You are here: Home » Features » Installations and Inspections of Corner-grounded

Systems

Installations and Inspections of Corner-

grounded Systems
[ 0 ] By Michael Johnston | January 11, 2002 |

Photo 1

Electrical systems are grounded to limit the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges, or
unintentional contact with higher voltage lines and to stabilize the voltage to earth during
normal operation. Electrical systems can be grounded in several ways. There are induction
grounded systems, resistance grounded systems, and high impedance grounded systems
among others. The most common grounded system is the solidly grounded system, where
there is no intentional grounding impedance in the earthing or grounding circuit. Common
solidly grounded systems are 3-phase, 4-wire, high-leg delta systems; 3-phase, 4-wire, wye-
connected systems; and 1-phase 3-wire grounded systems.
Figure 1. Alternating current-circuits and systems required to be grounded

Generally, the serving utilities will not supply an electric service by a system that is not
grounded. In the past, this was permitted under certain conditions. For example, in some
industrial establishments, it was desired to have an ungrounded system to ensure continuity of
service and eliminate costly downtime. Usually ground detectors were installed on these
services. Current industry practices still make use of the ungrounded systems for many of the
same reasons; however, these ungrounded systems are usually derived on the load side of the
service equipment and are monitored for accidental ground faults by ground detection
monitoring equipment. The decision to operate a grounded system as compared to an
ungrounded system should be weighed carefully. Some advantages of the grounded systems
are: the reference to ground from the system, stabilizing the voltages to ground, and
localizing ground faults to the offending branch circuit or feeder.

Figure 2. Corner grounded systems

Section 200.2 reads as follows:

“”200.2 General. All premises wiring systems, other than circuits and systems exempted or
prohibited by 210.10, 215.7, 250.21, 250.22, 250.162, 503.13, 517.63, 668.11, 668.21, and
690.41, Exception, shall have a grounded conductor that is identified in accordance with
200.6.”"1

The NEC requires a premises wiring system to be connected to a grounded system. Section
200.3 reads as follows:

“”200.3 Connection to Grounded System. Premises wiring shall not be electrically

connected to a supply system unless the latter contains, for any grounded conductor of the
interior system, a corresponding conductor that is grounded. For the purpose of this section,
electrically connected shall mean connected so as to be capable of carrying current, as
distinguished from connection through electromagnetic induction.”2

Corner-grounded Systems
Figure 3. Fusible switch for corner-grounded delta system

The uncommon grounded system is a 3-phase, 3-wire corner-grounded delta system. This is a
system where one of the phase conductors of the 3-phase delta bank is intentionally
grounded. Corner-grounded systems were used to supply services serving only a 3-phase load
such as a well pump. Three-phase corner-grounded systems were also installed in the past as
the main service for many commercial or industrial occupancies. These are becoming more
and more scarce because of the increased use of grounded systems with usable voltages: 120-
volts and 277-volts. In a corner-grounded system, the voltage-to-ground on the ungrounded
phase conductors is the same as the voltage between phase conductors. An example is a 480-
volt corner-grounded delta system. The phase-to-phase and phase-to-ground voltage is the
same 480-volts. This affects which circuit breakers or equipment may be used on corner-
grounded systems in conformance to NEC requirements (see figure 3).

Rules for Grounded Conductors

Whether the system is a common grounded system or one that is rarely installed these days,
the rules for the grounded conductors of such systems are the same. Important requirements
for the grounded conductor of grounded electrical systems or services are found in Article
200, which deals with identification of grounded conductors and their terminals. The
grounded conductor is required to be an identified conductor of the system or service. Sizes 6
AWG and smaller generally are required to be identified by white or natural gray insulation
for its entire length. Sizes larger than 6 AWG are permitted to be identified by white or
natural gray insulation; by three white or natural gray stripes along the entire length of the
conductor‟s insulation, on other than green insulation; or at their points of termination by
distinctive white markings that encircle the conductor, such as colored tape or painting. This
identification is required for both grounded conductors and corner-grounded delta systems.
Photo 2

