# Safety vs Code



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Morning:

Hope everyone had a happy holiday. 

Many times code compliance and safety don't always go hand in hand. For example, a code violation doesn't always compromise safety.

I have seen it many times and I am sure members here have as well.

There is a wealth of experience at this site!

Any thoughts? 

Borgi


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

if you feel that there are items in the code that should be removed, by all means, submit a proposal to nfpa so they can remove it in the next cycle. The code book gets thicker and thicker, it's about time some stuff should be deprecated.


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

Borgi said:


> For example, a code violation doesn't always compromise safety.
> 
> Any thoughts?


 
Two that pop into my head are:

1. The requirement to install a receptacle on a kitchen island. I had one recently where the island was four feet long and designed for nothing more than a breakfast area however the code forced us to place a receptacle at each end of it. No safety would have been compromised here if the island had no receptacles.

2. The fact that we are not allowed to phase tape any conductor under an AWG #4. We could very easily phase tape or heat shrink a #12 at both ends of the wire and the circuit would be as safe as anything else out there. Like the electrons know or care what color the insulation is on the wire they are travelling on.

I'm sure there are others but those two tend to irk me.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

I would like to see an example where a code compliant installation is unsafe. Sometimes, I guess, there are instances where you can say, "There's nothing saying I can't do it", but that's where your sense of professionalism takes over.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

Rollie73 said:


> Two that pop into my head are....


1. The interpretation here is that only one receptacle is required. We had one job where installing even one receptacle was impossible. The inspector looked the other way and said "Design considerations". That's a good inspector  .

2. Never heard of that rule. I'm going to pretend I never saw it  .


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

99cents said:


> 1. The interpretation here is that only one receptacle is required. We had one job where installing even one receptacle was impossible. The inspector looked the other way and said "Design considerations". That's a good inspector  ..


I agree......the CEC agreed.......one receptacle was enough, however the inspector was a douchebag and wouldn't pass it without two and it was a pick your battles kind of thing for me. Wasn't worth the hassle to fight it.



99cents said:


> 2. Never heard of that rule. I'm going to pretend I never saw it  .


Its there. Too lazy to look it up but its there and rigidly enforced in my area.


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

How well would you sleep after installing a receptacle in a residential bedroom on an arc-fault breaker for an O2 generator next to the persons hospital bed while they are under Hospise care?

Code verses safety & reliability?


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

Wirenuting said:


> How well would you sleep after installing a receptacle in a residential bedroom on an arc-fault breaker for an O2 generator next to the persons hospital bed while they are under Hospise care?
> 
> Code verses safety & reliability?


There you go. Can't argue with that one. I wouldn't blame you if you accidentally forgot the AFCI.


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

99cents said:


> There you go. Can't argue with that one. I wouldn't blame you if you accidentally *forgot the AFCI.*


Little confused here. Why would an AFCI be required here? 

Borgi


----------



## Jhellwig (Jun 18, 2014)

The nec is about safety. Nothing else. 

That isn't to say that some of it doesn't seam contradictory at times.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

Borgi said:


> Little confused here. Why would an AFCI be required here?
> 
> Borgi


If it was here, the bedroom is required to be arc fault protected. US code requires even more arc fault circuits.


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

99cents said:


> If it was here, the bedroom is required to be arc fault protected. US code requires even more arc fault circuits.


I understand, but in Alberta would we not be directed to Section 24 in this case. For non CEC code users Section 24 is for Patient care areas. Not sure about the NEC.

That's why I asked. 

Borgi


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

Borgi said:


> I understand, but in Alberta would we not be directed to Section 24 in this case. For non CEC code users Section 24 is for Patient care areas. Not sure about the NEC.
> 
> That's why I asked.
> 
> Borgi


MAYBE a bedroom in a residence would be considered a patient care area...


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

99cents said:


> MAYBE a bedroom in a residence would be considered a patient care area...


I would think a gaggle of lawyers would argue both sides of it. 

