Summary of NEC 2017 Entertainment Industry changes

[STEVETERRY]

The 2017 NEC is about to be published. Your entertainment industry NEC team on Code Panel 15 has been hard at work during this NEC cycle, and there are quite a few changes. The "Song & Dance Team" (as we are affectionately known by the rest of the Code Panel) is:

Ken Vannice
Steve Terry
Mitch Hefter
Eddie Kramer
Mike Skinner
Alan Rowe
Doug Rheinheimer
R. Duane Wilson

For those that are interested, see below for a top level summary of changes that affect the entertainment industry:


Summary of Entertainment Industry Changes to NEC 2017

· Section 406.15 that previously restricted receptacles on dimmers has now been removed in its entirety. It was the subject of two Tentative Interim Amendments exempting theatres and motion picture studios from its requirements. But now it’s gone entirely, having only lasted for the 2014 edition—good riddance!

· A new definition of an emergency “Directly Controlled Luminaire” has been added in section 700.2

· New Section 700.25 now covers the requirements for a new emergency control device, the “Branch Circuit Emergency Lighting Transfer Switch”. It is also defined in 700.2.

· A new definition of “adapter” has been added to 520.2

· “Portable Stage Switchboard” is now defined in 520.2, and its requirements have been updated in 520.53. Most notable is that these devices are now required to be listed.

· The requirement for GFCI protection on virtually all outdoor receptacles imposed by 210.8(B)(4) has been relaxed for outdoor outlets in theatres and other Article 520 venues by new wording in 520.9. This is because there are no longer GFCI dimmers or GFCI’s rated for dimmer use available. The same relaxation of the requirement for motion picture studios has been added in 530.23.

· Table 520.44(C)(3)—formerly table 520.44—has been modified to emphasize the 50% diversity requirement when sizing multicables to this table. Diversity has also been defined in an informational note to table 520.44(C) (3) (a).

· 520.53 covering construction of portable switchboards has been rewritten. Obsolete references to piano boards were removed, a listing requirement was added, and Supply Conductors were broken out into new section 520.54.

· 520.68(A)(3) now allows hard usage cables (type SJ and derivatives) on luminaire supply cords up to 2.0m (6.6 feet) rather than the previous 1.0m (3.3 feet). Hard usage cord is also now allowed in adapters and twofers up to a total length of 2.0m (6.6 feet) per assembly.

· Overcurrent protection of portable cords is now covered in 520.68(C). It reiterates that there are no special requirements or exemptions for article 520 by pointing back to 240.5.

· Dressing room requirements have changed significantly in 520.71 through 520.74:
-- “dressing areas” and “makeup areas” have been added, acknowledging that these functions also happen in places other than permanent dressing rooms
-- Lamp guards are now only required on exposed lamps
-- Pilot lights for circuits in these areas now need to be neon, LED, or other long-life types. They also need to be protected with a mechanical guard.

· In carnivals, circuses, and fairs covered by Article 525, GFCI receptacles fed by portable cord now need to be specifically listed for portable use. This will insure that these GFCI devices include open-neutral protection.

ST

 

[egilson1]

Thanks Steve. Very helpful.

 

[Erik456]

Thank you Steve!

 

[danTt]

<snip>

· 520.68(A)(3) now allows hard usage cables (type SJ and derivatives) on luminaire supply cords up to 2.0m (6.6 feet) rather than the previous 1.0m (3.3 feet). Hard usage cord is also now allowed in adapters and twofers up to a total length of 2.0m (6.6 feet) per assembly.

<snip>

Thanks for all of this!

I know this gets discussed a lot, but I don't know if I've seen in previous discussions the thought process behind the length limitations on SJ cable. What makes a cable/adaptor > 2meters more likely to need heavier jacketing? Is it just that they are harder to inspect quickly?

Also... I see for twofers that a total length of 2.0M is allowed, is this 2.0M/branch of the twofer? or would a twofer with two 1.5M "legs" be over the limit?

 

[RickR]

Congratulations to the team. That's quite a list!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[derekleffew]

Also... I see for twofers that a total length of 2.0M is allowed, is this 2.0M/branch of the twofer? or would a twofer with two 1.5M "legs" be over the limit?

Two 1.5m legs [= 3.0 total] > 2.0m total cord, therefore not allowed.
From four years (!) ago*:
https://www.controlbooth.com/threads/stage-pin-quad-box.28839/page-2#post-257994
Nothing says twofers must be isosceles, but most users would hate 0.5m+1.5m, regardless of how handy they might be in certain situations.

*Code changes move slowly:

1. You can propose a new change to the NEC, but earliest opportunity would be for the 2017 Code. You would have to make your proposal by fall of 2014.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that."

