Thread: Sticky labels on GEC

...............

No, but there is a concern about those white conductors being used for hot conductors and not being "permanently re-identified by painting or other effective means", and tape is neither permanent nor effective over the long term (as in "permanent time period").

Originally Posted by dan orourke

At bottom right of panel (see circled area) there is a label wrapped around the
GEC. Any concerns of this?

NEC 240.24(C) Overcurrent devices shall not be located in the vicinity of easily ignitable material . . .


Aaron

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

NEC 240.24(C) Overcurrent devices shall not be located in the vicinity of easily ignitable material . . .

Aaron,

First, when reading codes, you must figure out what the code section is about.

240.24 Location in or on Premises.

Thus, 242.24 does not apply to "in the panel enclosure" items.

That little label is not going to cause a problem.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Aaron,

First, when reading codes, you must figure out what the code section is about.

240.24 Location in or on Premises.

Thus, 242.24 does not apply to "in the panel enclosure" items.

That little label is not going to cause a problem.

Jerry:

That's your interpretation and you are certainly welcome to it. In addition you may want to attempt to refute NEC 110.18 regarding this matter as well as contacting the following folks who will certainly disagree with you:

Rick Snapp
Product Technical Support Group
Square D Company - Lexington Plant
E-Mail: rick.snapp@us.schneider-electric.com

National Electrical Manufacturers Association
1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1752
Rosslyn, Virginia 22209
Telephone: (703) 841-3236
Fax: (703) 841-3336
ATTN: Vince Baclawski
email: vin_baclawski@nema.org

Thanks,

Aaron

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

That's your interpretation and you are certainly welcome to it.

Aaron,

It is not *my interpretation*, it is the way the code, *ALL* codes are broken down.

In addition you may want to attempt to refute NEC 110.18 regarding this matter

S-T-E-P A-W-A-Y F-R-O-M T-H-E C-O-D-E B-O-O-K and lay it on the table ... now raise your hands above your head ... now slowly turn around ...

Aaron, before you start spouting code here (or anywhere) you first need to learn how to read codes and how they are written, and their formatting.

This is your latest reference NEC 110.18 purporting to prohibit that label: (underlining is mine)

110.18 Arcing Parts.
- Parts of electric equipment that in ordinary operation produce arcs, sparks, flames, or molten metal shall be enclosed or separated and isolated from all combustible material.

NOTHING in electrical panels, "during ordinary operation", "produce" "arcs, sparks, flames, or molten metal", thus, again, you are using non-applicable code references.

Before you get yourself into serious trouble with builders and your clients, you really do need to learn HOW TO READ codes, and how and why they are formatted and broken into the different sections they are written in.

Jerry, you are absolutely right on this.

Originally Posted by imported_John Smith

Jerry, you are absolutely right on this.

No one is ever absolutely right, not even Jerry.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

No one is ever absolutely right, not even Jerry.

Something I admit to frequently, but, on this ... I am correct.

You don't just go into the code, find a sentence you like, and apply it to whatever you are talking about - you *must first* read what the section you found applies to, *then* read it to see if indeed it even applies, because it might be in that section and not be applicable to your situation (which was not even your case, you did not read to see what those sections applied to).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Something I admit to frequently, but, on this ... I am correct.

You don't just go into the code, find a sentence you like, and apply it to whatever you are talking about - you *must first* read what the section you found applies to, *then* read it to see if indeed it even applies, because it might be in that section and not be applicable to your situation (which was not even your case, you did not read to see what those sections applied to).

Jerry:

Now I know you are a man of knowledge when it comes to the code. So, let me preface what I'm about to say with the fact that I respect the pool of knowledge and experience from which you draw. Now that I have performed my obligatory genuflection, I must say that, your prowess in the field notwithstanding, you are not the arbiter of all that is correct in this or any other field.

There are at least two aspects one must take into account when interpretting any model code: the letter of the code, and the spirit of the code. The spirit seems to have departed from you due to your overstay in the rarified air of the ivory towers of the engineers on high.

Additionally, the model code is never the final authority, and the AHJ is never the final authority. Never. That's why the model code, in IRC R112, made provisions for the board of appeals. The board of appeals is but another step on the way to the final authority which is the district court or beyond.

So, after one such as yourself has interpreted the runes of the code, it is then left up to members of the general public to decide if your take on things is or is not in their best interest. For the most part the average guy has not suffered from the deprivation of the oxygen of common sense that plagues so many engineering firms that have learned to make a buck in the code business. I have found that quite often their opinions are at odds with those of the AHJs.

Model codes also reference a plethora of documentation that must be taken into account in any decision-making process. And, in a court of law, that body of supporting documentation has the ability to expand into infinity. So, whatever may have been a cut-and-dried-this-is-what-Jerry-thinks situation has the propensity to develop into a whole other creature. That would be a bite-Jerry-in-the-ass creature.