Other important requirements for grounded conductors are found in 240.22; these prohibit the
installation of overcurrent devices in series with any conductor that is grounded. Two
restrictive conditions listed in 240.22 allow this installation: The first is where the overcurrent
protective device opens all conductors of the circuit, including the grounded conductor; and
the second is where fuses are used for overload protection for motors and motor circuits in
accordance with 430.36. Section 240.22 reads as follows:

“”240.22. Grounded Conductor. No overcurrent device shall be connected in series with

any conductor that is intentionally grounded, unless one of the following two conditions are
met:

(1) The overcurrent device opens all conductors of the circuit, including the grounded
conductor, and is designed so that no pole can operate independently.

(2) Where required by 430.36 or 430.37 for motor overload protection.”"3

Figure 4. Corner-grounded delta system

Section 230.75 requires a means be provided at the service equipment for disconnecting a
grounded conductor. This disconnecting means may be a disconnect link, a terminal, or lug to
which the grounded conductor connects at the service. The disconnect link is used in larger
service equipment to accomplish required isolation for testing of dielectric values and testing
of GFP equipment.
Another important requirement relative to grounded conductors of ground systems appears in
250.24(A)(5). Here it is clear that connections to ground by a grounded conductor
downstream of the service disconnect is restricted. This is to prevent return current flowing
on the grounded conductor from flowing over the equipment grounding conductors or other
grounded equipment while returning to the source. Section 250.24(A)(5) reads as follows:

“5) Load-Side Grounding Connections. A grounding connection shall not be made to any
grounded circuit conductor on the load side of the service disconnecting means except as
otherwise permitted in this article.”4

Photo 3

The fine print note to this section indicates three locations and applications where this is still
acceptable: (1) for separately derived systems, (2) for connections at separate buildings of
structures, and (3) for use of the grounded circuit conductor for grounding equipment.
Caution should be exercised here when determining whether any of these conditions stated in
the FPN would be allowed on a grounded phase conductor.

Low Impedance Path

Section 250.24(B) requires that a grounded conductor of a service be installed with the
service conductors, be brought to the service disconnecting means enclosure, and be bonded
to the service disconnecting means enclosure. Service equipment is built and labeled either
“Suitable for use as Service Equipment” or “Suitable for use only as Service Equipment.”
One important feature of equipment that bears either of these markings is that provisions are
employed in the equipment that accomplish the bonding of the grounded conductor to the
disconnecting means enclosure. The grounded conductor connection in the service disconnect
serves two vital purposes. In normal operation, the grounded conductor, which is usually the
neutral conductor of the system or service, will carry the unbalanced return current to the
source. In ground-fault conditions, the grounded conductor is required to serve as the low
impedance path for fault current back to the serving transformer. The serving utility provides
service that includes a grounded conductor, but very rarely an equipment grounding
conductor. Sizing this grounded conductor must include provisions to carry the anticipated
load current and any fault current for clearing overcurrent devices. The path for fault current
must be effective, permanent and continuous, have ample capacity, and be of lowest possible
impedance (see 250.24(D) and 220.22).

Figure 5. Application of circuit breakers on a corner-grounded system

Rules for Circuit Breakers and Equipment in Corner-grounded Systems

Circuit breakers used in corner-grounded systems must be chosen carefully and applied
within their ratings. Slash-rated breakers must also be used within their ratings. Typical slash-
rated breakers would be 120/208 volts or 277/480 volts. Typical markings on strait-rated
breakers would be 240 volts, 480 volts, or 600 volts. Corner-grounded systems usually
require strait-rated breakers to be installed in the system. The breakers are required to have a
rating equal to the highest rated voltage-to-ground on any of the poles of the breaker. For
example, breakers installed on a corner-grounded 480-volt system are not permitted to be
rated at 480/277-volts. The lower voltage value in that rating is the phase-to-ground voltage
rating. On a 480-volt corner-grounded system, the phase-to-ground voltage would be 480
volts, not 277 volts.

