang or multi-gang) and a couple of madison straps, the cable does not require stapling. Suppose, though, that a side-flange square box is chosen, and plastering will be needed later anyway? Is the cable still "concealed," and support "impracticable"?

Now suppose that a strip of wall is cut away to enable drilling of studs to run new cable to receptacles. Clearly, where the cable is run through a hole within a foot of the receptacle, it is considered supported, so there's no problem. However, with studs sixteen inches or further on center, some cable will not be supported by a hole within a foot of each outlet box. Given that the wall has been chopped into considerably already, is the cable still "concealed," and support "impracticable"? Suppose that, again, large-enough holes were chopped anyway to use side- flange square boxes for the outlets; would that make a difference?

Larry's opinion was that if there was room to swing a hammer, you needed to staple or strap. Wayne was harsher, and he carried other inspectors with him. He said that if you don't use a cut-in box it's not fished. Even if you're cutting drywall in order to drill studs, patch and use an old work box.

Dino Panizari asked if anyone has a problem with using an old work box in new construction. No; not unless it's beign installed in a hospital.

MULTIWIRE

The second set of questions concerns 210.4(B) and 300.13: should the rules for multiwire branch circuits apply only to split-yoke wiring? Only to points where more than one hot conductor is present? This judgement call affects both the requirement to pigtail identified conductors and, in residential occupancies, the requirement to use handle ties or multipole CBs. If your jurisdiction puts one or the combination of both those limits on the requirements, do you do so via a formal local amendment, or on the basis of "everybody knows what it's supposed to me/how we apply it."?

There are several potential hazards. We'll take it as a given that if you're careful enough and/or lucky enough, you can work anything, live, and not get hurt, and if you're ignorant/careless/unlucky enough nothing will protect you. With that aside. . .

There is the risk associated with losing the grounded conductor upstream of a point where both, or all three, hot legs are feeding loads; this involves exposure to, and dividing of, phase-to-phase or leg-to-leg voltage.

There is the risk associated with interrupting the grounded conductor upstream of where a load feeds into it; this involves exposure to line-to-ground voltage.

There is the risk associated with contacting a grounded return conductor that is carrying a load; this involves dividing the return current between the upstream return conductor path and whatever path you provide inadvertently.

While they may throw light on the Code, these issues are separate from the question, "What does the NEC actually require?"

If we take 210.4(B) literally, it indicates that any device, such as a duplex receptacle, fed by a multiwire circuit needs to be fed by a multipole breaker or handle-tied breakers. It doesn't say, "any device fed by both hot legs of a multiwire branch circuit." If you are creative rather than literal, and read into it that the receptacles are "not fed by a multiwire branch circuit" if they're only fed by one side/leg of it and the link between them isn't broken, then single pole breakers would be okay in residences. The NFPA handbook illustration shows the tab broken on a common yoke. The McPartlands' McGraw-Hill Handbook of the NEC doesn't just suggest this via an illustration but uses the wording, "split-wired," in discussing the 210.4 prohibition against using independent single-pole circuit breakers. When the NEC wording is not explicit, it should be made explicit, rather than having to be interpreted. Still, how do you call it?

Handbooks don't have the force of law. The question is whether they talk in terms of split-wired devices because that is the example where pigtailing, and disconnecting both circuits, is demonstrably most important, or because the CMP didn't mean what their literal wording says, but in fact only intend these requirements to apply at split-wired devices or, alternately, only at points in the system where more than one hot wire of the multiwire circuit is present in the enclosure.

The wording of 300.13(B), Device Removal, requiring pigtailing, is not restricted to residences, and not restricted to multiple devices sharing a yoke. The only out from the requirement to splice and pigtail the white conductor is by creative redefinition of "multiwire branch circuit." Some people argue that downstream of where, typically, the 14/3 splits off into 14/2 cable, "it's no longer a multiwire circuit." Unfortunately, this would seem to run counter to Article 100, which considers a circuit to be defined at the point it leave the last overcurrent device.

Doesn't the NEC permit a designer to treat a multiwire branch circuit the same as multiple (separate) branch circuits? This would suggest that, at least at points after it divides, it doesn't need to fulfill the requirements imposed by 210.4(B) and 300.13(B) Only in two contexts. The permission seems to be limited to fulfilling one requirement and being exempt from one prohibition. A multiwire branch circuit can be used where normally you would need multiple branch circuits. Thus one multiwire branch circuit can be used where you would be required to install two or more small appliance branch circuits in a kitchen/dining/pantry area. Also, a multiwire branch circuit can use one leg to serve as a small appliance branch circuit and another leg for general lighting, without violating the prohibition against combining a small appliance branch circuit with a general lighting branch circuit. Neither situation clearly indicates that the NEC defines it as no longer being a multiwire branch circuit at some point along its path.

Wayne personally likes to pigtail and multi-pole breakers, but considers it okay to use separate single-pole breakers unless you have a device split-wired. Larry disagrees, because someone trying to balance loads could move one of the breakers onto a different leg, overloading what should be the neutral. Larry believes you should pigtail the grounded conductor even where it's down to two wires. Dino believe you need to pigtail it only where more than one hot is present. We did not achieve consensus. It was clear, though, that David was the only attendee who saw the literal wording as clearly requiring both grounded-conductor pigtailing and multipole or handle-tied breakers throughout circuits that originate with shared neutrals.

DC's supervisory electrical inspector, Robert Brock-Smith, who visited us back in September, does not require pigtailing or handle ties except where a yoke is split. He does, however, require some installers to pigtail both hot and return conductors under 110.12, if he's not satisfied that they make good connections via devices, multiwire or no multiwire.

Subsequent to the meeting, NEC Consultant and Northern California IAEI member Creighton Schwan confirmed by email that, wording aside, the intent of Code is to require simultaneous disconnection only when split-yoke wiring is used, but grounded conductor pigtailing even past where more the circuit splits, as often it does, and only one hot conductor of the multiwire circuit is present. The latter may not serve a specially useful purpose in that part of a circuit, but it is how the requirement reads.

Before the report of our chapter's next most recent meeting, here is some of what took place at the April meeting of another organization with related goals.

ACES Meeting

This is a portion of what transpired at an April 10, 2003 meeting attended by David Shapiro, Secretary-Treasurer, as representative of the George Washington Chapter.

He was present at the kind invitation of the American Council on Electrical Safety, which is administered by the American Council of Independent Laboratories. This is the association of Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs), plus U.S. Customs, the U.S. C.P.S.C., Federal OSHA and several electrical inspection jurisdictions.

NRTLs were defined and recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1989, and formed ACES as part of ACIL three years ago. The ACES group meets twice a year, in April and November. ACIL is a much larger organization of testing laboratories and testing companies, in many disciplines beyond the testing and certification of electrical products. Not all NTRLs may be represented; Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. has only shown up at the three most recent meetings.

The first lengthy order of business was discussion of the fifth draft of the document, "Recommended Practice and Procedures for Unlabeled Electrical Equipment Evaluation." The issues are important, and straightforward. If an AHJ is asked to accept the use of a product, the first inclination is to ask whether the product is Listed and Labeled, and used in accordance with its Listing. This is best, if only because rarely can a field evaluation perform all the tests that normally would be employed. Some of them may in fact be destructive, even if they don't require special laboratory equipment.

While field evaluations may not be as complete as the factory Listing process, they do have a couple of positive sides, even beyond offering some assurance to the AHJ. First, whatever tests are done are performed on this specific unit, rather than just on a sample of the run of which this unit was a part. Second, this unit probably is being evaluated in the context of location, application and environment. Many locations, especially in the western States, require that the field evaluation be specific and unique to the site where the equipment is installed (or is to be installed). Move it, and you void the evaluation. In other States and in Canada, it can be either site-specific or non-site-specific. Note that even if the evaluation is not unique to a specific site, evaluation nonetheless includes checking for necessary markings or instructions, such as restrictions to sites with particular characteristics.

Where non-Listed products are to be used, getting them approved can be hairy. Some AHJs are willing to evaluate products' suitability on their own. Very many, though, are reluctant to take on that kind of responsibility, especially because they may not have testing knowledge, ready access to the applicable standards, or the equipment needed to do the job. Most AHJs are, however, willing to accept field labeling by professionals.

What type of professionals should these be, though, with what qualifications, applying what standards if they're not going to be the same standards as would be used in a factory run? The State of Washington and Los Angeles City and County are writing rules specifying how field evaluations are to be performed. These jurisdictions, and most others, require that laboratories or companies seeking to provide product field evaluation and labeling services apply to them for accreditation or recognition.

Some AHJs will accept a sign-off by any P.E., others list certain laboratories or other services whose work they accept. By developing a nationally-accepted standard as to what the field testers should do, ACIL/ACES members may provide the means whereby some of the least-competent would-be testers can be eliminated, or at least held accountable. Even under OSHA rules, which generally require products that fall into 37 categories* to be NRTL-Listed, when used in workplaces, use of products labeled by organizations other than NRTLs continues to be perfectly compliant provided that the local AHJ accepts installations of products based on that labeling. *The categories do not include some items that might surprise you: ladders, gloves, and some footgear.

This is not the place to go into detail about the bits of the Draft document that were chewed over. It's enough to say that ACIL members were greatly concerned about not wanting to appear to be advising AHJs on how to do their job. Some minor adjustments were proposed, an ancillary document may be prepared, and after April 30 one final draft may be circulated for adoption. Chuck Mello who represents Electro-Test, Inc. on ACIL/ACES, is the point man for the revision. Chuck, who is a member of IAEI's Northwest Section and I.O. Board, can be reached at <chuck.mello@electro-test.com>. He would appreciate any comments from local AHJs. The end goal of this effort is to help the AHJ in the field understand what the field labeling process is, what to expect from the provider, to have some guidelines on how to qualify or recognize third parties doing this work, and to have some level of uniformity and consistency across the United States.

OSHA's Bernard Pasquet talked about two or three proposed changes. One is rather technical, of concern solely to NRTLs with regard to where and how they do their testing. I don't think I need to discuss it here, but if you want to chase it down, I-or, I certainly expect, Pasquet-- can provide the information. They are open to input. At this point, I'm afraid, they have circulated the information only by email; there's nothing on their web site.

The other, big-deal proposal is going to result in a Request for Information in the Federal Register. Here's the scoop: in Europe, manufacturers provide Declarations of Conformity saying they've been good guys and their products comply with applicable standards. It's rather like sending in a post card when you're done wiring, saying that you're sure it was done right, instead of calling in the AHJ. Here OSHA demands Listing by NRTLs that have checked to make sure the products manufactured by our good guys (or anybody's, if they want to apply NRTL Labels) really, truly, comply with our standards. (Well, okay, the Federal Communications Commission has approved Self Declarations of Conformity (SDOC) by manufacturers of telephones; this is not working, someone commented.)

That's how it has been so far. What happened is that in late-2001 the Information Technology Industry Council (which we knew as CBEMA, The Computer and Business Manufacturers' Association, in the 1990s) requested that OSHA permit it to forgo use of NRTLs and rely on SDOCs. This would not meet the letter of the OSH Act. Still, OSHA plans to seek public comments on the appropriateness of accepting SDOC-from IT manufacturers or anyone else. It is hard to see how allowing any companies to bypass the NRTL program will serve the public either in terms of safety or in terms of maintaining a level playing field among competing products. The NRTL program, incidentally, while providing only about 50% cost recovery through its fees, costs the taxpayer minimally. Even before the partial recovery of expenses, it represents about one thousandth of one percent of the OSHA budget.

This is worth our chiming in on. When I am informed that the request has been posted, I will pass that information on to our members.