 

[STEVETERRY]

I know this gets discussed a lot, but I don't know if I've seen in previous discussions the thought process behind the length limitations on SJ cable. What makes a cable/adaptor > 2meters more likely to need heavier jacketing? Is it just that they are harder to inspect quickly?

Over many years, beginning with the early days of article 520, the thinking has been that a theatre is a place where cable is subject to damage from moving scenery and the like. Type SJ and derivatives have been subsequently allowed in applications where they are short enough to be unlikely to sustain physical damage, or where extra-hard-usage cord is simply not practical such as in breakout assemblies. Every code cycle, I half expect to see a public proposal and justification allowing hard usage cord in all applications, but such a proposal has never been forthcoming. I have no idea whether such a proposal would pass or fail, but it does not even get debated by Code Panel 15 without a proposal to trigger that debate.

ST

 

[garyvp]

Steve,

Many thanks to you and the panel! What a bunch of sensible changes!

· New Section 700.25 now covers the requirements for a new emergency control device, the “Branch Circuit Emergency Lighting Transfer Switch”. It is also defined in 700.2.

What is this? Our emergency lighting is on a separate service. Is this a service to service flip?

· Table 520.44(C)(3)—formerly table 520.44—has been modified to emphasize the 50% diversity requirement when sizing multicables to this table. Diversity has also been defined in an informational note to table 520.44(C) (3) (a).

Wow - do you mean the next time I attempt to explain diversity to my electrician he won't think I made it up? Or have to show him copies of your published articles on diversity which he doesn't really want to read?

Section 406.15 that previously restricted receptacles on dimmers has now been removed in its entirety

Being an old establishment, we have a mix of these - as do most theaters - thanks.

520.68(A)(3) now allows hard usage cables (type SJ and derivatives) on luminaire supply cords up to 2.0m (6.6 feet) rather than the previous 1.0m (3.3 feet). Hard usage cord is also now allowed in adapters and twofers up to a total length of 2.0m (6.6 feet) per assembly.

And this is helpful. We never exceed 550w on any luminaire (small space and old-school technology) and SJ is much easier to deal with.

 

[STEVETERRY]

You asked:

"What is this? Our emergency lighting is on a separate service. Is this a service to service flip?"

The Branch Circuit Emergency Lighting Transfer Switch (BCELTS) defined in 700.2 and covered in 700.25 is a new class of transfer switch. It is tested to UL 1008, the standard for transfer switch equipment, and must meet all the diabolical performance and endurance requirements of that standard. It is suitable for transferring emergency lighting loads only, up to a maximum of 20A, between a normal branch circuit and an emergency branch circuit. It does not need to have the mechanically held mechanism mandated by 700.5(C) for general purpose emergency transfer switches, which are usually large three or four pole feeder-level devices.

Previously, Automatic Load Control Relays (ALCRs) tested to UL924 (Emergency Lighting and Power Equipment) sometimes had a transfer function. However, they were prohibited from being used as transfer equipment by 700.26 (NEC 2017--was 700. 25 in NEC2014), and had not undergone any performance testing required of transfer switches. The BCELTS should resolve this issue, and should be much more economical than scaled-down general purpose emergency transfer switches being used in branch circuit applications--due to the lack of a mechanical hold requirement for BCELTS.

ST

 

[porkchop]

What resources are there to see if the extra-hard requirement if fulfilled by cable that doesn't supply an S-type designation? I see a lot of Lapp OLFLEX 190 cable in my day to day. It's real nice stuff to work with, but I don't actually know if it stands up to the extra-hard requirement.

Should it help Lapp rates their cable as MP-02 on this chart for mechanical protection:
http://www.lappusa.com/Cableatt-mech.htm

 

[STEVETERRY]

What resources are there to see if the extra-hard requirement if fulfilled by cable that doesn't supply an S-type designation? I see a lot of Lapp OLFLEX 190 cable in my day to day. It's real nice stuff to work with, but I don't actually know if it stands up to the extra-hard requirement.

Should it help Lapp rates their cable as MP-02 on this chart for mechanical protection:
http://www.lappusa.com/Cableatt-mech.htm

You raise a very interesting but somewhat imponderable question. A few years back, I asked UL to provide me with the mechanical standard for performance of extra hard usage cables. Their answer: "There isn't one. These cables are only defined by their insulation and jacket materials and thickness." Then UL said: "Pay us to test an existing extra hard usage cable for slit, abrasion, flex performance. Then we'll tell you what those figures are and test your 'new' cable against them." I did just that, only to find out that it's almost impossible to meet the performance of an extra hard usage cable using a thinner jacket or thinner conductor insulation, even with more advanced materials. End result: a $50K failed science experiment that I would not repeat.

ST