Equipment must also be properly rated to be used in corner-grounded systems. For example,
service equipment for a corner-grounded 240-volt, 3-phase system must be marked “Suitable
for use as Service Equipment,” and be marked with the appropriate ratings. Service
equipment used on a 3-phase, 3-wire corner-grounded system is required to bear the markings
indicating suitability. The equipment should be marked 3-phase, 3-wire 240-volts. If it is a
480-volt system, it should be marked 3-phase, 3-wire 480-volts. The slash-rated 480-volt
equipment would be suitable for use on the 240-volt system because it would be used within
its voltage limitations.
Photo 4

Some switchboards and panelboards carry dual or multiple voltage ratings. It is important to
verify the types of circuit breakers allowed when used at the various voltage levels. Extra
care should be taken here to properly apply the product within its ratings. The Code is silent
on a required field marking indicating which voltage is applied, although it is probably a
good practice to mark the multiple voltage equipment with the applied voltage in the field.
The Code requires field marking of equipment when used in series rating combinations. The
series-rated devices must be applied within their voltage test combinations and ratings. It is
important if that equipment applied in a series rating combination at a voltage level above its
rating be appropriately used. An example would be a 480-volt 3-phase, 3-wire series-rated
combination system applied on a 240-volt 3-phase applied voltage. The key here is that the
equipment is required to carry markings indicating suitability for such series ratings at the
applied voltages. This indicates that evaluations have been made for conformance assessment
by a qualified electrical testing laboratory.

Grounding (Earthing) the System

If the system is corner-grounded, then there will be a grounding electrode(s) to which the
grounded phase conductor of the system is connected. The conductor used to connect the
grounded conductor to the earthing or electrode system is known as the grounding electrode
conductor. Grounding electrode conductors are required to be sized in accordance with
250.66, and must not be smaller than the values in Table 250.66, unless it is a sole connection
to either a rod, pipe, or plate electrodes; ring electrodes; or the concrete-encased electrode.
The minimum size conductor for a rod, pipe, or plate must be 6 AWG copper. The minimum
size for concrete- encased electrodes is 4 AWG copper, and the minimum size grounding
electrode conductor for a ground ring is 2 AWG copper. The installation of grounding
electrode conductors must account for protection from physical damage; protection from
magnetic fields (the choke effect) when installed in metallic raceways; and where aluminum
is used for the grounding electrode conductor, it must not be installed or terminated within 18
inches of the earth in accordance with 250.64(A) through (E).

Summary

Installations and inspections of corner-grounded systems can be a bit intimidating both to

seasoned veterans and to students of the Code. All the rules for grounded conductors must be
applied identically to the grounded conductors of all systems, whether the grounded
conductor is a grounded neutral conductor or a grounded phase conductor. The equipment
utilized in corner-grounded systems must be appropriately marked and applied within their
ratings. As the Code continues to migrate away from the use of the grounded conductor for
grounding downstream of the service equipment or separately derived system, this holds true
for the grounded conductor of corner-grounded systems as well. Grounded conductor
requirements in the Code are applicable to corner-grounded delta systems as well as to the
more common 3-phase, 4-wire wye- connected system, grounded high-leg delta-connected
systems, and single-phase, 3-wire grounded systems. Training in voltage testing is critical for
those who have the occasion to troubleshoot these systems. These systems are not as common
but still are in use and can fool even the experienced. Caution must be used in
troubleshooting at any voltages. Use of the appropriate personal protective equipment should
be employed where equipment has to be worked on or inspected while energized (see NFPA
70E Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces).

1 NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Section 200.2, (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection
Association), p. 70-49.