We learned about one other forthcoming change in OSHA rules. CFR 1910.7 lets NRTLs List products for hazardous locations because they meet standards for Class and Division ratings. It does not quite yet permit Listing of products that comply with standards for the Class and Zone system covered in NEC Chapter 505, except insofar as they may happen to be dual-Listed for a zone and a division.

The next item was a presentation by IAEI past-president Doug Geralde of CSA on anti-counterfeiting efforts. Sure, in dirt-poor countries black markets are very active. Counterfeiting, though, means pretending that products are produced by reputable manufacturers, sometimes when what's being sold does not even approximate the legitimate product.

Some counterfeits are simply flimsy or rip-offs; counterfeits such as concert tickets or T-shirts receive less attention than other, more-dangerous ones. Counterfeit shampoos contained e-coli. Counterfeit safety shoes had nails going through to the metal sole plate, destroying their dielectric protection. Counterfeit name-brand toys presented choking hazards.

In early 2002, bogus extension cords were imported that deviated strongly from product standards. How do you stop that? There's nothing illegal about bringing in cords that are good for nothing much. Fortunately for our compatriots' safety, the importer was challenged by Federal marshals primed by Customs and Consumer Product Safety Commission officials. The importer was caught in about 50 lies to the Marshal; each one constituted a felony. He served jail time.

Counterfeit products represent 5-7% of the world's gross economy. The counterfeiters can be shrewd, watching for the cancellation of NRTL file numbers when products cease being Listed, and subsequently creating labels using those numbers. Geralde knows of at least two cases where the counterfeit products were part of the process of laundering receipts from organized crime.

Manufacturers need to check defective or unsatisfactory products returned to them by consumers, to make sure they are not counterfeits. Consider the irony of a company reimbursing, and apologizing to, customers when it has not even received income from the product's sale. We heard more on this later, from Gordon Gillerman, of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.'s Washington, D.C. office. Gillerman pointed out that U.S. Customs inspects less than 10% of imported products. Partly as a result, counterfeit products represent more than $100 million of domestic products annually. While 75% of seized products are manufactured in China, some of them travel by very indirect routes. UL works hard to convince Customs to destroy counterfeits. Otherwise, if turned away, they can simply re-enter through a different port. Our coastline and borders are too long to prevent this.

Bill King of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported hopes for enhanced AFCI protection. The paradox he wants to address is that the technology was developed to address a problem that is most severe in older wiring, but NEC requirements are not retroactive and the rules are applied primarily to new wiring. Data collected (in non-randomized samplings) indicate that while 70-odd percent of houses are more than 20 years old, they suffer 85% of fires. He has sought to resolve this paradox by requiring the addition of AFCIs to all branch circuits when a residential loadcenter is upgraded. The AFCI technology we presently have would respond to approximately half the arcs that cause fires despite fuse or standard circuit breaker protection.

King would like to see enhanced GFCI protection as well, ideally protecting all residential branch circuits. He pointed out that there are many grounded surfaces in homes, such as metal window frames, that can serve to electrocute children in contact with something energized. Two cost-benefit analyses were posted in April to the CPSC's web site, WWW.CPSC.gov, dated March 10, 2003. Search for "Economic Considerations-AFCI Replacements" or "Economic Considerations-GFCIs." They pretty much conclude that the items pay for themselves.

This is based on estimates of fires prevented and lives saved, plus a variety of assumptions. For instance, to get a number for use in the analysis lives are counted as worth five million dollars; to simplify the calculation, fire fighters' injuries and deaths are not counted; device life is taken as 30 or 40 years; and, finally, even though some of the analyses talk about benefits deriving from adding AFCIs 10 or 20 years after construction, to estimate cost of installation this is taken as new work, so the costs of installation are not really considered, including the costs of rewiring where existing circuits would nuisance-trip a GFCI or AFCI. This should be a sufficient sample to demonstrate that while some assumptions may strike you as generous, others may seem overly conservative, and yet others arbitrary. Still, they're a stab at answering the person who wants to know how safety stacks up in dollars and cents.

We can expect one or two increases in GFCI protection requirements in the 2005 NEC. Outdoor commercial receptacles accessible to the public is one; vending machines, whether installed indoors or outdoors, are another. People have been injured by ground-fault shock involving outdoor commercial receptacles feeding holiday lighting, coin-operated appliances of various types (e.g., amusement rides for children and laundry appliances), power tools, and sound amplification equipment.

The great thing about the new rule for vending machines is that it will be subject to immediate enforcement. Here's what's so good about that. There have been incidents involving vending machines in indoor settings such as hotels, recreational areas, and laundromats, as well as many incidents in outdoor settings. Vending machines tend to have about a ten-year life. They then can be refurbished, and provide another decade of service. Presuming this passes, though, new machines will incorporate integral GFCI protection; where the NEC is enforced, existing ones will be served by GFCI-protected outlets.

It is not impossible, King pointed out, to get existing equipment modified when the NEC changes, even without action on the part of AHJs. He pointed out that when a GFCI protection requirement was added for pressure washers, insurance companies required people to get their machines modified if they wanted to retain coverage.

Among the final issues raised at this meeting were how a contractor or AHJ can determine whether a product is being applied in keeping with its Listing, what standard applies, and how standards get developed or changed.

The answer to the first piece was straightforward. Each product will have a file number or "ccn number" on it, in the case of a UL product a four-digit an alphanumeric code. Take that to the catalog, available on UL's web site, < www.UL.com>, and look for the header of the entire category. That will provide "guide information" and list the standard number. It also will mention any special marking provisions. UL sells standards, (although AHJs can receive copies) but the answer to this question does not require reading through the standards themselves. UL's web site lists the scopes of all standards. The scope should let you determine whether the product is being applied in keeping with the standard under which it was investigated.

It si not only the specific requirements in a standard that are applied in investigating a product, Gordon noted. If its features do not meet the safety intent described in the foreword to the standard that applies to it, the investigating laboratory may add requirements before Listing it.

The next piece of the question is how a product is investigated when there is no standard that applies specifically. UL, at least, generates a "scope of investigation" whereby they cobble together requirements from more than one standard, if necessary. When there are a number of submittals in a single area, they take this as a hint that it is worth their while to develop a new, separate standard.

Standards Technical Panels (STPs) have been in existence for four years to consult on changes to standards. They meet every six months, and may also schedule emergency meetings. They welcome applications from volunteers who wish to join their work. Changes are driven by three inputs: proposals from panel members, proposals from the general public, and NEC changes.

If you see an unsafe permitted condition of use, one not addressed by the product standard, you can offer a field report to the NRTL, and even propose a specific change in the standard's language.

Acceptance of standards is not automatic. The enhanced UL standard for GFCIs that was implemented in 2003, for instance, was not accepted by ANSI.

Another source of standards besides UL is IEEE. Their C357 standards are used for medium-voltage applications. IEEE uses a process similar to UL's STPs.

A final question concerned modification of products. Plugs, cords, contactors, motors, component switches, any number of parts break down regularly, and regularly are replaced in the field. Does a product maintain its Listing once it's been repaired? NRTLs are exceedingly reluctant to endorse a product's safety once it leaves their hands and others get their hands into it.
Even if the equipment manufacturer supplied a replacement part, the fact that the repair person used an OEM part is not enough. Was it the right part for this model? Was it installed correctly?
Was there any damage incident to the repair? Certainly the product as a whole has not gone again through the testing it received in the factory to earn its Listing.
So much for field repair undertaken without the expense of a NRTL field evaluation. Manufacturers have created their own refurbishing programs, NRTL-monitored, but these have not proved very popular.

The final item addressed at the meeting was a date for the next meeting. It is planned for November 13, 2003. Once again, Inspector Members currently working for AHJs are welcome to attend as guests of the ACIL.

Most Recent Meeting

The following is the report of our regular meeting Tuesday evening, March 18, 2003, Vice President Mike Raffael presiding. In addition to our speaker, we had 14 attendees: 4 Inspector members and 10 worker bees.

Under Old Business, Education Director Sir Dick Bissell noted that he has had some difficulty in finding us a space to present our next Code Change seminar. He will pursue the possibility of using PEPCO or Town of Laurel facilities. There are additional concerns. First, our presenters' "dance card" is filling up. Second, a number of other organizations have been teaching seminars or classes on 2002 Code Changes. Fortunately, all Maryland jurisdictions except Baltimore County will be adopting Continuing Education requirements for license renewal, so there's an extensive, ongoing need for training.

Meanwhile, Dick continues to look forward to turning his job over to a successor. Any volunteers? Please step forward.He notes that at some point he and Susan will be moving to the wilds of Virginia, at which point he no longer will be available to serve, replacement or no replacement.

Dick also noted that Andy Porter, Chair of D.C.'s NECA chapter, has donated a full set of National Electrical Installation Standards to our chapter. Dick will transfer them to Wayne, who will bring them to future meetings.

Under New Business, David Shapiro brought up five items. First, the IO wanted to spread the word that our Executive Director had been honored by appointment to a new responsibility, membership aboard, as it were, the CSA Certification Board.

Second, a caller had inquired about where he could receive a 10-hour Maryland Occupational Safety and Health awareness course. No one knew offhand, but Mike Raffael will find out. Wayne subsequently mentioned that Prince George's County Community College offers such courses and has plenty of room for additional attendees.

Third, Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc. kindly offered free 2002 Code Change Books, with certain ideas about how they might be used as incentives. Holt wanted feedback on this proposal. There were two responses. One was discomfort with offering the books free to Inspector Members only. The other was the suggestion that rather than offer them as incentives for members to attend a particular meeting, such as the one at which we hold elections, it might be a good idea to offer them to people attending Andy Cartal and Bob McCullough's Code Change seminars. It would provide a source of additional perspective alongside the IAEI slides and books our presenters utilize. When informed of this, subsequent to the meeting, Holt did not seem very happy with the feedback, and apparently will withdraw the offer.

David's fourth item concerned simplifying chapter's mailings. The consensus that emerged is that in the future it will be quite good enough to dispense with envelopes. We'll save both money and effort by printing notices on one side of a page, addresses on the other, folding, stapling, and stamping. Ed Holt also suggested that we check to see if more people have become willing to receive their notices by email. Please email and let us know if you are willing to join those folks.

David's final offering was a puzzle. He passed around a cheap, Chinese-made luminaire and asked Inspector members, particularly, whether they would consider its installation acceptable. (He decided to stock luminaires in his truck because he is asked so often to install ones whose temperature ratings don't match customers' wiring.) The first problem with the one he passed around was that, while the box was marked C (UL) US, neither he nor the other chapter members could find any UL marking on the luminaire itself. Our guest Gil Moniz, the evening's speaker, resolved this problem, at least tentatively. Pushing aside the thermal insulation inside the canopy, he found UL stickers hidden on the inside (ceiling side) of the canopy. Jim Wooten questioned whether this was legal, noting that he would not see such markings when inspecting. The other issue that David raised is that the manufacturer's name, Angelo Lighting, is not among those on UL's web list of those with certified products. The product registration number is assigned to a company with a totally different name and location. U.L. has opened an official field investigation. A summary of its findings can be found at the end of these business meeting minutes, before the month's program notes. Dick suggested that David drive up to Mobern and get an American-made luminaire.

Ed Holt brought two products for folks to examine: a Wago (TM) solderless (push-in) wire connector and a push-in cable connector. The wire connector was the subject of various disparaging remarks concerning the unreliability of backstab connections. On the other hand, Ed spoke highly of the cable connector.

We took more than enough time for this, and for a munch-and-chat break, given the program we had before us. Gil Moniz, NEMA's Northeast Field Representative, who had flown in to visit us from New England just as war loomed, could have gone on for much more than the two hours he gave us, and we would have gained plenty. As it is, we all learned lots.

UL response regarding suspect luminaires.