For us in the US, I forsee a large section of the population, baby boomers" heading towards home hospice care as we age. The affordable healthcare option will push for home care as it's cheaper.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

Wirenuting said:


> I would think a gaggle of lawyers would argue both sides of it.
> 
> For us in the US, I forsee a large section of the population, baby boomers" heading towards home hospice care as we age. The affordable healthcare option will push for home care as it's cheaper.


Same here. This is a very interesting conversation...


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

It's one of those domino effects where one rule changes another and the code book gets fat with appendices and "What if's?". We also have local amendments.

These are laws and laws don't always take into account the fallout. I don't want to turn this into Controversial Talk but Canada recognized gay marriage. Then we had to figure out gay divorce. Then, because so many foreign gays were coming to Canada to get married, we had to figure out gay divorce for people who didn't even live here.

The more we add to the code book, the more we have to address the possible bizarre consequences of adding those rules.


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

99cents said:


> MAYBE a bedroom in a residence would be considered a patient care area...


I re-checked Alberta Standata from 2013 and a situation like a bedroom in a dwelling used as " Wirenuting " describes, would follow CEC Section 24- Patient care area. I am not able to post the Standata here, but this thread is not about that anyway. 

Borgi


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

Rollie73 said:


> Its there. Too lazy to look it up but its there and rigidly enforced in my area.


Well since I'm bored and you're a good guy to chat with, here you go:


> 26-712 Receptacles for dwelling units
> 
> (see Appendices B and G)
> 
> ...


:icon_cool:


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

99cents said:


> MAYBE a bedroom in a residence would be considered a patient care area...


Wouldn't that also call for an isolated ground?


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Rollie73 said:


> Two that pop into my head are:
> 
> 1. The requirement to install a receptacle on a kitchen island. I had one recently where the island was four feet long and designed for nothing more than a breakfast area however the code forced us to place a receptacle at each end of it. No safety would have been compromised here if the island had no receptacles.
> 
> ...




Actually I can think of a down fall. If someone puts a deep fryer with a hanging cord and a child or someone pulls on it? Its funny because the CMPs in some cases introduce more hazards not eliminate them.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

The_Modifier said:


> Wouldn't that also call for an isolated ground?


Nothing needs an ISO ground. In fact if your system is wired correctly (no standing ground faults) your ground is already isolated.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I'd caution those of you who think safety is some altruism should rethink it here.

Safety is a huge business lousy with mandates , bureaucrats, and bean counting insurance folks who make a good $$$ at it, ergo entertaining any excuse to reinvent the _'safety wheel' _

They are not above scare tactics utilizing sketchy stats or body count to do so

Public>>> _'what's burnt and hangs from the ceiling?' _ 

Safety folk>> _'my paycheck'_
:whistling2::laughing:
~CS~


----------



## daveEM (Nov 18, 2012)

Borgi said:


> I re-checked Alberta Standata from 2013 and a situation like a bedroom in a dwelling used as " Wirenuting " describes, would follow CEC Section 24- Patient care area. I am not able to post the Standata here, but this thread is not about that anyway.
> 
> Borgi


You would just download the pdf version of the Standata then cut and paste the appropriate ruling. To make something like that look good you throw it in a little quote box.



> quote box.


----------



## BlackHowling (Feb 27, 2013)

Rollie73 said:


> I agree......the CEC agreed.......one receptacle was enough, however the inspector was a douchebag and wouldn't pass it without two and it was a pick your battles kind of thing for me. Wasn't worth the hassle to fight it.
> 
> 
> Its there. Too lazy to look it up but its there and rigidly enforced in my area.