2 NFPA 70, Section 200.3, p. 70-49.

3 NFPA 70, Section 240.22, p. 70-91

4 NFPA 70, Section 250.24, p 70-100

You are here: Home » Features » A Circuit Breaker or Not a Circuit Breaker…That is
the Question

A Circuit Breaker or Not a Circuit

Breaker…That is the Question
[ 0 ] By Andrew DeIonno | January 11, 2002 |

You start your day with your first inspection and upon entering the site the owner indicates,
reluctantly, that there is some equipment that is not certified and that the facility needs to be
up and running by tomorrow morning. It‟s a simple machine with a few motors and a small
industrial control panel. The system runs at 15 amperes and is on a 30 ampere branch.

You decide to try and help by inspecting the machine, but the first device you come across is
a recognized circuit breaker and you ask yourself, “Is this circuit breaker acceptable for this
application?” and then you realize that it may be a long day.
Chart 1

Many readers can identify with the previous scenario whether they are laboratory field
engineers or electrical inspectors. The manufacturer of the equipment usually considers a
certified device that looks (and sometimes acts) like a circuit breaker as a circuit breaker.
However, there are devices that look like circuit breakers, better known as supplementary
protectors, that have limited applications just like any other recognized component.

What is a circuit breaker? The 1999 version of the National Electrical Code defines a circuit
breaker as: “A device designed to open and close a circuit by nonautomatic means and to
open the circuit automatically on a predetermined overcurrent without damage to itself when
properly applied within its ratings”.

With overcurrent defined as “Any current in excess of the rated current of equipment or the
ampacity of a conductor. It may result from overload, short circuit or ground fault.”

The molded case circuit breaker standard (UL Standard 489) specifically lists devices that are
“intended to provide service entrance, feeder, and branch circuit protection in accordance
with the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70.” Some specific application of molded case
circuit breakers would be as outlined in Section 210-20, Conductor Protection, and Section
430-52, Rating or Setting for Individual Motor Circuit, of the 1999 Code.
An example of a simple circuit and the possible application and misapplication of a
supplementary protector is figure 2: Example control panel with a supplementary protector.

So what is a supplementary protector? Section 240-10 in the 1999 NEC establishes clear
guidance on the differences between circuit breakers and supplementary protectors:

“Where supplementary overcurrent protection is used for lighting fixtures, appliances, and
other equipment or for internal circuits and components of equipment, it shall not be used as
a substitute for branch-circuit overcurrent devices or in place of the branch-circuit protection
specified in Article 210. Supplementary overcurrent devices shall not be required to be
readily accessible”.

The Supplementary Protector Standard (UL 1077) recognizes devices that are “…intended
for use as overcurrent, or over- or under-voltage protection within an appliance or other
electrical equipment where branch-circuit overcurrent protection is already provided, or is not
required.”

It is important to note that the supplementary protector does not meet the strict definition
provided in the NEC as noted above and these devices are intended only to protect
components in specific applications (not branch circuits).

This article will help you to identify and understand this sometimes confusing terminology
and application.

What are the differences between listed molded case circuit breakers and supplementary
protectors? Quite significant as shown at left:

Why are supplementary protectors and molded case circuit breakers often confused? There
are a variety of reasons for the confusion as follows:

1. Supplementary protectors are often called circuit breakers for equipment (CBE) or
miniature circuit breakers (MCB). The literature and advertising of these devices may refer to
them as circuit breakers leading the designer to the incorrect conclusion that this device will
always act as a molded case circuit breaker.

2. The supplementary protector manufacturers may not clearly indicate that suitable branch
protection or in- line fusing is required in certain applications.
3. European equipment uses supplementary protection as circuit breakers for equipment.
Many times this equipment is imported into the United States. Generally, these are used in
industrial settings that provide wiring to equipment remote from a control panel (many times
a violation of the NEC).

