NEMA Currents : Safety and Standardization

Tamper-Resistant Receptacle Requirements in 2008 NEC Adopted in 29 States

Moldoveanu, Andrei — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:20:00 GMT

With 30 states having completed adoption processes for the 2008 National Electrical Code® (NEC), support for section 406.11, which requires tamper-resistant receptacles to be installed in new homes, has been overwhelmingly positive.

Twenty-nine of the 30 states have adopted the 2008 NEC with the tamper-resistant Code intact. These include: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming. Alabama, Illinois and Texas jurisdictions are enforcing the Code at local levels. Wisconsin adopted the Code last year, but put a delay on implementation until Jan. 1, 2010.

In addition, 14 states are presently considering NEC adoption.

To date, only Indiana has rejected section 406.11, and electrical safety advocates hope the decision might be overturned when the state's residential code is revised. Officials in Georgia, Kentucky and Ohio initially resisted the tamper-resistant Code adoption, but the decisions were overturned after considering feedback from electrical experts, medical professionals and local citizens.

The officials in those 29 states should be commended for embracing a greater level of child electrical safety. But the real credit goes to the local representatives of supportive organizations like the American Burn Association, Safe Kids USA, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, the International Association of Electrical Inspectors, the National Electrical Contractors Association, and Electrical Safety Foundation International. Without their help, the Code adoption status at "half-time" probably wouldn't be the same.

For more information, visit www.childoutletsafety.org.

SAE Should Adopt Trinational Cable Tie Requirements

leibowitzm — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:42:00 GMT

The SAE AE-8C2 Committee, which is responsible for maintaining SAE AS 23190, Straps, clamps and mounting hardware: Plastic and metal for cable harness tying and support, should strongly consider adoption of the trinational cable tie requirements in the soon-to-be-approved North American adoption of IEC 62275, Cable ties for electrical installations.

In its current state, AS 23190 does not recognize the improvements in cable tie material technologies that NEMA members have introduced that will satisfy the performance characteristics needed for extreme altitudes and temperature changes that cable ties in military air frames must withstand. The AE-8C2 Committee's recent willingness to work with NEMA Cable Ties Section members to consider the North American-based IEC standard is a positive development. This adoption will bring the AS 23190 requirements up to date and enable the cable ties industry to meet the military's ongoing performance needs through a flexible CANENA maintenance process.

Investigators call Soldier’s electrocution “negligent homicide”

Winstanley, Gerard — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:33:00 GMT

The death of a soldier electrocuted while showering at a military facility in Iraq a year ago may be changed from accidental death to negligent homicide. Army criminal investigators say that KBR, the largest US contractor in Iraq, may have failed to have qualified electricians and plumbers undertaking installation work at military camps. Up to 18 other deaths of military personnel and contracts have been blamed on faulty wiring or grounding. The installation codes and inspection practices developed in this country over the last 100 years have brought us unparalleled electrical safety, but they require a strict adherence to the rules the industry has developed. A process in which NEMA, and it's members, have taken a leading role. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan spend their days in harms way, they should not have to face danger in their down time. They deserve the same levels of electrical safety that we enjoy at home.

Nanotech Start-ups: Can Other People Build It?

leibowitzm — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:57:00 GMT

I read an excellent article from the October 3, 2008 edition of the N.Y. Times Magazine about the world of budding renewable energy companies and the role and function of venture capital companies in supporting them in their efforts to commercialize products. The article provided four basic questions, the answers of which determine largely whether a small start-up company survives; “Can it be built? How hard is it to build it? And if you can build it, can other people build it just as well?”...and..."Will anyone buy it?”

On the question of whether other people can build it, that ability, in the nanotechnology world depends on whether standards exist that one can build it to. In the case of electrical and electronic products that function on the nanoscale, international standards for characterizing the electrical attributes of nanotube, rods, particles and other structures are key to providing the customer a uniform way of evaluating nanomaterials from mulitple suppliers as that material interacts in an end product. And standard methods for assessing reliability and consistency in the manufacturing process are essential to mass production.