It sounds as though everything we were concerned about is quite legal. The questions and samples were forwarded to UL-Taiwan for response, and I went back and forth with them to make sure I didn't misunderstand anything. Here is our ultimate dialogue, in brief, with UL's words in quotes:

1. Putting temperature restrictions on an inside flap rather than where they can be seen by purchasers from the outside of the box. I presume you are saying that there is no requirement as to where on that package they be located, so this is compliant.

"Our response: Right now the Safety Standard UL 1598 states the location requirement for supply wire temperature markings as "Visible during installation and inspection of wire connections, located near the supply connections" and "On the smallest unit package or carton". We will bring your concern to the manufacturer as where on the package/carton that the supply wire temperature marking be located."

2. Put UL stickers on the ceiling side of a canopy, where an inspector normally will not be able to see them.

You say "In the case of residential luminaires, the Listing Mark may be located at the point where it will be visible when making and inspecting the connections to the branch-circuit supply wires. In any case, the location of the Listing Mark is acceptable if the Listing Mark is visible after the removal of the lamp, glassware, or a drop canopy is required for the Listing Mark to be visible. It is recommended that the Listing Mark be located on the exterior of residential luminaires when practical."

The inspector need not be able to see the mark without dropping the canopy from the ceiling; although this is recommended, it is not a requirement.

"Our response: The UL Listing Mark may be marked on the ceiling side of the luminaire where it is visible after dropping the canopy from the ceiling, of course, the luminaire shall also comply with all applicable requirements in the Safety Standard UL 1598."

3. Use a UL number assigned to a company with a different name.

"We have required every luminaire to be marked with manufacturer identification, where the manufacturer identification could be either company name, UL File number, trademark or other acceptable identification registered in our Follow-Up Services Procedure for the luminaries involved. So if a luminaire is provided with the required manufacturer identification then it is acceptable to us for the luminaire manufacturer identification part, and it is the manufacturer's responsibility to deal with other company if they want to mark other company''s name on the luminaire."

Since you say this is quite up to the company that registered the identification, it appears that looking up a number on the UL web site and finding an apparent mismatch between name and number need not cause any concern.

"Our response: As long as the luminaire is manufactured and marked in accordance applicable requirements in our Follow-Up Service Procedure then it is acceptable to us, and as previous indicated, it is manufacturer's responsibility to deal with other company if they want to additionally mark other company's name."

Keith Hsieh (Ext. 62183)
Project Engineer
Field Report Group
UL International Services Ltd.-Taiwan Branch

Program

Gil was a licensed electrical contractor in Massachusetts and Rhode Island for 15 years, and Inspector of Wires, City of New Bedford, MA for 7. He is an Alternate Member of CMP 1 and a member of the New York City Electrical Advisory Board.

Gil's program was a preview of changes likely to be adopted in the 2005 NEC. At least as interesting as the particular proposals he had selected to discuss, though, are the insights he offered us on the Code and on the Code-change process. For instance, he noted that what is recorded at panel meetings are straw votes; panel members' official votes are received later, by letter ballot. He mentioned that if a proposal is rejected by CMP 2 in particular, the proposer is assured an ample explanation of the panel's reasoning.

To begin, Gil pointed out that you get something added to the Code by demonstrating that it will serve safety, and removed by demonstrating that doing so will not diminish safety. In response to an early question, Gil clarified that despite the statement of purpose in 90.1(A), proposals do not need to be limited to safety from electrical hazards.

To get a proposal through, it helps to have a body count, but documenting deaths, injuries, and fires is not the only form of substantiation that works. For one thing, 'proving a negative" that permitting a practice will not create a danger is difficult, and generally a body count would blow your case. On the other hand, there have been examples where a change has successfully been promoted with the argument, "Look, it may not be to Code but we've been doing it this way in the field for 20 years with no harm." He also emphasized that getting a proposal through takes perseverance. There are proposals that have gotten shot down and shot down Code cycle after Code cycle, and then accepted without significant changes in substantiation. He's seen that happen with at least one of his: the idea for Article 525. When the article finally was accepted into the Code, a number of his provisions were cut out--but added back in, in subsequent Code cycles.

We also learned some interesting and valuable facts having to do with electrical materials that are not necessarily tied to current proposals. The ones of most import concerned conductor insulation. Gil raised two points.

First, he reminded us of the furor raised when the requirement for sunlight resistance was made explicit. Sure, it helped to know that the conductors used in Service Entrance cable are sunlight- resistant, but that information is not of value when a service mast is employed, with individual conductors pulled through conduit. Well, the following doesn't take away the problem, but Gil noted that the material "carbon black" used in formulating black insulation provides some degree of sunlight resistance. Unfortunately, the amount used in a particular conductor does not necessarily provide enough sunlight resistance to meet the standard for the "Sunlight-resistant designation. Even if it does, that fact is useless unless the manufacturer chooses to have the insulation investigated and marked as complying with the standard.

The other point that Gil raised is even more interesting and far more practically useful. It concerns THHN and THWN conductors. Their nylon outer covering, he informed us, serves no purpose other than mechanical protection. It makes pulls easier. It does not improve thermal resistance and is not needed to meet the dielectric rating. Therefore, if it splits due to cold temperature as you're terminating a wire, or if it is gouged during a pull without the underlying thermoplastic insulation being injured, the conductor is perfectly safe, so long as the nylon was protecting it during the pull. The difference in temperature ratings between THW and THWN has to do not with the nylon outer covering but with a difference in the formulation of the thermoplastic underneath!

Gil's handout included the 2005 NEC schedule, and 50-odd proposals, some accepted, some rejected but perhaps worthy of discussion anyway. We did not get to all of them. I won't review here all of those he brought up, only those that elicited discussion.

On to the proposals. A number of them show a real or apparent a conflict between the actions of one panel and another. Some may seem like good ideas but have troubling consequences. When Gil prepared this work-in-progress, the correlating committee had not yet acted; they meet at the end of April.

There was an attempt to replace the term "equipment grounding conductor" with "equipment bonding conductor" throughout the NEC. Presumably because such a massive change would be very disruptive, and 14 of the 19 CMPs shot it down. The CMPs responsible for definitions and for grounding, ironically, accepted it. One consequence of this change would be that a swimming pool's supply conductors would henceforth include an "equipment bonding conductor," not to be confused (want to count on it?) with the swimming pool's 8 AWG "bonding conductor."

Article 100 is to have one definition of "kitchen"; Article 210.8(B)(3) a different one, for "Commercial Kitchen." The latter requires the presence of a sink. Both use the term, "preparation" of food, without defining that term.

An additional apparent conflict concerns AFCI requirements. An exception to 210.12 for smoke detectors in residential sleeping areas was shot down. The rationale for not exempting smoke detectors includes the fact that they should have battery backup, which will keep them functioning if ppower dies. Besides, it seemed better to prevent a fire by killing an arc than to let the arc start a fire and then sound an alarm. A similarly-worded exception in 760.21 was accepted. Gil suggested that CMP3's acceptance of the latter is irrelevant, because they don't have jurisdiction over residential smoke detectors, as the article concerns fire alarm systems. It was not clear to all of us that this is the case.

Ed brought up the exception to GFCI requirements in a basement for a receptacle serving a plug-in fire alarm. Gil explained that this rule is different, in that voltage spikes such as those due to lightning could trip or actually damage Class A GFCIs, rendering alarm systems plugged into them inoperable, perhaps unnoticed. For an AFCI to trip requires either a much-higher level apparent ground fault, or a 75 amp arc.

There are a number of other proposals concerning AFCIs. Gil highly recommends the information on AFCIs that can be downloaded from UL's web site. Much of it can be found at this link . One exception to the AFCI requirement that was accepted exempts a bedroom receptacle that is marked as dedicated to life support equipment. Massachusetts has experimented with local amendments, here and elsewhere, whose impact provides a useful lesson. They had required AFCI protection whenever a service was changed. This was modified, though, when they realized that some existing wiring, while safe, is not compatible with at least some AFCI systems.

Section 210.12 got a lot of input. The CMP revised it to require that the branch circuit be protected by a combination type AFCI, with one other exception. It will be legal to install the AFCI protection a maximum of 6' downstream of the overcurrent protective device when a metallic cable or raceway is run between the circuit origin and the AFCI. Gil knows of no rationale behind the distance limit. Will it have to protect the entire branch circuit? If so, how do we define protecting the entire branch circuit? If it doesn't have to protect the entire branch circuit, why require that the protection be located at the origin, or within six feet of it? Comments are needed to clarify this, and that means comments from you, if you have an opinion. Gil reminded us that anyone can request a copy of the Report on Proposals from NFPA.

We probably will see an FPN defining the term, "Utility." It will extend considerably beyond what the dictionary offers, and will help in the application of Article 90 in the light of utility restructuring, a.k.a. "deregulation." There may also be a definition of "grounding electrode," though we looked askance at what is proposed, as well as questioning the need to add a definition.

A rejected IBEW proposal concerned color-coding of polyphase conductors to indicate their nominal voltage. The requirement had been removed in the 1962 NEC, and the new proposal's substantiation included no concrete data to convince the CMP to rethink it.

A proposal for 210.8(B) elicited considerable discussion. The proposal was to apply all the GFCI receptacle requirements presently applicable to dwellings to all other occupancies. Ultimately, the CMP backed off from so large an expansion of the requirement. While additional GFCI requirements will be added elsewhere, 210.8(B) merely got a section (4) adding GFCI protection for receptacles outdoors at spaces used by (a redundant term) or accessible to the public. One additional GFCI requirement is for receptacles installed outdoors per 210.63, for use by people servicing HVAC equipment.

Another rejected proposal for 210.8 would have exempted cooking equipment from GFCI requirements. Not only was this shot down, but such an exception, for cooking equipment at carnivals and the like, is being eliminated from 525.23(B). A number of members at our meeting were troubled by GFCI protection for commercial kitchens, because they are concerned that nuisance trips can cause food spoilage. This concern is unwarranted; Gil noted that the leakage current for properly-functioning cooking equipment is way below the level that will trip a GFCI. Even more to the point, the CMP has data showing that malfunctioning commercial refrigerators and microwaves have been responsible for serious shock.

There was some discussion of a new permission for 225.31. It allows a disconnect remote from a structure provided that it is within sight. One concern was that "within sight" from does not mean "easily accessible from."

A cute little change to 250.146(A) says that the washer used to keep a device screw from falling off in the package must be removed if metal-to-metal contact is to be relied upon for the device's grounding. A number of members did not realize that this is not a new rule, merely one that is being written down, in fact, because people are unaware of it. Gil added that while UL's standard requires removal of both washers by installers, the test they use requires that removing merely one such washer is sufficient to ensure adequate contact. Some noted that it is frustrating that compliance with this requirement never is checked by inspectors. Others noted that the requirement is irrelevant in installations that employ self-grounding devices, or devices bonded using their green ground screws.

Another proposed change that stimulated discussion concerned relocatable power strips. A new Section 400.7(C) defines the "Attachment Plug and Multi-outlet Assembly." Nothing about it makes their use legal for more than 90 days, as a substitute for fixed wiring, but this factoid is viewed with suitable cynicism about enforceability. Gil noted that while the new section restricts the overall length of the assembly to 8 feet, the UL standard for these allows them to be manufactured up to 25 feet long. Susan Flashman pointed out that if a computer manufacturer supplies a power strip with the computer, somehow designating it as part of the Listed assembly, it is exempt. Gil noted that in New York City the strips are generally forbidden, and therefore this would not permit their use in the Big A.

Section 314.23(B)(1) will have added text prohibiting screws from passing through outlet boxes unless approved means are used to protect conductors from abrasion. David was unclear as to where this practice might be used, and John Homick suggested running long, skinny wood screws in one side of a box and out the other into a stud. Gil noted that "approved" means indicates that it's a good idea to check with the AHJ, and suggested that perhaps shrink tubing might be acceptable to some AHJs. Jim was not enthusiastic about approving any such means.