4. Look very similar to molded case circuit breakers and are thought by designers to provide
equivalent protection.

How can you tell if a supplementary protector will be acceptable in the use? The use of a
supplementary protector is very limited beyond a listed appliance or assembly. The NEC,
NFPA 79 Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery and UL 508A Industrial Control
Panels are examples of product standards that provide guidance in determining the
acceptance of a supplementary protector. Two flow charts will help you with the analysis for
use of these devices, but should not be substituted for careful review of the applicable end
product standard.

A flow chart that can assist in the hazard evaluation for a supplementary protector.

An example of a simple circuit and the possible application and misapplication of a

supplementary protector is figure 2: Example control panel with a supplementary protector.

Using the decision diagram in figure 1 and assuming the fuse is not initially installed as part
of the circuit, the circuit diagram can provide guidance on the proper installation of the
supplementary protector.
If there is a short circuit or overload on the load side of the supplementary protector then the
only protection provided is through the 100-ampere branch circuit. The 14 AWG conductor is
not protected by the 100-ampere circuit breaker in accordance with the NEC.

The fuse provides the needed branch-circuit protection, sized appropriately for the voltage
and would need to be sized at 15 amperes. With the added fuse, the supplementary protector
would be acceptable for the application above. The branch-circuit conductor on the line and
load side of the supplementary protector is protected by the fuse.

Conclusion

Supplementary protectors are devices that must be properly used within equipment and
appliances just as any other recognized component. It is very important that if you are
designing or reviewing a design that contains a device that looks like a circuit breaker (both
in person and on paper), that you evaluate the circuit for proper branch-circuit protection.
Supplementary protectors have very limited applications outside of listed appliances or
assemblies.

An appliance or assembly designer or manufacturer should always request the conditions of

acceptability for the supplementary protector they are considering using. This information
will confirm that the recognized component is used properly within its certification
limitations.

Article

Electrical Inspector’s Update, CSA International, Volume 4 Number 1, publication date

unknown.

Electrical Trade News, Electrical Safety Authority, Safety Notice Number 99-03, publication
date unknown.

Standards

UL 489, Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches, and Circuit Breaker

Enclosures, Ninth Edition, 1996.

UL 1077, Supplementary Protectors for Use in Electrical Equipment, Fifth edition, 1999.

Unpublished Meeting

Presented in Morrisville, NC on August 27, 2001 by Square D

You are here: Home » Features » Dedicated Equipment Space

Dedicated Equipment Space

[ 0 ] By Philip Cox | January 11, 2002 |
Provisions in the National Electrical Code covering dedicated space about electrical
equipment have experienced a significant degree of modification through the last three Code
cycles. In addition, rules covering that space have been relocated from Article 384 to Article
110. The relocation occurred during the 1999 Code cycle and previously identified Section
384-4 was re-identified as 110-26(f). A new title “Dedicated Equipment Space” was also
assigned to the relocated set of rules covering indoor installations. Code Making Panel No. 9
has responsibility for Article 384 and changes made during the revision and relocation of
384-4 to 110-26(f) were the result of CMP-9‟s actions.

Figure 1. Dedicated equipment space and leak protection

Wording in 110-26(f) of the 1999 Code created considerable discussion as to its exact
meaning. The basic rule in 110-26(f)(1)(a) defined the dedicated space and the last sentence
of that rule stated “No piping, ducts, or equipment foreign to the electrical installation shall
be located in this zone.” Wording in the exception to 110-26(f)(1)(a) was similar to the
former exception in 384-4(a)(1) but added a new reference to 110-26(f)(1)(b). This added
reference permitted equipment that meets the provisions in (b) entitled “Foreign Systems,” to
“…be permitted in areas that do not have the dedicated space described in this rule.”