It is through IEC TC 113 that these standards are developed, and it is the U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to TC 113 that creates a favorable business model for U.S. nano-electrotechnical firms in the international arena. But the TAG will only be successful if U.S. manufacturing and research organizations in the field get involved.

Of Clocks and Teakettles...

Winstanley, Gerard — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:03:00 GMT

Last week Cosmologist Stephen Hawkins unveiled the spectacular new Corpus Christi clock at Cambridge University. The clock has no hands but uses rotating rings and flashing blue LED lights to indicate the time. The mechanism is entirely mechanical and the fantastical insect or Chronophage (time eater) astride the device is a tribute to the 18th century English clockmaker John Harrison inventor of the grasshopper escapement mechanism.

The clock was designed and funded by inventor Dr. John Taylor who made his fortune from electric kettle controls. His father founded Otter Controls after the Second World War and developed the bimetallic snap action thermostat. This device is used in residential control and for motor protection equipment around the world. John Taylor inherited his father’s inventiveness and has 150 patents to his name. He took Strix Limited, a company split off from Otter to develop thermostats, on to become the biggest supplier of electric control interfaces for electric kettles and other fluid-heating and water-boiling appliances in the world.

As Secretary to IEC TC72, Automatic controls for Household Use, I will be in China for the TC72 Plenary meeting. Among other things we will be considering a proposal for a new specification for a safety cutout device being presented by representatives of both Otter Controls and Strix limited. Hopefully we will have a chance to pay tribute to one of the pioneers of residential controls products – perhaps we will celebrate with a nice cup of tea!

IEEE Standards Board Approves Project to Develop Copycat Standard?

baclawskiv — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:14:00 GMT

From the "What could they have been thinking?" desk.

On December 7, 2005, the IEEE Standards Board approved a Project Approval Request (PAR) for a new project to develop a standard for "Ground Rod Electrode, Clamp & Coupling Specification" (http://standards.ieee.org/board/nes/projects/C135-30.pdf). The project was intended to revitalize a standard, C135.30-1988, which was originally developed by ANSI and allowed to expire back in 1993. The scope of the project states, "This standard provides requirements for materials, test, performance, and manufacture of ground rod electrodes and threaded and threadless ground rod couplings. Specifically included are ground rod electrodes of copper-coated steel, hot-dip galvanized steel, and stainless steel for grounding application."

Hello! Has anyone heard of ANSI/NEMA GR 1-2007, Ground Rod Electrodes and Grounding Rod Electrode Couplings" (http://www.nema.org/stds/complimentary-docs/upload/GR1-2007_final.pdf)? GR 1 has a very similar scope and has been around for several years, making the C135.30 redundant. And ANSI GR 1-2001 is even identified in PAR, which states "this new standard [C135.30-200x] incorporates requirements from ANSI Approved/NEMA Standard GR-1-2001."

What could the IEEE Standards Board have been thinking when they approved a project to develop a standard that is redundant to one that already exists?

Even more surprising, at least a couple of the members of the ANSI Accredited Standards Committee, GR, which approved ANSI/GR 1-2007, are also members of the IEEE Working Group that revitalized C135.30.

What could they have been thinking? Why would you work to develop a standard for a set of products under one standards developer and then go to another standards developer to work on a redundant standard?

Finally, rumor has it that more than a little of the content of ANSI/NEMA GR 1 has been "borrowed" for the C135.30 standard. The PAR clearly states that "IEEE will need permission from NEMA to incorporate the GR 1 specification into the C135.30 document." While IEEE has either approved or is about to approve C135.50 as an IEEE standard, NEMA permission to use its intellectual property has not been sought by IEEE and has not been given by NEMA.

What could IEEE have been thinking to approve a standard that "borrows" intellectual property from another standard developer without that developers consent? Hello, has anyone heard of copyright violation?

Folks, don't we all have enough work on our plates without developing redundant, duplicate standards through different standards developers and different working groups? Anyone who participated in the revitalization of C135.30 has an open invitation to join the ASC GR and participate in the next revision of ANSI/NEMA GR 1.