One rejected proposal was useful in that the panel's response to it confirmed the legality of a practice about which some may have been uncertain. Single gang "switch" boxes are perfectly legal to use in ceilings for support of smoke detectors, as they are for any fixtures weighing up to 6 pounds, excluding luminaires. Ed noted that some smoke detectors are designed so that if you mount one of them under a single-gang box the wires lie outside the box. Others have not run into this problem. Gil noted that the safety factor for electrical boxes is four times their rating. For example, an 8B box that is permitted to support luminaires weighing up to 50 pounds has to be able to support a static load of 200 pounds in order to meet the standard.

A proposal for Section 430.7(A)(9) was a source of amusement. Design E motors are to be removed from the NEC. It seems that none were manufactured!

Section 445.18 has a problematic revision. It will permit generators to be equipped with more than one disconnecting means. David thought this was fine; why not allow people to kill power from more than one location? Gil straightened him out, though. This is not designed to make it easier to kill power but easier to leave power on. If the proposal enters the Code, it could be necessary to operate an unlimited number of disconnects in order to kill all power from a generator.

Skipping over several proposed changes that did not elicit discussion, Gil rattled our cage a bit when he brought up a couple of proposed changes to 517.18 regarding Listed tamper-resistant receptacles or covers. Gil finds it ironic that pediatric facilities, where supervision is relatively constant, require tamper-resistant receptacles, but psychiatric facilities have not since 1993. (It was removed then because a NEMA representative, Mr. Carroll Burtner, pointed out that manufacturers of tamper-resistant receptacles did not design them to resist adults, only small children.) Gil noted that "Listed tamper-resistant covers" do not exist, and there is no standard to which they can be evaluated. This struck some members as conflicting with what we learned at our last meeting, which is that NRTLs usually can find a standard that is suitable for evaluating any product. Yes, there are receptacle covers with shutters that require two prongs to enter simultaneously in order to open. These are not Listed as tamper-resistant. Yes, bubble covers may be lockable; these too are not Listed as tamper-resistant. Yes, as Garrie Shope mentioned, there are locking covers that are installed over switches to prevent access by the unauthorized. None of these are Listed as preventing tampering by children or psychiatric patients.

Finally, as a giggle, Gil brought up a rejected proposal, #15-87, offered by an apprentice. It would have required that metal poles used by strippers in night clubs be grounded. Apparently, the proposer was not able to convince the panel by . . . err . . . "showing them the bodies." -END-

Next Most Recent Meeting

The following is the report of our regular meeting Tuesday evening, January 21, 2003. Thirteen attended: seven Inspector members and five Associate.

The Executive Committee meeting, segueing into the business meeting, covered a number of topics.

Chapter President and Prince Georges County Chief Electrical Inspector Wayne Robinson speculated that Smart Code may languish in Maryland. Due to the State's budget deficit, while there is a cabinet position for dealing with housing rehabilitation, it is vacant presently. In Prince George's County, Wayne still considers requests for variances from currently-adopted NEC requirements on a case-by-case basis, under Chapter 9 of the County Code. The clause covering waivers requires him to consider financial burden in rehabilitation work. For instance, Wayne noted, he generally will permit relaxation of 210.52's spacing requirement to one receptacle per wall. Both he and Art Hesse, Chapter Godfather and electrical consultant to Laurel, MD, are required to offer people applying for permits the opportunity to have their work performed and inspected under the rehabilitation code, but soft-pedal the offer. They are so quiet in offering it that no one has taken them up on the option.

Asked about the actions of the County Electrical Board, Wayne said that it is up to its full complement, but he hopes to see more activity from it. Presently it meets every other month, and skips January. Because of this, and because private testing is not permitted, applicants for licensure have to wait as long as three months for testing.

Asked about progress toward having our meetings and seminars accepted toward the required Continuing Education activity, Education Coordinator Sir Dick Bissell told us that he mailed the letter and supporting materials to Wayne right after our last meeting. Wayne, however, never received them. Fortunately, Dick had brought another set with him to this meeting, and so was able to get copies into Wayne's hands immediately. We have hopes that this will result in such credit being granted, and that that will in turn encourage greater participation in Chapter activities.

The next item raised was an attempt on the part of the Commonwealth of Virginia to totally delete the AFCI requirement in 210.12. Wayne proposed that we urge them to retain it. Prince George's County, he noted, enforced the AFCI requirement contained in the 1999 NEC, affecting receptacle circuits only. Discussion included the fact that Virginia members are represented by a different IAEI chapter, in fact a different Section. Wayne rejoined that many of our contractor members do carry Virginia licenses. A proposal that we send such a letter passed by acclamation.

Wayne subsequently shared this URL, where you will find a further overview of the proposed changes: < .">http://register.state.va.us/vol19/welcome.htm.>. . . .All responses are due back to the Department by January 31, 2003.

Mike Baldwin of MET Laboratories, Inc., talked up the twice-annual meetings of the American Council of Independent Laboratories, in Baltimore. Every inspector member is welcome to attend. There's always lots to learn.

In the course of the discussion, we learned that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is proposing for the 2005 NEC-with powerful supportive documentation of shocks and deaths--that many, many more circuits be GFCI-protected. The proposal covers all residential receptacles except for those that are inaccessible, dedicated, or feeding equipment for life safety, fire protection, or suchlike, and also many receptacles in public places, including outdoor circuits in locations such as schools. As of this writing, word is that the Code-Making Panel did not look favorably on expanding the residential requirement but did favor the additional non-residential requirement. Safety advocates may need to weigh in on this at the comment stage. The CPSC is also hoping that AFCI technologies for compliance with 210.12 will not be limited unduly, so that, for example, circuits added to an older home served by a panelboard for which AFCI circuit breakers are not available can be protected with AFCI receptacles (ones that provide some upstream protection) without unnecessarily expensive restrictions for which there is no documented necessity.

Chapter Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro circulated some mail we'd received. One piece described a newly-Listed fixture seismic support clamp. A number of people spoke up about how fire departments do NOT want luminaires secured to T-bar. Even D.C., Wayne pointed out, insists on #12 ceiling wire for fixture support. When (subsequently) informed of our discussion, the manufacturer's rep, John Vehlewald of AGI Manufacturing, wrote, "A Fire Official was on the ICBO committee that developed AC 184."

A letter announcing a new Listed AFCI tester was received with interest but some skepticism. There was general agreement that a genuine AFCI tester would be valuable, and that inspectors should be carrying one. However, a previously-advertised purported AFCI tester turned out just to test the GFCI or, if you will, GFPE circuitry in an AFCI. Fox Meters' literature accompanying this one, however, does indicate explicit, separate, testing of devices' arc-fault circuit interrupting function.

Ed Holt, our Membership Co-coordinator, and electrical inspector for the Architect of the Capitol, mentioned that Mike Holt will be in the area offering a half-day grounding seminar. Wayne opined that half a day is not long enough to cover the topic adequately. Even giving it a day, people agreed, does not leave much room for questions.

Based on an inquiry at our last meeting, a copy of last meeting's minutes was present, for those lacking internet access. No one took advantage of its presence, so this may not be repeated.

Dick mentioned a forthcoming blood drive co-sponsored by the Knights of Columbus and the Beltsville Lions Club. The Red Cross normally runs short of blood in the summer, with people going out of town. This year, however, the shortage has lasted through the Fall and to the present.

Chapter past-president and Annapolis electrical consultant Jim Wooten commented on the rise in IAEI dues. He was concerned that the rise had not resulted from a general membership vote, and even more concerned that it will have an effect quite the opposite from that intended, causing a drop in membership, which would also mean a drop in income. A number of people have told him that they intend to drop out rather than paying the increase. Other members reported hearing the same thing.

Finally, someone mentioned that Old Electrical Wiring: Maintenance and Retrofitnow is available through NFPA's web site. David had not known this about his book.

That took care of old business, new business, everything but our election and program. David read the present roster, and no one new volunteered for an office. Moreover, Dick informed us that he would like someone to take over as Education Coordinator, and that Susan Flashman no longer wishes to share responsibility for Membership. Unfortunately, there was no volunteer to take Dick's place HOW ABOUT YOU??; fortunately, Ed Holt is willing to continue by his lonesome as Membership Coordinator.

With those emendations, the slate was voted in almost by acclamation (one opposed). The officers for 2003 are:

Prez: Wayne Robinson

Veep: Mike Raffael

Second Veep: Roland Fridell

Sec'y-Treas: David Shapiro

Membership: Ed Holt

Education: Vacant

At Large: Sam Levinrad

Past Pres: Jim Wooten

Godfather: Art Hesse

After the vote, we took a brief break for tasty but unhealthy snacks, and then returned for the main feature.

Program

Mike Baldwin, Director of Field Operations for Met Laboratories, Inc. presented an illustrated discussion on product safety. Mike is responsible for world wide operations of Field Services including Field Evaluations and Follow-up Inspections of products listed by MET Labs. At MET since 1971, he is an Inspector Member of the IAEI and a member of the electrical section of NFPA.

He compared Listing and Field Evaluation, as well as discussing other issues such as CE marking.

First, some history of the very first Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory to be certified by the Department of Labor. Maryland Electrical Testing was founded in 1959, offering acceptance testing, such as grounding evaluation, and other field services. Over time, they opened other offices around the country, and changed their name to MET Laboratories. Then in 1992 the branch that does HiPot and GFCI testing split from the laboratory divisions to form Met Electrical Testing, now a totally different company.

Besides Mike's Field Services, focusing on product safety, MET Laboratories has three other groups, dealing with product performance: Telecommunication products (performance certification to FCC standards), Electromagnetic Compatibility (emissions and immunity), and Environmental Simulation such as temperature and vibration.

The first major point Mike made is that the OSH Act affects only workplaces. Products for use in the home are not covered, if no employees are present to deal with them. The second point is that manufacturers, sellers, and installers are not responsible for product compliance; it is the owner of the building where the product is installed who is charged to comply. (Incidentally, the product doesn't have to be hard-wired to require compliance.) The third point was that there are not nearly enough OSHA inspectors to check workplaces generally. What happens most commonly is that an accident occurs and only then does OSHA descend. If they discover that the accident was associated with the use of unListed/unLabeled product, then they come down on the owner. The fine can amount to $70 000 per piece of equipment.

This is why, Mike says, it is very much worthwhile to get equipment labeled, especially in non-residential settings.

Field labeling, Mike emphasized repeatedly, only should be done by someone performing a field evaluation. If a label falls off, or is left off when a product leaves the factory, it is inappropriate to send one out to be attached later. How is the lab to know whether the product they are certifying sight-unseen has been modified? It's done; they refer to the practice as "Lick 'em and stick 'em." However, if you report such occurrences to the laboratories whose labels are used, it may very well turn out that it violates the contract they have had the manufacturer sign, in which case they will take serious action. This certainly is how MET Laboratories operates and how Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. operates.

Field evaluation is quite different from the sort of product investigation given to samples from production lines. MET Laboratories's other groups engage in rigorous, potentially destructive testing. They then empower the manufacturer to apply their certification mark during production, unsupervised. They do show up unannounced four times each year to inspect production, using a copy of the listing report.

In contrast, Mike's Field Inspectors have the expertise and creativity to generally leave equipment unharmed. For example, they will not megger insulated components using AC, but rely on DC, which is far less destructive. They look for any recognized or Listed products that are part of the equipment being investigated, but on the one hand that is not enough to make equipment qualify for field labeling, and on the other hand, the presence of non-Listed components does not necessarily make equipment fail. The primary concern is the safety of the specific application of this equipment at this location. When they-and they cannot authorize anyone to act in their stead-apply the certifying mark, that's what it covers.