Provisions in “(b) Foreign Systems” of the 1999 NEC are “The space equal to the width and
depth of the equipment shall be kept clear of foreign systems unless protection is provided to
avoid damage from condensation, leaks, or breaks in such foreign systems. This zone shall
extend from the top of the electrical equipment to the structural ceiling.” The dedicated space
defined in this rule is more extensive than the general rule in 110-26(f)(1)(a). The basic rule
in (a) defines the space as to the structural ceiling or a maximum height of six feet, whichever
is greater. The restriction in (b) for foreign systems is to the structural ceiling regardless of
height.
Photo 1. Panelboard open permitting installation of new circuits

The wording “…unless protection is provided to avoid damage from condensation, leaks, or
breaks in such foreign systems” in the first sentence added a new factor that resulted in
various interpretations as to its meaning. The basic point of dispute involved the question of
where the drip or leak protection can be located. Does the wording permit a protective means,
such as a sheet-metal hood, to be located within the six-foot dedicated space, or does the rule
require it to be located above that space? Some contend that the 1999 Code permits leak
protection to be located within the six-foot space, even immediately above the electrical
equipment. Others interpret the wording to establish the minimum dimensions of the
dedicated space and nothing foreign is to be installed in it. That position emphasizes that any
leak protection is required to be above the six-foot dedicated space.

Several proposals were submitted during the 2002 Code cycle to amend the wording in 110-
26(f) of the 1999 NEC in an effort to clarify the intent of dedicated space rules. Code Making
Panel No. 1 processed those proposed changes during its meetings in January 2000 and acted
on public comments during its December 2000 meeting. Proposed changes, associated
substantiation, and CMP-1 action on those proposals are included on pages 84 through 88 of
the 2001 National Electrical Code Committee Report on Proposals (ROP). Public comments
and CMP-1 action on those comments are on pages 48 and 49 of the 2001 National Electrical
Code Committee Report on Comments (ROC).

Proposal No. 1-271a on page 84 of the ROP was developed by CMP-1 in an effort to more
clearly define dedicated space and what equipment is permitted within it. The change also
incorporates the new style now used regarding numbering and identification of divisions of
text in the Code. The main paragraph following (F) was modified to specifically include
electrical equipment in addition to motor control centers required to have dedicated space
rather than reference Article 384. Equipment requiring the dedicated space includes
switchboards, panelboards, distribution boards, and motor control centers.
Figure 2. Dedicated electrical space

A significant action in Proposal No. 1-271a is the deletion of the exception following the
main paragraph in 110-26(f)(1)(a) of the 1999 Code. That action should eliminate the
potential for confusion as to equipment foreign to the electrical equipment being installed in
dedicated space covered by this section. The deletion of the former exception leaves the
paragraph entitled “Dedicated Electrical Space” unaffected by the paragraph covering foreign
systems.

A new exception was added following the paragraph on dedicated electrical space to clarify
that a suspended ceiling is permitted within the dedicated space. Ceilings with removable
panels installed within the six-foot space above electrical equipment allow access to the
dedicated space and do not violate the main rule.

Photo 2. Systems foreign to the electrical system not permitted above this equipment unless
leak protection is provided

CMP-1 added the wording “leak protection apparatus” to the last sentence in 110.26(F)(1)(a).
That sentence now reads “No piping, ducts, leak protection apparatus, or other equipment
foreign to the electrical installation shall be located in this zone.” Revised text covering
foreign systems in 110.26(F)(1)(b) now reads “The area above the dedicated space required
by 110.26(F)(1)(a) shall be permitted to contain foreign systems, provided protection is
installed to avoid damage to the electrical equipment from condensation, leaks, or breaks in
such foreign systems.” This amended text of the paragraph covering foreign systems clearly
prohibits leak protection apparatus from being installed within the defined dedicated
equipment space but does permit it above that space.

CMP-1 included reasons for making changes noted in Proposal 1-271a that may be useful in
understanding the intent of those changes. This information is located on page 84 of the 2001
ROP. Item „b‟ in the substantiation states “”The panel clarified that leak protection apparatus
is not allowed in the dedicated space.”" Wording in item „d‟ is “The panel revised (b) foreign
systems to specifically identify where these foreign systems are allowed.” These statements
are very specific as to the intent of the panel and directly relate to questions Code users have
had over this issue.