4-030 Identification of insulated neutral conductors up to and including No. 2 AWG copper or aluminum
(1) Except as permitted in Subrules (2), (3), and (4), all insulated neutral conductors up to and including
No. 2 AWG copper or aluminum, and the conductors of flexible cords that are permanently connected to such neutral conductors, shall be identified by a white or grey covering or by three continuous white stripes along the entire length of the conductor.
(2) Where conductors of different systems are installed in the same raceway, box, or other type of enclosure and the identified circuit conductor of one system is coloured by a white or grey covering, each identified circuit conductor of the other system, if present, shall be provided with a specific identification, and the identification shall be permitted to be an outer covering of white with an identifiable coloured stripe (not green) running along the insulation.
(3) The covering of the other conductor or conductors shall show a continuous colour contrasting that of an identified conductor; however, in the case of those flexible cords where the identified conductor is identified by a raised longitudinal ridge(s), the other conductors shall have no ridges.
(4) For multi-conductor cable, the insulated neutral conductor shall be permitted to be permanently marked as the identified conductor by painting or other suitable means at every point where the separate conductors have been rendered accessible and visible by removal of the outer covering of the cable, and the painting or other suitable means of marking the identified conductor shall not be permitted to render illegible the manufacturer’s numbering of the conductor

So that rule only apply for single conductor cables or conductors in conduit so you can re-identify all you want




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

> ELECTRICAL SAFETY
> 
> Information Bulletin
> October 2013
> ...


I am not posting this for Alberta electricians or other provincial electricians, but for those members not familiar with the CEC. I am sure the NEC has much similar wording, but I am not knowing! 

I guess if you're going to post a specific code you feel is related to this thread's subject you better check it twice. Probably a good idea to indicate your jurisdiction, as codes are obviously different in many jurisdictions. 

That was not my intent, but no harm learning code from members in other jurisdictions

Borgi


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

I agree BlackHowling...........Its primarily about single conductors in a conduit.....which is the majority of my work, however, the AHJ in my area have a local amendment about it, and enforce it for all conductors. 

If its a NMD90 job and its a 240 volt circuit, then the conductors must be black and red......no phase taping the white to create a red conductor allowed. If its pipe and we want to change one of the conductors to another circuit (maybe from A phase to C phase) then we have to pull a new wire.....no phase taping etc etc etc.

We're only allowed to phase tape if the conductor is larger than a #4.

Stupid  ruling.


----------



## BlackHowling (Feb 27, 2013)

Rollie73 said:


> I agree BlackHowling...........Its primarily about single conductors in a conduit.....which is the majority of my work, however, the AHJ in my area have a local amendment about it, and enforce it for all conductors.
> 
> If its a NMD90 job and its a 240 volt circuit, then the conductors must be black and red......no phase taping the white to create a red conductor allowed. If its pipe and we want to change one of the conductors to another circuit (maybe from A phase to C phase) then we have to pull a new wire.....no phase taping etc etc etc.
> 
> ...



That's a Sh!tty amendment. Especially cause phase coloring isn't mandatory in the CEC either. I could do a whole panel in black and it would be legal.


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

BlackHowling said:


> That's a Sh!tty amendment. Especially cause phase coloring isn't mandatory in the CEC either. I could do a whole panel in black and it would be legal.


Yeah agreed. What makes things worse is we can do the same.....whole panel in black......everything in the damn building in black, with the exception of the ground and the _identified conductor_ of course and we will have zero issues with the inspection. Re-identify one conductor and its time for the "electrical Nazi SS police" to appear. :laughing:


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

The_Modifier said:


> Wouldn't that also call for an isolated ground?


If the bedroom is following Section - 24, I would say yes. 

Section 24 has different requirements regarding grounding and bonding. 

Probably best to consult the *CAN/CSA - Z32* to be sure.

Borgi


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Rollie73 said:


> I agree BlackHowling...........Its primarily about single conductors in a conduit.....which is the majority of my work, however, the AHJ in my area have a local amendment about it, and enforce it for all conductors.
> 
> If its a NMD90 job and its a 240 volt circuit, then the conductors must be black and red......no phase taping the white to create a red conductor allowed. If its pipe and we want to change one of the conductors to another circuit (maybe from A phase to C phase) then we have to pull a new wire.....no phase taping etc etc etc.
> 
> ...


This local amendment, is it from the county, or the provincial inspection authority? Reason I ask, is that the idea of local municipalities making bylaws regarding electrical code has been talked about in my area of Alberta.