They look at shock, fire, other electrical energy hazards, mechanical, chemical, and radiation hazards. Standards for some critical equipment may add something by way of performance. For example, nurse call stations are tested to make sure the patient will be able to summon the nurse again and again without failure.

Here's the bad news, in a sense: products tend to fail inspection, first time around. If a product is compliant, a final report is issued (with a copy to the AHJ) and a label applied. If it is non-compliant, a Construction Issues Report is issued, detailing what's needed. Obviously, if an actual field test was failed, something needs to be changed so it will pass next time. There can be other requirements. It might be that new or changed safety markings need to be attached to the equipment. It might be that an electrician or other competent soul needs to be brought in to make specified changes, test or no test. Additional information may need to be obtained regarding questionable components. Some of this work may also require modifying the schematics before reinspection. Based on a sampling performed some years ago, fewer than one in eight inspections passes the first time. See the chart of inspection results, below, reproduced by permission of Met Laboratories.

The work takes a lot of creativity, but there are basic critical components that always merit attention. These include power supplies, overcurrent protection, enclosure materials, and isolating components such as transformers. They are looking at the equipment as a system, though, not at components in isolation.

As an example of possessing Listed components and failing, Mike mentioned equipment that had nearly everything right except for the conductors going to a motor: 14 AWG wiring that would have to carry maybe 45 amps! Closed equipment that contained a non-Listed transformer, which, if it burned up, might damage the equipment itself but would not create a hazard, instantiates the opposite, which could receive a field label.

This discussion caused Mike to bring up an important distinction between Listed and Recognized components, because knowing that the parts that go into a piece of equipment are okay certainly can simplify an investigation. Listed items can be used without any restriction aside from that intrinsic to the Standard. In contrast, each Recognized Component has a report specifying the conditions limiting its acceptability. This information is not contained on the mark itself, and is not standardized. Therefore, to evaluate whether such a component has been employed appropriately and safely without subjecting it to testing all over again, it is necessary to obtain that report.

Even under OSHA statute (29 CFR 1910.399), Listing by a NRTL is not required everywhere. If states have alternate systems in place, those are permitted to serve. At least one state sends jurisdictional inspectors out in the field with product safety standards. They themselves are expected to evaluate compliance of installed products. Washington and Oregon accept labeling by laboratories other than NRTLs. They evaluate laboratories themselves and maintain their own lists. More on that next.

It took 17 years and two lawsuits to get the Department of Labor to create NRTLs. The rules for using Listed products in employee workplaces were created in the 1970s. Until then, anyone could call themselves a product certification laboratory. States developed programs and limited who could certify products for use in their jurisdictions, but there was nothing national. MET requested that the Department of Labor investigate and certify them as a product certification laboratory, but to no avail. In 1981 they demanded it in court. Still nothing. In 1988 they sued again, demanding that the Department comply with this aspect of the OSH Act, and this time requested a huge financial penalty. This time the judge gave the government a deadline for compliance.

The Department of Labor quickly adapted the accreditation criteria that had been used for years by Washington, Oregon, and North Carolina, and went to work. MET was the first to receive accreditation, in 1989, with UL and FM following in a few years (but grandfathered until then).

One consequence of the present system of multiple NRTLs is that competition has cut costs. A new product investigation that used to cost $20 000 a couple of decades back might cost $5000 today. Follow-up investigations at a factory might cost $1000 a year.

There are a number of reasons to favor our NRTL Listing system. Europe's C.E. marks can be applied by the factories themselves, without any third party involved. Admittedly, they have to maintain technical files on the products, and falsifying those can result in jail time. Every East Asian country has its own testing system and mark. There was a brief discussion of Chinese counterfeits. John H. Homick, President of Total Electric Service, noted that while we are about to have five Harry Potter books in publication, in China there already are seven.

David raised a sticky question. If product labels only are valid when products are unmodified from the time they are investigated in the field or at the factory, what about repairs? Do repairs invalidate the marking? Mike couldn't provide a cookie-cutter answer. The safest bet, he suggested, is calling in a NRTL. Obviously, though, doing so will not always make sense.

For more information about NRTLs, visit < www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html > The site offers lists of currently-recognized NRTLs, their scopes of practice, their typical marks, and lots of other information.

Previous Meeting

The following is the report of our regular meeting Tuesday evening, November 19, 2002. Thirteen attended: five Inspector members and seven Associate.

We started off with President Wayne asking for a reading of the minutes of the last meeting. Secretary David did not comply, not having them with him. It turned out that Wayne was not terribly serious. After all, the minutes appear both on this web site and, in abbreviated form, in IAEI News.

After this, David showed around a certificate we received from the Eastern Section acknowledging our membership retention. He then passed three sets of papers to the Membership Committee, Ed and Susan. One was the certificates of appreciation for long-term members who have not shown up at our meetings to receive them. The other two were the current mailing list and the latest membership list. Our most recent mailing was the last meeting notice a few people will receive; our mailing list has close to 50% more names on it than our membership list. Susan will be comparing the lists, contacting some lapsees, and informing David which names that are not on the new list should continue to receive mailings nonetheless.

Next David shared an article sent by Sam Levinrad, who apparently was unable to make it to the meeting, still recovering from his bypass surgery. An editorial from October's Building Design and Construction titled "Disabilities Revolution Hits Home," it talks about major penalties paid by builders who overlooked accessibility requirements. It says, in part, ". . . most architects, owners, and contractors confuse the Fair Housing Act, which covers new multifamily residential construction, with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which covers nonresidential buildings." A builder who had complied with all city and state rules ran afoul of the Federal requirements. He had to retrofit 227 noncompliant apartments in a 283 unit structure, noncompliant because of problems such as thermostats mounted too high for persons with disabilities to reach. He also had to pay civil penalties, the plaintiff's legal fees, and more than the sum of those fees into a fund to help renters with disabilities.

There was brief discussion, with Wayne noting that these rules do not apply to single-family dwellings, and a comment that disability-access issues are usually addressed in plan review. We voted to send Sam a get-well card. David briefly displayed and discussed a couple of other articles, one on the requirement for no-tamper fuses and the other on the requirement for circuit lockout. His reason for bringing them up was to serve as ammunition should attendees face people who never heard of these requirements; the articles were, respectively, from 1941 and 1938.

Finally, David brought in four items from the Eastern Section meeting. One is the list of future section meeting dates and locations, including next year's 75th Anniversary week in Orlando. Another is the surprisingly-extensive cross-reference list of UL Classified breakers offered by Eaton Corp. The third is the list of questions and answers from the Code Breakfasts. (No one expressed interest in looking them over.) The fourth is a notice from NEMA clarifying that there is no requirement that anti-short bushings be used with MC cable. Wayne challenged this, however, expressing considerable reservation about trusting such a statement from NEMA as opposed to a NRTL.

Wayne talked very favorably about the sense of openness he experienced attending the Southwestern Section's meeting. It felt less structured and friendlier than some other meetings he's attended. Even the wives were introduced, at the first sit-down. H. Brooke Stauffer pointed out that there were only 60-70 people at that meeting, and it took place at the extremely nice, and nicely-situated, Waikiki Beach hotel.

After this business, all present introduced themselves, and then we took a munch break preceding the program. After the refreshments, we took care of one more business item. We voted to contribute $100 to a scholarship fund set up in the memory of Kurt Gordon Tassche, a local electrician who died on November 2 as the result of a switchgear explosion. (Your contribution may be sent to Prince Georges Community College Development Alumni Office, Kurt Tassche Fund, Room A303, 301 Largo Road, Largo Maryland, 20774.)

We then proceeded to enjoy a double slide presentation by the estimable H. Brooke Stauffer, member of CMP 1, Director of Codes and Standards for NECA, point man for the National Electrical Installation Standards (NEIS) program, and widely-published author. Before he began, out came the goodie bag. Each person attending received a copy of a November supplement to Electrical Contractor Magazine titled, NECA Guide to Changes in the 2002 National Electrical Code and a copy of NECA 400-1998, the NEIS offering Recommended Practice for Installing and Maintaining Switchboards. Then off went the lights.

First he talked about NFPA's Comprehensive Consensus Codes (C3 codes), primarily NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, the building code that came out in September, 2002. The slides, incidentally, were provided by NFPA's Robert Solomon, P.E. <rsolomon@nfpa.org>, who Brooke recommended as very helpful and knowledgeable. At present free access to the entire text of NFPA 5000 is available online to the general public at <http://www.nfpa.org> (If you want to go there now, you can simply hit this link. ) What is striking about this is that even NFPA membership does not confer online access to the general body of NFPA codes without paying a substantial extra fee.

Brooke acknowledged that NFPA 5000 was developed in response to the International Code Council (ICC) Electrical Code. Brooke described the latter as a slender booklet that adopts the NEC, but with a few amendments-amendments that failed when submitted as NEC proposals. There are no electrical industry representatives on the ICC Electrical Committee.

NFPA's Solomon added the following comment subsequent to Brooke's talk: "NFPA determined that if NFPA determined that if jurisdictions wanted to have a coordinated set of codes for the built environment, it was important for NFPA to put together a set that utilizes key documents like NFPA 70, National Electrical Code and NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code among others. More importantly, since NFPA's mission is directed towards the broader goal of public safety, NFPA did need to establish a building code that address other perils and hazards besides fire and electrical safety."

When BOCA, SBCCI, and ICBO merged their codes into the ICC, one justification for including their own electrical code was to have one that harmonized with the building codes. NFPA has turned around and taken that as a reason for developing NFPA 5000. Brooke quoted NFPA's Mark Earley forecasting an increase in FPN-type cross-references among different NFPA codes; however, Solomon advised eliminating that quote.

NFPA points to its open consensus process as another reason to consider NFPA 5000 in preference to the ICC Building Code. Brooke had the impression that some jurisdictions were indeed engaged in adopting it. A final point in its favor is that none of the other building codes have been submitted for ANSI approval, as have NFPA codes such as the NEC and NFPA 5000. Solomon wanted us to emphasize that ANSI requires broad input on both contents and decision-making processes.

NFPA 5000 is one of C3's key documents. The C3 body of codes will include some other codes and standards written by partner organizations working with NFPA for harmonization. These include IAPMO, ASHRAE, and the Western Fire Chiefs. NFPA will be offering free training and certification to building officials in jurisdictions that adopt NFPA 5000. Brooke had thought this might be temporary; Solomon clarified that it is not.

Their plans include developing an NFPA 5000 Handbook and an evaluation service for code-related criteria and components albeit apparently not structural components. NFPA 5000's layout is based on type of occupancy, an approach that is familiar to users of the NFPA Life Safety Codes. One element that may be unfamiliar is that the annexes, whose adoption is optional, contain mandatory rules.

At present, like the NEC and many other codes and standards, its rules are prescriptive; while it does offer choices, it tells you what to do in each case. Because NFPA products increasingly are adopted abroad, the rules may increasingly become performance-based, telling users what must be accomplished and leaving the means to them. Brooke gave the Neher-McGrath formula as an example of the latter. NFPA 5000's Chapter 5 presently allows the optional use of performance-based criteria in building design and layout.

Wayne told us that he welcomes NFPA 5000, because his particular bugbear is BOCA officials trying to take over electrical safety without any knowledge in the field. Aside from this, there was little discussion of the C3 presentation, so Brooke moved on to the NEIS program.

There are 18 NEIS in print, and many more in process. Many have been produced in concert with other organizations, such as the Illuminating Engineering Society. They have done very well in the ANSI approval process, with some 90% adopted as American National Standards-far better than many other organizations' standards. While at first the Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc. tended to blackball NEIS in the ANSI approval process, they are now accepted as neither union nor nonunion-simply as guides to good work. A number of jurisdictions have adopted these into law or are in the process of doing so. Others consider them enforceable in evaluating any job that references them in the contract documents.