The panel statement associated with Public Comment 1-166 on page 48 of the 2001 ROC
addressed the question of safety related to dedicated electrical space. The second sentence of
that statement reads, “”Requiring a dedicated space above the electrical equipment covered in
this section provides a much safer environment for workers.”" It is generally understood that
electrical equipment should be de-energized before performing maintenance, adding new
circuits, or conducting other service functions, but is not always practical to disconnect power
from the equipment. Where power cannot reasonably be disconnected from electrical
equipment, such as a panelboard, and a worker is required to install new circuits through the
top of energized equipment, it is a safety issue for that person. In those situations, live parts in
switchboards, panelboards, distribution boards, and motor control centers are likely to be
exposed during the time workers have that equipment open to connect cable or raceway to the
enclosure or to pull wire into that equipment. Where a person performs work on electrical
equipment while standing on a ladder or platform in front of exposed live parts, individual
safety is a factor. Those working on open energized equipment are expected to take necessary
precautions by using proper safety equipment and clothing and by following established
procedures. Having clear dedicated space above electrical equipment in which to install those
wiring methods provides safer conditions in which to work.

In conclusion, revisions made by CMP-1 on 110.26(F)(1) address the question of what can be
installed in dedicated electrical space by clarifying that:

 Dedicated electrical equipment space is required to be kept clear of foreign

equipment.
 Ceilings with removable panels are permitted to be installed within the dedicated
space.
 Leak protection apparatus is not permitted within the dedicated space.

This change should resolve the previous difficulty due to confusion as to the meaning of
dedicated electrical space rules.

You are here: Home » 2002 » January/February 2002 » High Voltage Electrical Facilities
that are Completely Safe

High Voltage Electrical Facilities that are

Completely Safe
[ 0 ] By David Young | January 11, 2002 |

There are hundreds of customers in my company‟s service area who own their own high
voltage transmission, distribution and/or substation electric supply facilities. The service
voltages for these customers range from 4 kV to 138 kV.

Many years ago, I investigated an accident involving the death of a farmer on one such
facility. The farmer decided to save some money by repairing an anchor guy on his single-
phase 14.4 kV distribution line. When the farmer first discovered that a guy wire on his line
was broken, he contacted my company (the utility) to see if we would fix it for him. When
our trouble-man met the customer, he reminded the customer that the utility did not own the
line and that he would have to hire an electrical contractor who is qualified to work on 14.4
kV to repair the guy. The trouble-man asked the customer if he wanted the line de-energized
at that time. The customer said no. The trouble-man told the customer to call 24 hours in
advance if he or the contractor wanted the line de-energized. Once de-energized, the
contractor would have to install their own employee protective ground if they wanted to work
on the line as “dead.” The next day, the customer tried to repair the guy himself with the line
energized. His aluminum ladder contacted the 14.4 kV phase wire.

Several years later, I was on the stand in a wrongful death lawsuit initiated against my
company by the farmer‟s wife. The plaintiff‟s lawyer was trying to convince the jury that the
trouble-man, who spoke to the customer, should have left the line completely safe so that the
customer could fix the guy by himself. The lawyer asked me what would have to have been
done to the line to make it completely safe. I testified that the only way to make electrical
facilities completely safe is to de-energize them. Since the customer told the trouble-man he
did not want the line de-energized, we won the case.

There is no way to make energized electrical facilities completely safe. By insulating,

guarding, isolating and signing electrical facilities we can limit the likelihood of contact by
humans, but we can‟t prevent it. When a contractor has to work close to one of our lines, de-
energizing the line is one option. The definition of de-energize as far back as 1973 and
continuing through the 1997 edition of the NESC was “Free from any electrical connection to
a source of potential difference and from electric charge; not having a potential difference
from that of the earth” (synonym: dead) (page 5 of the 1997 NESC edition). Sounds
completely safe to me. However, in order to make the line safe, we have to turn off the
electricity. Customers don‟t like that.