Seems like a silly amendment, both of them, I'll assume two receptacles on an island is an amendment. 

Also, can they offer you an explanation why they are being so anal? 

Borgi


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

BlackHowling said:


> That's a Sh!tty amendment. Especially cause phase coloring isn't mandatory in the CEC either. I could do a whole panel in black and it would be legal.



I agree.


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

meadow said:


> Nothing needs an ISO ground. In fact if your system is wired correctly (no standing ground faults) your ground is already isolated.


In Canada patient care areas are required to have ISO grounds. Iirc


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

As "99cents" mentioned earlier in this thread, there are few instances where an installation is code compliment, but compromises safety.

Reading a thread started by "99cents" earlier today got me thinking and I may have an example.




> 26-400 Panelboards in dwelling units (see Appendix B)
> 
> (1) A panelboard shall be installed in every dwelling unit except for dwelling units in hotels and motels, and dwelling units that
> (a) are not individually metered for electrical power consumption; and
> ...


Unfortunately, in the CEC, we are not required, as far as I know, to have the breaker refered to in the above subrule (2), in the actual unit. That means it could be in the main service room, which is locked! 

Many scenarios where the tenant would require, even need safety wise, to have a main breaker.

If someone else can show me otherwise, other than a local amendment, that requires the breaker in the unit, I would appreciate it! :thumbsup:

Borgi


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

Borgi said:


> This local amendment, is it from the county, or the provincial inspection authority? Reason I ask, is that the idea of local municipalities making bylaws regarding electrical code has been talked about in my area of Alberta.
> 
> Seems like a silly amendment, both of them, I'll assume two receptacles on an island is an amendment.
> 
> ...


The only inspection authority we have is Nova Scotia Power......which happens to be the only power company in this area as well. So it is a provincial inspection authority.

The two recept. on the island thing was an inspectors wish list item. The size of the island could be serviced with one and meet the CEC regulations. I just decided that it was one those "not worth the hassle" things and installed the damned receptacles.


----------



## Mshea (Jan 17, 2011)

The_Modifier said:


> Wouldn't that also call for an isolated ground?


Isolated ground? in a patient care area? do you mean an isolated circuit? they are very different things.
No isolated grounds in patient care areas. In fact more bonding is almost mandated because no one passes the tests with minimum bonding


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

The_Modifier said:


> In Canada *patient care areas are required to have ISO grounds.*


Not isolated ground receptacles. I don't think, not positive? 



Mshea said:


> Isolated ground? in a patient care area? do you mean an isolated circuit? they are very different things.
> No isolated grounds in patient care areas. *In fact more bonding is almost mandated because no one passes the tests with minimum bonding*


From where I sit, me thinks you are talking about two different things. Or, the exact same thing, but expressing it differently! 

Best to consult *CAN/CSA-Z32* to be sure.

Borgi


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Found another code, still in the 2012 CEC, that if applied could be very dangerous.

*12-1104* 

(1) Rigid PVC conduit shall not be used where normal conditions are such that any part of the conduit is subjected to a temperature in excess of 75 degrees celcius.

(2) Subrule (1) shall not prevent the use of insulated conductors having temperature ratings in excess of 75 degrees celcius, but such conductors shall not have ampacities exceeding those of 90 degrees celcius conductors, regardless of their temperature rating.

It's subrule 2 that is dangerous. It could cause overheating of conductors in conduit, and possible fires.

Now, Alberta caught this, ( maybe that's why they took so long to adopt the code ), and probably BC and Ontario, but I am not knowing for sure.

Just some food for thought! 

Borgi


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Borgi said:


> Found another code, still in the 2012 CEC, that if applied could be very dangerous.
> 
> *12-1104*
> 
> ...


I should have posted the Alberta Standata with my original post above.

*Rules 12-1104, 12-1154, 12-1508 Temperature limitations*

The Appendix B note to Rules 12-1104, 12-1154, and 12-1508 reads; “Tests show that 90°C conductors, continuously loaded, under conditions of 50% fill and 30°C ambient, do not result in a temperature exceeding 75°C. Conductors having insulation ratings in excess of 90°C may be used in PVC conduit, provided that the ampacity is derated to 90°C.”