Chapter godfather Art Hesse brought up the fact that some contractors have complained about the NEIS. They say that if these are to be enforced, it means everyone needs copies, and that means significant expenditure. Brooke responded that he recognizes that it can be costly. On the other hand, other organizations charge considerably more for equivalent publications. The NEIS cost $25 apiece for some years, and will go up to $30 apiece in 2003. NECA members get a 50% break, and NECA chapters can arrange quantity purchases. Perhaps, he suggested, we could enquire whether our local NECA chapter would be generous enough to contribute copies for our use.

The suggestion was made that people can defy NEMA's copyright protection and make personal copies of a single NEIS purchased by another. One member rejoindered that the labor involved in doing so prevents this from offering a real saving.

[This was not brought up at the meeting, but NEMA's $57.- OS3-2000, Selection and Installation Guidelines for Electrical Outlet Boxes, can be downloaded free in pdf format from &lt:http://www.nema.org&gt. (If you want to go there now, you can start on your way by simply hitting this.]

After Brooke had finished and been applauded, we addressed two or three more items of business. Education Director Dick Bissell took note of a safety video that impressed David strongly at the Eastern Section meeting, titled, I Was Comfortable. We hope he can borrow a copy from the NJATC. He and Wayne also talked about future educational activities and Continuing Education (CE) credits. Wayne is hoping to get a copy of the PowerPoint presentation for teaching the Soares grounding course, and then teach it for our chapter using the facilities offered by the Town of Laurel. People noted the value of publicizing any continuing education activities through MEECA and the Electric League.

Wayne talked about the 1/1/03 deadline for license renewals without proof of continuing education. He suspects that there may be thousands of master electricians who have not garnered evidence of continuing education, and who therefore will not be able to renew their licenses right away when they expire. CE certificates must be submitted with renewal applications. Courses whose providers are not on the pre-approved list-other than home study courses-may well be acceptable as sources of CE credits, but attendees must submit applications for their acceptance before attending the courses. The applications can be obtained by calling 301-731-0313.

Dick is hoping to get NEMA's Gil Moniz down here to give a presentation at one of our meetings. Dick is going to provide Wayne with a copy of the letter he had sent the electrical board requesting Continuing Education credits for attendance at our meetings, based on the information we gain from the presentations. Wayne is going to hand-deliver it.

Finally, we made note of the fact that our January 21 meeting will constitute our official Annual Meeting, where Inspector members will vote in our slate of officers for the remainder of 2003.-END-

Yet-Previous Meeting>

This is the report of our meeting September 17, 2002 at the Prince George's County offices in Largo, MD. We had a numerologically-appropriate 17 attendees.

General Meeting

The business meeting began somewhere between 6:30 and 7 p.m. Secretary-Treasurer David Shapiro reminded attendees of the forthcoming, nearby, Eastern Section meeting, and invited them to look at the materials he brought describing it.

Wayne Robinson displayed a sample of his invention, the "Kenny Clamp Compression Connector," which he named after his father. He discussed the different ANSI standards used in testing lugs and connectors for normal circuiting applications versus for grounding and bonding. He asserted that the Al-Cu lugs often accepted for grounding use should not indeed be approved for the purpose. There was some general discussion of how to bond transformers for separately-derived systems, and conduit sleeves used to protect and support heavy-gage grounding conductors that are too large for the lay-in lugs used with bonding bushings.

Ed Bihlear distributed copies of two Hagerstown Letters to the Editor conveying complaints from people who would rather not be bothered by inspection: "It's none of your business what I do in my building." He also passed out copies of three articles showing that California is enforcing rigorous statewide certification for electricians, starting in 2005, and one indicating that the California State Attorney General stopped a local jurisdiction, Pasadena, from accepting wiring in accordance with the International Code Council's rules in place of the NEC.

Sir Dick Bissell, Education Director, asked what possible seminars interested people. There was little response: one or two interested in 2002 Code Changes, one or two interested in grounding. He was asked about CEUs, and informed us that Prince George's County, which now requires ten hours of continuing education for license renewal, does not include IAEI in its list of CEU providers. It also okayed our last seminar for CEUs, but overlooked or ignored our request for CEUs for attendance at the educational component of our regular meetings. He will resubmit the application.

In further discussion, we learned that Maryland has offered reciprocal licensing for Virginia and Delaware electricians for the last two years. Only about a third of Maryland test-takers pass on their first attempt, so there is a proviso that prohibits Maryland residents from skirting the Maryland test by getting licensure elsewhere and seeking reciprocity here.

Program

After a break, we launched into our educational program. We had two, count them, two speakers. First, the well-dressed, soft-spoken Robert H. Brock-Smith talked about the many changes in the District of Columbia. He is a D.C. electrical inspector, as well as a DC-VA-MD master electrician, but until about a year ago worked for the District as a fire system specialist. In addition, he serves as both an electrical and a fire safety consultant for engineering firms. At DCRA, he works as the assistant to Acting Chief Mohammed Ali, and supervises the other electrical inspectors.

Following up on the previous discussion, Robert mentioned that Washington, D.C. reciprocates with no jurisdictions. The rationale, he reported, is that as the nation's capitol it could not easily reciprocate with some and not with others.

Moving on to his main theme, he acknowledged that the District has a history of corruption and inadequate supervision. They're trying hard to change this, with nine full-time electrical inspectors on staff currently. Mr. Ali is putting in long hours, and when the budget freeze ends he would like to hire special inspectors just to handle the backlog of complaints.

Peter Bowers mentioned that about eight years ago, his contractors' group approached both the D.C. and the P.G. governments, inviting them to raise permit fees, and promising no opposition, so long as the increased revenue were used to hire additional inspectors. Both jurisdictions, he complained, accepted the invitation to raise fees, but both simply threw the additional revenues into their general funds rather than taking any steps to improve inspection.

Even some people in DCRA, Robert noted, have been unaware of some requirements in the DC Code. A problem that they are fighting very hard, and that led to his being invited to address us, is unlicensed work. The 1999 D.C. Register, Volume 46 #47, Section 126 # 1.5 contains the licensure requirements. While there is no requirement for contractors' vehicles to be marked, even summer help on an electrical job needs to carry a license and, at the minimum, has to be enrolled in an apprentice training program. The only exception is the sort of laborer who does not use hand or power tools. Employees must carry not only licenses but also company picture identification. Working without a license is an infraction that can be punished, on a first offense, by a fine of up to $300 or a prison sentence of up to 90 days. The guidelines for writing up the infractions are found in DCRA Occupational and Professional Licensing Electrical Regulations Title 17, Chapter 2, Section 208.8. If the contractor is not available, the owner can be held responsible.

Robert gave us a fair bit of contact information. To get a book and information package concerning licensing, call 1-877-258-9215. D.C. uses the 1996 NEC, with amendments. (Eventually they will advance to the 1999.) To get hold of the current D.C. Code, call the Office of Documents, 202-727-5090, and ask for Volume 46 $47 of the D.C. Register. You can pick it up at 441 Fourth St. NW Room 5230. He warned that some people have been misled by relying on older versions. People interested in learning what's involved in starting apprentice programs can contact the director of the Apprenticeship Council, Lewis P. Brown III, at 202-698-5099.

The problems that they are catching most commonly are illegal heavy-ups, primarily but not exclusively residential. One 24-unit apartment building, he mentioned, was upgraded so ignorantly that it started a fire. On the positive side, the electrical fire brought inspectors in, and they discovered gas leaks, water leaks, and various other problems that could have been calamitous. D.C. inspectors are being cross-trained, so an electrical inspector, for example, is likely to catch at least some other types of violation.

There are contractors who are on their way to losing their licenses. The news carried one story in June. One electrician performed a job upgrading a 12-unit apartment building, gulling the owner into thinking he was working legally by flashing his D.C. license. He failed to mention that his license was in the process of being suspended, and of course never pulled a permit. When this was discovered, the contractor who "took over" the job and pulled a permit actually turned out to be fronting for the first fellow. DCRA demanded that the latter contractor bring the job up to Code. He tried to fight this by professing willingness, but setting a price the customer would not pay. However, since he had pulled a permit for the work, backing out put his license in jeopardy.

Another heavy-up error Robert observed did not result in a fire, but nearly caused a different type of tragedy. A heavy-up, with a meter by the front entrance, used taped bugs that were left accessible-and that children at play started untaping!

Robert said that D.C. is trying to make it easier to comply with their regulations.

Third Party inspectors will be taking some of the burden off D.C. inspectors, but the roster of approved agencies still is being developed. For now, they are being selected on a case-by-case basis. Full-time inspectors will spot-check work they have inspected. One already has been removed from the list. A 100 amp service at one building was jumpered to a second using 12 AWG conductors! This was red-tagged by a D.C. inspector, and a third-party chap had the effrontery to recommend the utility restore power.

Wayne, our Chapter President, and Chief Electrical Inspector for Prince George's County, interjected that he learns of about three unlicensed electrical jobs a day. Over the last six months, he has revoked the licenses of four contractors. If they're from out of the county, though, he can do almost nothing. Information about unlicensed work is shared between Maryland counties. Wayne also mentioned that there are frequent electrical fires in the County, but you do not see them mentioned in the newspapers.

Clint Pratt, Chief Electrical Inspector, City of Annapolis, mentioned that when he discovers this sort of problem, he writes a civil citation, like a driving ticket. It can result in a bench warrant, if ignored. Wayne said Prince George's County cannot enforce the law that way, because out of 30 inspectors, he is the only one possessing the authority to write citations.

After Robert sat down, Clint took over, discussing what "Smart Codes" are like for him in practice (following up on our discussion of last November). To give a little context, he has been with Annapolis for ten years. Annapolis is small enough -nine square miles-- that all inspection elements are able to work together. Moreover, should councillors think of challenging Clint's proposed safety rules, they tend to back down when he encourages them to come up with alternatives-and take responsibility for any fires that result.

The Governor has demanded that all jurisdictions develop programs to implement this, lest they lose the associated grant money. However, such threats have not been carried out as yet. It is up to local politicians to decide where this should be applied. Clint started out skeptical of the rules, formally known as the Maryland Rehabilitation Code, but now is enthusiastic. He does believe this complement to the (1996!) NEC encourages neighborhood restoration, and works effectively in conjunction with efforts to reduce urban sprawl. He applies it every day.

Wayne chimed in that in P.G., you have to opt for Smart Code at the time you pull a permit. If you overlook that option, your work is inspected to the 2002 NEC. Wayne rather expects Smart Code to die, as funding runs out. Clint pointed out that it does not have to rely on rehabilitation grants. The State could threaten to withhold other grant monies to encourage counties to play along.

One of the most interesting and lively aspects of the presentation and discussion concerned inspector judgement. Fortunately for Annapolis residents, Clint requires inspectors to have ten years of experience in the trade and to have earned Master Electrician licensure. He acknowledges that it is hard to attract inspectors willing to work for the money he can pay. (Representatives of other building departments echoed this concern.) Work he certainly does. A screwdriver and a plug-in tester do, not, he emphasized, constitute adequate tools for an inspector, as you'll see below.

Smart Codes rely considerably on inspector discretion, but at the same time offer guidelines that, it is devoutly hoped, help make inspectors' decisions more consistent. This, after all, is a major goal of our organization. Annapolis has a Board of Appeals, and if contractors don't like an inspector's call, they can challenge, if they are willing to go to the trouble.

Some jurisdictions, Clint pointed out, stopped considering installations grandfathered when changes reached 50%, some at 80%. This Code supplies definitions to reduce vastly reduce such uncertainties. It has seven sections, including, repair, renovation, additions, changes of use and occupancy, and historic buildings.

