1. IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee on National Fire Protection Association Standards 2008 National Electrical Code CMP#14 SCC 18 Report on Comments from Redondo Beach, CA Meeting Nov 28-30, 2006 Articles 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 510, 511, 513, 514, 515, and 516 James D. Cospolich, Principal Donald W. Zipse, Alternate Donald W. Zipse, Alternate

2. Summary of Panel Activities:  86 Comments Submitted Total – a small number compared to previous Code cycles – very few controversial issues – very few controversial issues  Accept 28 33%  Accept in Principal 10 12%  Accept in Part 2022%  Accept in Principle in Part 0 0%  Reject 28 33% 13 Voting Members on CMP #14 in attendance Intend to vote affirmative on all Panel Actions

3. Comments: 14-7 thru 14-14 and 14-54 Proposals to Allow Schedule 80 PVC or Type RTRC-XW conduit in Class I, Division 2 and Class 1, Zone 2 locations Articles 501.10(B)(1)(7) & 505.15(C)(1)  Most comments were in favor of rejecting the panel’s earlier decision to allow specific heavy duty Schedule 80 PVC or a special heavy wall reinforced thermosetting resin conduit (Type RTRC-XW) in industrial establishments where metallic conduit does not provide sufficient corrosion resistance  The panel disagreed with reversing the earlier decision and will allow such conduit systems

4. Comment: 14-49 on Proposal 14-129 to Allow TC-ER cables in Class I, Zone 1 locations Article 505.15(B)(g)  Commenter tried to overturn the initial rejection of introducing the use of a special construction tray cable, TC-ER, in Class I, Zone 1 locations by limiting its use to instrumentation, adding the requirement for basket weave conductive armor beneath the outer jacket, and adding more physical restrictions to its use. Commenter stated that similar shipboard cables are allowed in certain marine jurisdictions and that TC-ER cables met the same test crush test requirements as MC-HL cables which are currently allowed.  The panel disagreed stating that maintenance issues were similar for both, shipboard cables are not an NEC construction, the crush resistance was erroneously stated and is 33% less than MC-HL requirements, and the armor requirements are not the same as MC-HL.

5. Comments: 14-25 and 14-26 on Proposal 14-63 dealing with the requirements for switches, circuit breakers, motor controllers, fuses, etc. to be Dust-ignitionproof in Class II, Division 2 locations Article 502.115 and 502.115(A)  Comments were rejected to overturn the new more strict requirements that all switches, circuit breakers, motor controllers, fuses, push buttons, etc. have dust-ignitionproof enclosures for Class II, Division 2 locations. Proposal 14-63 was accepted and deleted wording that excluded such equipment not intended to interrupt current in normal operation or where installed where electrically conductive dusts are present.

6. Comments: 14-25 and 14-26 on Proposal 14-63 dealing with the deletion of the exception for the need for isolating switches to be Dust-ignitionproof in Class II, Division 2 locations Article 502.115(A)(2)  Comments were rejected to overturn the new more strict requirements that isolating switches all have dust- ignitionproof enclosures for Class II, Division 2 locations.  Proposal 14-63 was accepted and deleted wording that excluded such equipment containing no fuses and not intended to interrupt current in normal operation or where installed where electrically conductive dusts are present. Such equipment previously only had to minimize the entrance of dust, have telescoping covers, and have no openings for sparks to escape, but did not have to be listed as either dust-ignitionproof or dusttight.

7. Comments: 14-27 and 14-28 on Proposal 14-64 dealing with the deletion of the exception for the need for coils and windings to be Dusttight in Class II, Division 2 locations Articles 502.120(B) and 502.120(B)(2)  Comment was rejected to overturn the new more strict requirements that coils and windings all have dusttight enclosures for Class II, Division 2 locations.  The panel in a controversial vote of 9 to 4 agreed that the 2005 NEC requirements are not consistent and added the new requirements for dusttight equipment where it was not previously required, but is allowing that these new requirements will not become effective until January 1, 2011 to allow standards organizations, equipment vendors, and users time to adjust to the new criteria.

8. Comments 14-29 and 14-30 on Proposal 14-65 dealing with Motors, Generators, and other rotating electrical equipment in Class II, Division 2 locations Article 502.125(B)  Comment by original submitter was rejected to overturn the panel's original rejection for more strict requirements that all motors, generators, and other rotating electrical equipment have dusttight enclosures for Class II, Division 2 locations.  After a great deal of discussion the panel finally agreed to leave the 2005 NEC wording as is. The argument that the 2005 NEC requirements are not consistent was not carried.

9. Comment: 14-31 on Proposal 14-69 dealing with the requirements for luminaires to have Dusttight Enclosures in Class II, Division 2 locations Articles 502.130(B)(2)  Comment to overturn the new accepted Proposal 14-69 wording for more strict requirements that luminaires have dusttight enclosures for Class II, Division 2 locations was rejected.  The panel agreed that the 2005 NEC requirements are not consistent and added the new requirement that all luminaires installed in Class II, Division 2 locations be dusttight instead of the previous wording that allowed fixtures designed to miminize the deposit of dust and prevent escape of sparks, etc. This effectively means all such luminaires must now be listed.

10. Comment: 14-45 on Proposal 14-109 rejecting requirement for Qualified Registered Professional Engineer when implementing for Zone Classification System Article 505.7(A)  Comment was to overturn dropped requirement for work to be supervised by a qualified Registered Professional Engineer when implementing a Zone Classification System.  The panel voted 9 to 4 to agree to continue their original desire to drop the requirement for the 2008 NEC.