Back to the common sense thing (Jerry take a hit of that oxygen mask now). Anyone with even a modicum of control over their faculties would have to admit that readily combustible items in the presence of electrical connections is not such a great idea. Even if the powers that be at NEC did not specifically say "do not attach paper labels to wiring in distribution panels", why would a sane person want to do that? And even if they did make that exact statement, verbatim, someone from engineeringworld could find an argument to support the opposite. Engineers are like that you know.

But, again it's not up to the engineers in the end, but the courts. And, the condition of the house that is being viewed by any inspector is to be determined as follows: "Thus, it is up to the purchaser to determine the soundness of the building prior to the finalization of the purchase or to hire a professional inspector." Legal Aspects of Code Administration, ICC 2002, pg. 83.

Jerry, let us agree then to disagree,

Aaron

Aaron,

I see you higher up on the mountain flailing away with your arms and making smoke signals, but, in the real world, and the spirit world of the code, your code references do not hold the holy water you are pretending to sprinkle into it.

Flail away, my friend.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Aaron,

I see you higher up on the mountain flailing away with your arms and making smoke signals, but, in the real world, and the spirit world of the code, your code references do not hold the holy water you are pretending to sprinkle into it.

Flail away, my friend.

Friar Peck:

I realize they may do things differently down in Flah-dah than they do here in Texas. I mean, after all, Flah-dah is the only state in the Union that is currently being dissed by the state departments of other countries like Germany and France. Tourist boycotts, something to do with gun-totin' , flaming loonies or the like. But, I digress.

I have served as an expert in several legal situations where either the municipality's building inspector and/or the third-party firm to whom they farm out their inspections have been successfully sued due to "selective code enforcement" tactics based on specious opinions rendered by AHJs. Though I don't point a finger at you or your firm regarding this, you must be aware that these situations occur.

As I have stated before and still contend, I won't pretend to be right. There is always someone else who, under the right circumstances and with sufficient effort, can topple the best constructed house of cards. It all just depends on the velocity of the wind and from which direction it is blown.

I personally think that it's important to convey to the lesser experienced amongst us that they have a right and a responsibility to express their well-researched opinions as home inspectors. Kowtowing to builders, municipal inspectors and their ilk, when they are obviously misinformed, is a sin that I refuse to commit.

Flailing away,

Aaron

ROTFLMAO I see more flammable material on the UPC code attached to the breakers.
You guys are throwing spears at an ant.

Originally Posted by Bob Elliott

ROTFLMAO I see more flammable material on the UPC code attached to the breakers.
You guys are throwing spears at an ant.

Yeah, you're right. It's been fun, but I quit . . . Hope Jerry didn't take it to heart.

Aaron

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

I personally think that it's important to convey to the lesser experienced amongst us that they have a right and a responsibility to express their well-researched opinions as home inspectors.

Not only the right, but an obligation to express those opinions.

Also, though, the wherewithal to acknowledge when they have made a shambles of the code by applying inappropriate code sections willy-nilly as fits their need.

Kowtowing to builders, municipal inspectors and their ilk, when they are obviously misinformed, is a sin that I refuse to commit.

Something I wholeheartedly agree with (and something many of us in South Florida did not do, thereby not only creating a mutual respect for the AHJ and those HIs who properly knew their code and code apply it convincingly to those AHJ such that the opinions of the AHJ were, many times, changed to reflect the other point of view (that given by the HI) ).

One must, however, seek out those opinions (of the AHJ) so as to know where the local AHJ stand on the various issues.

When looking at the wires that appear to be neutrals, You can't help but see that a black and a white (with red identifying it as hot) are connected to a 240 volt breaker. Now tell me what is wrong with that?

Stay Curious,
Don

Originally Posted by Don Randazzo

and a white (with red identifying it as hot) are connected to a 240 volt breaker. Now tell me what is wrong with that?

White conductors are not allowed to be used as hot conductors, unless - (and this has been discussed here many times and the result is always the same, with some saying that 'tape' 'is permanent', and it is not) - , unless the white color is permanently reidentified by painting or other effective means (permanent means), and, that this permanent reidentification is required to be done at all locations where the conductors are visible and accessible, meaning not only the white at the breakers, but the other end at whatever it goes to, and at each and every junction box, pull box, etc., it goes into or through.