The 90°C ampacity in the 2012 code is intended to maintain conductor temperatures below 90°C, with a safety margin. *The calculations of temperature achieved under various conditions have not been done,* but the safety margin would almost certainly not keep the temperature below 75°C. *The Appendix B note no longer applies.*

Hope that's a little more clear. :thumbsup:

Borgi


----------



## Cincycaddy (Sep 18, 2014)

Wirenuting said:


> How well would you sleep after installing a receptacle in a residential bedroom on an arc-fault breaker for an O2 generator next to the persons hospital bed while they are under Hospise care?
> 
> Code verses safety & reliability?


Well if it's hospice..the end result is inevitable anyway.....


----------



## longrf01 (Jan 31, 2015)

99cents said:


> There you go. Can't argue with that one. I wouldn't blame you if you accidentally forgot the AFCI.


Had this happen (was a ventilator). The inspector said 'I'm declaring an emergency and permitting this pending a variance.' Filled out a variance request (city waived the $25 fee), and two months later received a letter stating the variance was approved *except* it had to be corrected when 'the exigent circumstances no longer existed.'


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

longrf01 said:


> Had this happen (was a ventilator). The inspector said 'I'm declaring an emergency and permitting this pending a variance.' Filled out a variance request (city waived the $25 fee), and two months later received a letter stating the variance was approved *except* it had to be corrected when 'the exigent circumstances no longer existed.'


I thought you didn't have to install AFCI's in Indiana at all? When did that change?


----------



## longrf01 (Jan 31, 2015)

MTW said:


> I thought you didn't have to install AFCI's in Indiana at all? When did that change?


It's been about seven years, maybe longer.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

longrf01 said:


> It's been about seven years, maybe longer.


I'm sorry to hear that.


----------



## btharmy (Jan 17, 2009)

longrf01 said:


> It's been about seven years, maybe longer.


That must be a local amendment. When Indiana accepted the 2008 NEC they omitted AFCI breakers and TR receptacles. We are still under that arrangement unless your local jurisdiction has included them.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

btharmy said:


> That must be a local amendment. When Indiana accepted the 2008 NEC they omitted AFCI breakers and TR receptacles. We are still under that arrangement unless your local jurisdiction has included them.


No TR requirements in Indiana either?  I like Indiana even more now. :notworthy:


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

99cents said:


> I would like to see an example where a code compliant installation is unsafe. Sometimes, I guess, there are instances where you can say, "There's nothing saying I can't do it", but that's where your sense of professionalism takes over.



http://www.resolvematters.ca/09/images/file/Cable_Ampacity.pdf


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Almost always lurkin said:


> http://www.resolvematters.ca/09/images/file/Cable_Ampacity.pdf


Excellent post Almost always lurkin! The electrical contractor did what he thought was correct, and must have felt horrible when that fire happened.

I don't see any significant changes in the code since then, but I may have missed it.

You would almost need to build a boxed in metal plenum type chamber, that would allow adequate dissipation of heat. That may eliminate the buildings owner from later adding blown in insulation over top of your code compliant install. ( not that that's exactly what happened in this article ).

Kinda makes ECs a bit nervous I would think. 

Borgi


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> http://www.resolvematters.ca/09/images/file/Cable_Ampacity.pdf


That link is gold :thumbup::thumbup: 


This is why IEC based codes do not use a one size fits all table. Rather they calculate based on cable environment. IEC would have required that cable to be de-rated to half or something. 

I remember a study was done years ago on SER to subpanels where 310.15 B 7 has mistakenly been applied. The results were near identical to this and I think are what lead code to restrict SER to 60*C in thermal insulation.


Does anyone remember that link? I Lost it


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

This you can play with. Click on IEC, and then look at "installation reference" You final wire size will vary based on what method is used. 


http://www.cablesizer.com/


----------