What should you do about an old house that has knob-and-tube wiring? Clint asked and answered this question. While the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommends that you derate it, Clint simply says that you can continue to use it, and even replace devices fed by it, with certain provisos. You cannot extend it, and you cannot insulate around it. He pointed out that neither the City Of Annapolis nor he is trying promote the use of antiquated wiring systems. However, if knob-and-tube wiring systems do not violate any section of the Annapolis Electrical code and are deemed safe by a qualified electrical inspector they can remain in use. To quote him, "Discretion is key; every job is evaluated individually based upon the site conditions."

He was asked how an inspector is to know whether someone has poured insulation into a wall. He carries a ladder on inspections, and pokes his nose into things. He also carries a pricey clamp-on ground resistance meter, which he uses to make sure that grounding electrode conductors offer less than 25 ohms to ground. During a drought, where the soil is sandy, even two ground rods six or ten feet apart may yield a system with way too much ground impedance. Because of these special conditions, he does not accept installations with two ground rods as a substitute for low impedance, trumping the permission in NEC Section 250.56 with the statement of intent. He's willing to go to court on this, though he acknowledges that a local amendment probably is called for. A ten-foot length of 3/4" copper pipe laid in a trench, he notes, often reduces impedance satisfactorily. There was additional discussion of measures one can take to improve grounding.

Fires give inspection departments muscle with the politicians; this is one theme that kept coming up. Clint talked about a "safe voltage" near-meltdown at O'Brien's Restaurant in Annapolis, due to the use of a Listed low-voltage transformer, albeit one without secondary overcurrent protection. A number of ten-foot tubes of colored LEDs were hooked up in series, and the transformer was replaced with a beefier and a beefier one, to make the colored lights shine brightly enough. The insulation on the 12 volt 18-2 thermostat wiring from the transformer to the lights melted all the way back. It was smoking, it was resting against combustibles. . . but had not ignited them when Clint and the Fire Department investigated.

Wayne threw in the information that Comcast is not required to pull permits and get inspections for its installations, and the installers commit sins such as installing independent grounding systems.

OTHER MATTERS

We broke up some time around 9:30. Before closing, Journeyman Susan Flashman reminded people that her charitable group, PAWS, has a fund-raising gala coming up and is seeking sponsors and attendees. David reminded people of the project for which he is trying to find out what Code rules puzzle people.

********************************************************

Reports of our previous meetings follow, but have been trimmed down to the discussions and program reports.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is the report of the program at our meeting May 21, 2002.

Two long-time members, Ed Bihlear and Membership Co-coordinator Ed Holt, both of whom have invested long hours to train on OSHA job site requirements, volunteered to give the rest of us a taste of what they have learned. When asked, Ed Bihelar told us he took the OSHA course as part of his ongoing education. He has taken a class every Fall for the last 20 years. Ed Holt told us that as the sole electrical inspector for the Architect of the Capitol, he volunteered to take the training. They needed someone with the knowledge, as the Architect agreed to get their physical operation in compliance with various codes on exceedingly short notice. Having a high accident rate for a government agency, their management had good reason to strive for that hard-to-achieve goal. They did in fact vastly improve their safety statistics in Fiscal 2001.

First we heard from Ed. Then we took a munch break, after which Ed took over the presentation. The following report mixes the two shamelessly, or at least unabashedly. To begin, Ed passed around and discussed an extensive handout, explaining that he used it in place of projected images. A take-home, it includes both phone numbers and text copied from OSHA publications, which he notes are in the public domain. OSHA's inspection are made in keeping with the following priorities, listed in descending order:

1. Imminent Danger. Where there is reasonable certainty of hazard that cannot be eliminated, they attempt to show up within 24 hours.

1. Catastrophe. Whether or not there is imminent danger now, things had gotten bad enough that three or more people were hospitalized or died.

1. Employee complaints, credible ones.

1. Programmed high-hazard inspections. These are requested by the contractor, not initiated by OSHA or called in by a concerned or disgruntled employee. Their purpose is to provide the contractor with consultation that will eliminate the risk of having to pay a fine because the contractor gets to correct the violation without an OSHA inspector issuing a citation. The down side to programmed inspections, an Ed noted, is that if an OSHA inspector shows up later and the violation has not been eliminated or has reappeared, it can be cited as a repeat or willful violation. This carries a heftier penalty.

Mike noted that if an OSHA inspector simply shows up on your job site, you can refuse him or her admission. But they'll be back. . . . More to the point, you have the right to accompany the inspector during the rounds, and of course to contest any findings.

Our speakers bandied about numbers such as $7000 a day for failure to abate violations, $5-7000 a day for willful violations, and up to $70 000 for repeated violations. They noted, though, and audience members confirmed out of their experience as contractors, that OSHA commonly dickers the fines down on appeal. The audience stories did make this out as rather a game in their experience. Jim and Mike both had been fined for violations that struck them as trivial, such as workers not wearing their hard hats on a job with nothing above to pose the danger of falling on their heads. Rather than treating these violations as de minimis, meaning negligible and thus not requiring payment of a penalty, OSHA set, in one case, a $500 fine. By spending the time to go through the appeal process, our colleague got the penalty reduced to $250.

Regardless of any bureaucratic game-playing, OSHA's purpose is to save lives and reduce injuries. The top four hazards in their records are falls, accounting for about a third of injuries and deaths; "struck by" incidents; electrical injuries, accounting for 18%; and "caught in-between" violence, sliding in next at 17%. Over the last few decades, electrical injuries have moved down from the second most common form of accident to the third.

Sam recalled, from his days on a Code-Making Panel, that NFPA 70E, the electrical safety standard for employee workplaces, was created at OSHA's behest. They came to NFPA asking for a consensus standard that they could reference. NFPA acceded, creating a six- or seven-page booklet (using small type) of material lifted directly from the NEC.

The existence of OSHA does not leave companies helpless at the hands of the average worker. OSHA considers employees to have the responsibility to learn and follow OSHA and company safety rules. Every job site, for example, is supposed to have an emergency plan. Susan pointed out that contractors can take a step to get themselves off the hook by requiring employees to sign off on company policies as new hires. Workers subsequently are required to sign off on forms acknowledging the training received at all safety meetings they attend. Supervisors and foremen are on the spot, too. They can be charged, in both civil and criminal court, if seen as responsible for employee injuries.

Like the NEC, OSHA has a definition of the competent person. A competent person does have the right to decide whether a job site, or a portion of it, is safe or not. If not, though, heading home is not the appropriate response. The competent person does not have to put up with unsafe conditions, but does have to inform management; if the unsafe conditions are not corrected, hr or she can request reassignment to work under safe conditions. One member mentioned an electrical crew that waited three days before going up to work on a roof, because they insisted on handrails being installed first. Ed mentioned work rules requiring two people to handle even a single 10-foot length of rigid raceway. The reason is that this keeps both ends of it under control. Jim noted that the City of Annapolis outfits inspectors with steel-toed shoes rated to withstand 600 volts.

On the other hand, Jim cast doubt on the power of workers to insist on safe conditions and practices. Where work is hard enough to get, he argued, people will do whatever the boss asks of them. Ed countered by saying that injuries raise workmen's compensation rates. Ed followed on his heels by pointing out that some customers and general contractors will refuse bids from subcontractors with poor insurance histories.

The presentations were enlivened by various stories, beginning with the gripes about trivial write-ups. Jim asked, rhetorically, "What happens when the OSHA inspector causes harm?" he proceeded to tell of an OSHA inspector whose hard hat fell off his head and landed on a plumber one or two stories down. As the plumber stormed up, Jim said, "You never saw an inspector leave the job that quick!" Another member mentioned a Fire Marshall who inadvertently set off a false alarm. Then Ed nudged Ed to tell about the electricians who began suffering serious memory loss (sober). According to his story, it turned out to be the result of lead content in the plastic insulation that they chewed on after stripping it off conductors.

A couple of members talked about Assured Equipment Grounding programs. One solution to the need to keep up with the associated requirements was to wrap colored tape on every piece of equipment, indicating the timing of its testing update. Another application of color-coding is the use of four-color stickers on buildings indicating the types of hazard present for firefighters. There was some discussion of the standard color-coding of piping systems to indicate water (blue), gas and oil (yellow), sewage (green), electric and fire alarm (red), etc. Some engineers apparently specify the admixture of red dye in the concrete in which electrical lines are encased, in addition to the warning ribbons installed above service raceways to warn excavators.

Members talked about the need to follow instructions, rather than trust in safety factors. Someone mentioned 320 pound electrician who collapsed a Type 1A ladder, which is rated for a maximum of 300 pounds. Ed mentioned the need to wear a safety harness whenever working at a height that raises your entire body seven feet above the surface.

Besides accident prevention and abatement, OSHA means recording and communicating. Any company with eleven or more workers must record work-related injuries and illness, and keep the records for at least five years. Any incident resulting in a fatality or in three or more hospitalizations must be reported within eight hours. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) must be kept for many years, because toxin-caused illnesses can take so long to develop. Information must be shared with employees. OSHA posters must be mounted where they can be seen, as can any notices of OSHA citations. Failure to post can result in a $7000 fine.

Ed noted that reforms were instituted in 1995, intended to reduce the paperwork associated with OSHA compliance. There's still plenty. Susan mentioned some experiences she's had as job safety officer. You do need a hazardous materials book of MSDSs on the job, and if it's lacking you will be cited. She has actually tagged every container of every hazardous chemical on the job site. She did point out that OSHA inspectors do not go through the book to check that there is a MSDS for every chemical on the job. Other members pointed out, though, that having the wrong MSDS is citable. This includes having a data sheet on hand for the same substance, such as PVC cement, but from a different manufacturer. This rigid conformity requirement is not limited to MSDS. Power tool training, similarly, cannot be generic. Being certified as competent to operate one manufacturer's powder-activated tool, for example, may not qualify you to operate another's safely.

We heard a couple of different stories of the impetus for OSHA's creation. One member named the deplorable frequency of deaths among roofers. Another remembered five non-English-speaking Chicago workers who died cleaning out a chemical tank. In the 1970s, out of 90 million U.S. workers, each year 14 000 died and 2.5 million were injured as the result of work accidents, and 300 000 came down with occupational diseases. Nowadays, OSHA looks out for most workers. The main groups not covered by OSHA regulations are the self-employed and farming families.

The audience was quite impressed with our speakers' work. They were not alone; Ed Holt spoke highly, during and after the meeting, of Ed Bihlear's careful preparation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This is the report of our meeting March 19, 2002 at the Prince George's County offices in Largo, MD. We had sixteen attendees, aside from our presenter: ten inspector members, two nonmembers and one lapsed, and three associate members.

President Wayne Robinson was absent, teaching, so Vice President Mike Raffael chaired. The business meeting started around 6:45 pm.

General Meeting

Secretary-treasurer David Shapiro brought up the question of whether there would be an advantage to our seeking a domain name and using a forwarding service, so people looking for the chapter's web page have less to type in, and a more-intuitive address. He reported that this would cost the chapter $18 a year, noting that we'd be "riding the tiger," albeit not a voracious one; it would be awkward to stop using a forwarding service. There was minimal discussion, but the consensus seemed to be that simpler access would be worth the cost.

David contacted Phil Cox subsequent to the meeting, to make sure there would be no awkwardness associated with our registering a domain name containing the name "IAEI." Phil said that the international executive committee is working on the issue of coordinating Chapter and Section web sites with the international organization. Therefore, David decided it is best to hold off.

Larry Griffith of the Central Pennsylvania Chapter encouraged members of the George Washington Chapter to attend the Eastern Section meeting, which his chapter is hosting, the closest it has ever been located. This unusual opportunity will take place the first full week of October 2002.