(underlining is mine)
- 200.7 Use of Insulation of a White or Gray Color or with Three Continuous White Stripes.
- - (A) General. The following shall be used only for the grounded circuit conductor, unless otherwise permitted in 200.7(B) and (C):
- - - (1) A conductor with continuous white or gray covering
- - - (2) A conductor with three continuous white stripes on other than green insulation
- - - (3) A marking of white or gray color at the termination
- - (C) Circuits of 50 Volts or More. The use of insulation that is white or gray or that has three continuous white stripes for other than a grounded conductor for circuits of 50 volts or more shall be permitted only as in (1) through (3).
- - - (1) If part of a cable assembly and where the insulation is permanently reidentified to indicate its use as an ungrounded conductor, by painting or other effective means at its termination, and at each location where the conductor is visible and accessible.
- - - (2) Where a cable assembly contains an insulated conductor for single-pole, 3-way or 4-way switch loops and the conductor with white or gray insulation or a marking of three continuous white stripes is used for the supply to the switch but not as a return conductor from the switch to the switched outlet. In these applications, the conductor with white or gray insulation or with three continuous white stripes shall be permanently reidentified to indicate its use by painting or other effective means at its terminations and at each location where the conductor is visible and accessible.
- - - (3) Where a flexible cord, having one conductor identified by a white or gray outer finish or three continuous white stripes or by any other means permitted by 400.22, is used for connecting an appliance or equipment permitted by 400.7. This shall apply to flexible cords connected to outlets whether or not the outlet is supplied by a circuit that has a grounded conductor.
- - FPN: The color gray may have been used in the past as an ungrounded conductor. Care should be taken when working on existing systems.

"Tape" *is* allowed to reidentify black/red/brown/etc. to white as that reidentification *is not* required to be permanent. Only reidentifying white to another color is required to be permanent.

I have seen electricians use a red Sharpie marker to re-identify white as a hot lead as well. Over time, that will fade as well, given the heat in the breaker box. The best I have seen is an electrician that actually carries a small can of red enamel paint and paints the ends of the cable! Now THAT is pretty permanent.

-DON-

Originally Posted by Don Matthews

The best I have seen is an electrician that actually carries a small can of red enamel paint and paints the ends of the cable! Now THAT is pretty permanent.

It is, but ...

IS THAT PAINT approved for use on insulation?

If not latex paint, I'm sure it is not.

If latex paint, I'm sure it is not.

(Because I have not heard of any paint which is - does not mean there is none, just that I have not heard of it.)

BUT ... I doubt that latex paint is going to damage the insulation, whereas a paint which is solvent based likely will damage the insulation.

I knew an electrician years ago (make that decades ago) who carried fingernail polish with him for that purpose. I knew him very well. At that time, though, no one considered the effects of fingernail polish on the insulation. Fingernail polish is, after all, acetone solvent based, which is why fingernail polish remover is acetone based.

I really do not think that acetone is good for electrical insulation. (But, I must admit, I have never checked on it or tested it on electrical insulation.)

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Not only the right, but an obligation to express those opinions.

Also, though, the wherewithal to acknowledge when they have made a shambles of the code by applying inappropriate code sections willy-nilly as fits their need.



Something I wholeheartedly agree with (and something many of us in South Florida did not do, thereby not only creating a mutual respect for the AHJ and those HIs who properly knew their code and code apply it convincingly to those AHJ such that the opinions of the AHJ were, many times, changed to reflect the other point of view (that given by the HI) ).

One must, however, seek out those opinions (of the AHJ) so as to know where the local AHJ stand on the various issues.

Jerry:

Maybe I'm off track here, but I understood the purpose of prescriptive uniform codes such as the IRC and NEC was to eliminate as much as possible the ability of a "roll your own" attitude on the part of the AHJ. The meaning of the term "uniform" itself should give you a clue, Jerry.

My service area covers 10,000 square miles with 6,000,000+ residents in which reside about 200 AHJs. It would take every last minute of my time to even attempt to contact these guys on a regular basis, much less to have a heart-to-heart with each of them. I am not really interested in why they arrive at their spurious conclusions, but rather am concerned with getting my clients' houses built in a safe and sound fashion, that is to say: according to the codes.

Your arguments and tactics bear a close resemblence to those of AHJs who I've seen go down in flames in court when all of the evidence has been brought to bear. But, you certainly have a right to your opinion. And you absolutely have a right to hold sway from your bully pulpit in Flahdah. Your powers of perception, awsome as they may be, don't mean a thing where I work.

Kisses,

Aaron



Aaron

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Kisses,

Aaron

I feel the love.

But I ain't dropping my pants for anyone.

Well then, we have a problem with those labels on the circuit breakers, don't we? And the labels inside the panel boxes, wiring diagrams, rating and certification information, etc. and so forth?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I feel the love.

But I ain't dropping my pants for anyone.

I hear ya'.

Aaron

I get back from vacationing and find talking of "kisses" and "dropping of pants".

WTF did I miss and do I really want to know?

Rick:

Jerry was getting a bit flirty there for a minute. No broke-back goin' on here though. Hope your vacation was grand.

Aaron

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Rick:

Jerry was getting a bit flirty there for a minute. No broke-back goin' on here though. Hope your vacation was grand.

Aaron

Me?

You were the one who wanted to kiss ... never mind, like I said, I'm not dropping my pants for anyone.

Jerry:

Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer once said, "Too many palm trees make me nervous".

I think maybe they made YOU a little frisky there bud.

Aaron