One parting question. I wonder what the ANSI Board of Standards Review will do when IEEE seeks ANSI approval for C135.30? What will the BSR be thinking?

Vince Baclawski

Senior Technical Director

Codes and Standards

NEMA

Secretary, ASC GR

VAP on Parade

Eckhart, Eugene — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:07:00 GMT

Once again, as is done every two years, hundreds of hours of valuable time have been expended to solicit, respond, collate, and distribute a report on the status of the adoption of IEC standards by the 21 member economies of APEC, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. Everyone in the private sector involved in this years’ effort, one that covered 168 targeted IEC standards, has remarked to anyone who would listen that the effort has contributed not one iota of additional electrical safety to the millions of consumers in these economies nor to the commercial success of manufacturers who provide the products. One wonders, why are we doing this?Sorry – what is VAP, you ask. Voluntary Action Plan, which outlines each member economy’s alignment of their standards with “international” standards. So, what’s the goal here – safe electrical installations or high VAP alignment scores? Ask the millions of parents, administrators, fire officials, etc. who see the big picture and they will tell you safety trumps alignment hands down. The APEC bureaucrats, on the other hand, take great delight in reporting their high alignment numbers, and equal delight questioning the not-so-stellar alignment of USA.To understand what is going on, and the distortions that are reflected in the VAP report, one has to have some understanding of the requirements of a safe electrical system, namely an installation code, product standards, testing and certification, and inspection. Omit any one of these and the safety of the system is suspect. Every safe and reliable electrical installation requires dozens of different types of products to function, from wires and switches, to protection devices and outlets, to conduits and junction boxes, to…you get the point. So we look at the compilation of the statistics and see that some economies only need 16 different standards to do all of this (!) and get a 100% alignment score, while others require dozens of standards (and effective product certification and effective inspection) but get low marks because many of their standards do not reference IEC standards. As if they are the only international electrical standards in play. What else are the statistics failing to disclose? That manufacturers of a number of products that seek IEC inclusion are being denied it because of antiquated IEC rules that permit an entrenched network of standards gurus to refuse to take action to include all the world’s safe products in IEC standards, or regularly stymie the efforts of those dedicated individuals who sincerely think their products should be available to consumers world-wide based on their history of safe, reliable performance. Of course this provides obvious commercial benefits to those who can maintain the status quo.

Advocating for NPT Thread Standards

leibowitzm — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:21:00 GMT

National Pipe Thread Tapered (NPT) dimensions are essential for the proper mating of electrical cables to their threaded connections, most notably in North America, but in a multitude of cable installations around the world as well. As new standard IEC 62444, Cable glands, is developed, it is critical for the membership of the project team (PT 62444) in charge of the development work to ensure that the standard recognizes not only metric thread dimensions but NPT thread dimensions as well. This can be done either in the main body of the standard or as part of a normative annex.

So far so good. IEC Subcommmittee 23A PT62444 is to be commended for setting the stage for a truly global standard, where it has agreed to include in a second committee draft, a normative annex to cover these dimensions. Still, North American members on the PT must not be complacent but rather, continue to advocate acceptance of NPT threads in IEC 62444 to its completion.

NEMA - Working On A Heartbeat

Orr, Paul — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:52:00 GMT

More recently, the appearance of an equipment box with the symbol of a red heart and the letters “AED” are in hallways of schools and office buildings. Do we know what the letters AED stand for? It is an automated external defibrillator…An automated external defibrillator is a device that can be attached to your chest. It senses your heart's rhythm during cardiac arrest and, in some cases, delivers an electric shock to get your heart beating again.It is estimated that on average it takes eight to 10 minutes for first responders (9-1-1) to reach a victim so it is essential for the public to be trained and certified in performing CPR and using an AED until advanced help arrives. As secretariat for the Accredited Standards Committee for Safety Signs and Colors, ANSI Z535, and the International Standards Organization’s Technical Advisory Group for ISO TC 145, NEMA facilitates work to develop standardization of safety symbols such as the red heart with a jagged white lightning bolt on the AED equipment. NEMA’s finger remains on the pulse and we’re not missing a beat….