After introductions, we proceeded with the program.

We were anticipating a less-than-sanguine perspective on the protection provided by circuit breaker AFCIs, supported by a live demonstration. What we got, which kept us talking far longer than many another program, was more than we had expected.The presenter was consultant Bernard Schwartz, P.E., a Fire Protection Engineer formerly of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. He was ably assisted, and opposed, by Clive W. Kimblin, Cutler-Hammer's Manager for Applications and Standards. It was not a catfight, but it certainly was lively.

Rather than present all the back-and-forth-ing, I will try to lay out what we learned. There was much more information on which the two experts agreed than on which they disagreed.

Here are the main points that Schwartz raised:

AFCIs interrupt parallel arcing faults, and do so much more quickly than would normal circuit breakers operating in their instantaneous range. Bring a hot and a return conductor together and there's will be a BANG! from the arc as current flowing through the gap trips a standard circuit breaker. Bring the same two wires together and there will be a mere pop from the arc as current flowing through trips an AFCI circuit breaker. Unfortunately, there is no predicting how much life and property protection they can provide, even though they work exactly as they are designed to work. Many people, including, as was demonstrated, many people attending this meeting, presumed that they are designed to interrupt all sorts of arcing and even glowing faults, and do so right quickly. Not so. They are designed to interrupt parallel arcing faults that reach and sustain a flow of 75 amperes. Glowing faults and series arcing faults may last indefinitely without tripping an AFCI, as Schwartz demonstrated, even while sparking repeatedly, and even when sustaining sufficiently high current flow to ignite nonmetallic conduit.

Many of those who are unhappy with the AFCI requirement, in the meeting and out, are concerned about this fact. Montgomery College instructor Cleveland Tyler worried that homeowners might be outraged to have been misled, by the devices' name, into thinking they are receiving more protection than AFCIs provide. Larry Griffith, who teaches Code classes nationwide, was concerned that those of his students who don't study the Code and product standards carefully can end up with the same false idea. He is going to start making the distinction very explicit. Contractor and Electric League Officer Buddy Friedeman was relieved when Kimblin assured him that AFCIs will interrupt faults at aluminum terminations. Buddy estimated that 75% of aluminum conductor terminations at refrigerators are dangerously defective, especially when nonmetallic boxes have been used. He has measured more than 200 degrees Fahrenheit at these outlets. David challenged Kimblin on this assertion, confirming that AFCIs will interrupt these arcs only after they melt or burn enough to cause ground faults. People then seemed less reassured.

So AFCIs only interrupt a certain subset of arcing faults. Why, then, the did U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission encourage the development of this technology, and its adoption into the NEC? Woefully incomplete information seems to be responsible. Whenever a fire truck is dispatched to a fire, Schwartz told us, upon its return the driver has to check off the cause of the fire it attended on a "run sheet." Among the causes from which this fire officer, who is not trained as an investigator, must choose, there are ten electrical options: one is an overheating electric-discharge ballast; the other nine are all phrased in terms of arcing. This is the basis for the national data reports attributing nearly nine percent of home fires to arcs, and this is why arcs are the problem that was proposed for solution.

How about capturing data on the real causes? There's no money. In Montgomery County, Maryland, for instance, a fire investigator goes out only if a fire causes $10,000 worth of damage or loss of life. Other jurisdictions have similar restrictions, due to resource limitations. Therefore, using actual fire investigators' data would bias results-in some unknowable direction.

Schwartz concludes that there are no good data to indicate whether a significant proportion of fires would be prevented, because they can be attributed to the arcing faults that AFCIs are designed to interrupt. Therefore, their worth falls, in his view, to a judgement call based on personal experience and opinion. He strongly suspects, based on his decades of fire investigation, that the vast majority of electric fires are the result of the heating caused by a lower level of current flow, through resistance; not the result of high-current parallel arcs. Fire in the permanent wiring occurs, in his experience, due to overheating at the termination points. He believes that it is extraordinarily rare for a staple to be driven through NM-B cable hard enough, and at just the right angle, to cause a parallel arc from the hot to the return conductor. AFCIs are not designed to interrupt overheating, and he suspects that AFCIs will not help much to prevent such fires through indirect means. Therefore, while not questioning the ability of AFCIs to do their job, he questions the degree to which they are worth the investment. He believes the manufacturers that urged that AFCIs be required do not spend enough time talking about their limitations.

Here is where Kimblin differs. A couple of Code cycles ago, representatives of the Electronics Industry Association and the CPSC urged that the instantaneous-trip settings of circuit breakers be lowered, to interrupt large faults more quickly. Manufacturers fought this, to avoid nuisance tripping. AFCIs, he believes, provide a superior solution.

He focused on the fact that as much as a billion dollars of property damage annually is attributed to electrical fires, nearly 400 deaths, and many more injuries. However much (or, one is polite enough not to say, little) of these costs could be reduced by utilizing AFCIs, he believes, doing so will be well worthwhile. They interrupt sputtering faults, both hot to grounded conductor and, he asserts, hot to grounding means, that would never trip time-delay circuit breakers, and other low-level AC arcs tend to self-extinguish at the zero-crossing point, making them highly unlikely to start fires. Furthermore, he emphasized the fact that the AFCIs presently on the market or planned for marketing incorporate 30 mA ground fault circuit interrupters. He talked repeatedly of AFCIs as protecting against other than parallel faults. His logic is that if a series or glowing fault does not burn through enough insulation to become a high-current parallel fault, in modern wiring it will burn through enough insulation-even, he asserts, at receptacle terminations--for 30 mA to flow to ground.

That is the meat of what we heard. Here is some more background. The Consumer Product Safety Commission got this project rolling originally because it is concerned about the dangers associated with older wiring, defined as 40 years old or older. (Unfortunately, as Kimblin acknowledged, AFCI requirements are not retroactive, and furthermore electrical systems going back to the 1960s and earlier may not have grounding means available to trigger the 30 mA protection.) They named 14 fire precursors, and entertained a variety of proposals from people and organizations offering means to identify them and interrupt power. None of the means proposed could do the complete job, but the best, AFCIs, caught six.

Kimblin made a number of points in favor of AFCIs' worth:

• First, he appealed to authority. The Code-Making Panel (CMP) was not blindsided with the AFCI concept; they have considered it for two Code cycles. Furthermore, word on field performance has been available. AFCIs have been sold commercially for more than three years. Schwartz has had the opportunity to bring his arguments up with the CMP, and they voted down his objections eleven-to-one.

• Kimblin pointed out several advantages of AFCIs over circuit breakers in protecting against arcing faults, even faults somewhat above the circuit breakers' instantaneous-trip range. First, as Schwartz had noted, they are faster. Bring two wires together and there will be significant arcing as current flowing through the gap trips a standard circuit breaker. Bring two wires together and there will be far less arcing as current flowing through trips an AFCI breaker. Second, many arcs sputter, making and breaking: high current, then off; high current again, then off. The intervening "off" time will prevent a standard circuit breaker from tripping, but not an AFCI.

• He also argued for the efficacy of AFCIs in stopping fires that occur beyond the fixed wiring. Two-wire zip cord also can sustain arcs from one conductor to the other, and they can carry well over 75 amps. This will trip an AFCI.

What about series arcs, which AFCIs cannot stop? Both Schwartz and Kimblin agreed that there is no commercially-available technology that hopes to identify them and distinguishes them from legitimate loads. (Schwartz said that, to his knowledge, there is no such technology even in the works.) If there are dangers associated with arcs occurring at wiring terminations on devices or at splices, their characteristics may be indistinguishable from the arcs drawn by thermostats or switches. But Kimblin downplayed their danger, which Schwartz's demonstration might have caused the audience to see as major. He said,"It is essentially impossible to get a series arc by drawing two pieces of copper apart up to100, even 200 amps, past the half-arc [the zero-crossing point]. It will be very difficult for it to start a fire." In Europe, Kimblin noted, with standard utilization voltage of 220 or 240 volts, the risk that a series arc, whose current is limited by the load being fed, will not self-extinguish is greater than it is here. He named UL 1699 as a standard that requires includes protection against possible series arcs in NM-B (but not apparently, other cables such as ACHH, SEC or SER). Any series arc in a conductor that is broken inside its insulation must self-extinguish before a flame can leave the cable sheath. This is his basis for arguing that, in any grounded cable, the 30 mA ground fault protection will interrupt power, thanks to contact between the damaged conductor and the grounding conductor, before a fire can be started. Further, the ground fault interrupting characteristics provide some "glowing connection" protection at receptacles.

Larry Griffith asked Schwartz and Kimblin where AFCIs are likely to be required in the future. The speculations included additional residential circuits beyond bedrooms, and higher voltage circuits. Later, Kimblin explained that inherent in all our discussions was the expectation that
most residential dwelling unit circuits will eventually be covered. He added that the impact on the fire statistics (dealing with whole house) will be limited if only bedroom outlets are protected.

Larry asked whether AFCIs are likely to be useful in hazardous locations, to protect against arcs around explosives. Kimblin was uncertain on this issue. After all, an explosion may take just one spark, and AFCIs interrupt arcs, they don't prevent them. However, he asserted that a hazardous circuit location would be safer with AFCI protection than without. On the other hand, he talked of aircraft fire or explosion prevention as one application that is being investigated seriously for AFCIs. Even though AFCIs are not a reliable means of preventing explosion, and jet fuel is highly explosive, there are thousands of feet of wiring per aircraft, including lots in the fuselage, which is not a hazardous location. It is so expensive to upgrade the wiring that it can be cheaper to build a new aircraft.

Larry also asked about the requirement, new as of January 2002, that room air conditioners be supplied with AFCIs. Kimblin explained that while functionally they are being supplied with such protection, technically the mechanism is different from that used in AFCI circuit breakers. The equipment's cable is covered with a grounded sheath, and provided with inherent ground-fault protection.

Membership Co-coordinator Ed Holt asked Kimblin for speculation on the cost-benefit analysis of installing thousands and thousands of AFCIs, noting that while life safety is important to all of us, the reality is that cost must be considered. Kimblin demurred. Buddy suggested waiting to see whether insurers lower the cost of insurance on a house with AFCI protection. He pointed out that Allstate already asks for an electrical contractor's certification of the safety of any electrical system more than 40 years old.

David pursued the cost-effectiveness question, asking whether adding a few smoke detectors to a home, for the price of an AFCI, might not increase life safety as much or more. Both Schwartz and Kimblin responded that while smoke detectors are valuable, there is a world of difference between preventing a fire and detecting a consequence of fire. Schwartz warned that you can be left with only a minute and a half to get out of the house once a smoke detector goes off. He said that a smoke detector that is properly installed, and functioning in accordance with the UL standard, can wait two to four minutes after the fire begins to go off.

David asked why the 75 amp trip level was set for arcing faults, and the 30 mA trip level for ground faults. Since the arcing faults are unique waveforms, wouldn't lower be safer, making suppression come earlier? Since their ground fault interruption is designed to step in after major breaches of insulation, wouldn't it be better for the 4-6 mA Class A GFCI level be incorporated?

With regard to the AFCI setting, Kimblin responded that at least 75 amps of fault current is available at all branch circuit outlets tested, with average available fault current more like 200 amperes. Therefore, the present setting will-not should, but will--result in tripping. A lower setting would require identifying the signatures of many more benign loads that may be present on branch circuits. These are loads that do not need to be differentiated from apparent arcs when using the 75 amp trip level. A 10 amp motorized appliance can draw 100-150 amps as inrush current; a fluorescent ballast can draw 75-100 amps.

With regard to ground fault protection, Kimblin speculated that the Class A GFCI setting probably would not significantly increase safety from arcs over the present, GFPE, setting. Schwartz speculated that combi