Sometimes “de-energized” lines are not completely safe. A large majority of utility engineers,
operators, dispatchers, and workers consider a line that is disconnected from all sources of
electric supply to be de-energized. This may be true for some low voltage lines, but it is not
true for high voltage lines. A high voltage line that is disconnected from all sources of
electric supply is dangerous because it can pick up electric charge from nearby energized
lines. To eliminate the electric charge, a line that is disconnected from all sources of electric
supply must also be effectively grounded, not just grounded. The key word is “effectively.”
The effectiveness of a ground is dependant upon many things including location, type, and
ground resistance. By effectively grounded I mean, “Intentionally connected to earth through
a ground connection or connections of sufficiently low impedance and having sufficient
current-carrying capacity to limit the buildup of voltages to levels below that which may
result in undue hazard to persons or to connected equipment” (page 6 of the 2002 NESC
edition).
To resolve the misuse of the term de-energized, the International Electrotechnical
Commission removed the term de-energized from all international standards and the NESC
committees elected to change the definition of de-energize in the 2002 edition to what most
people think it means, “Disconnected from all sources of electric supply by open switches,
disconnectors, jumpers, taps, or other means.” There is also a NOTE reminding people that
“De-energized conductors or equipment could be electrically charged or energized through
various means, such as induction from energized circuits, portable generators, lightning, etc.”
Starting in 2002, a line that is de-energized is not completely safe.

National Electrical Safety Code and NESC are registered trademarks of the Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE).

You are here: Home » Departments » Editorial » Importance of IAEI Membership to

Manufacturers

Importance of IAEI Membership to

Manufacturers
[ 0 ] By Philip Cox | January 11, 2002 |

Electrical inspectors demonstrate support of electrical manufacturers and feel they are an
integral part of the team dedicated to providing an environment in which consumers can
safely use electrical energy. In keeping with that objective, many of these manufacturers have
traditionally been and continue to be an important part of the International Association of
Electrical Inspectors membership. Many actively participate in section and chapter meetings.
Some of those individuals are often involved in code discussion panels and technical
presentations and contribute in many other ways to the betterment of the organization and
industry. Their involvement is an asset to the IAEI and in its effort to promote electrical
safety.

Unfortunately, the level of participation of electrical manufacturers as members of the IAEI

has decreased over the past few years and that adversely affects both the IAEI and
manufacturers. It is readily understood that factors such as the necessity of being involved in
both national and international activities and the impact of prevailing economic conditions
have significantly affected planning and operations of industry organizations and have placed
a heavy demand on resources. In view of these and other conditions, some may conclude that
being part of the IAEI is not economically practical because electrical inspectors are not
primary purchasers of electrical products and don‟t contribute to the bottom line. While
electrical inspectors are not customers in the general sense, the normal performance of their
code enforcing responsibilities can have a significant effect on the use of products within
their jurisdiction.

John Minick, National Electrical Manufacturers Association field representative and former
IAEI Southern Section president, stresses the importance of NEMA‟s association with
inspectors in his contribution to an article in the November 15, 2001, issue of the NEMA
publication electroindustry. That recognition is appreciated and manufacturers not already
involved are encouraged to become active participants in the IAEI as membership in the
association is one of the best investments they can make. Qualified electrical inspectors are
one of the best friends manufacturers have.

The electrical inspector‟s primary obligation is to the consumer or user of electricity within
his or her jurisdiction. It is in the best interest of the consumer as well as the inspector that
quality electrical products be used and that they be installed and maintained by qualified
people so that a high degree of consumer safety can be achieved. It is also in the best interest
of manufacturers that their products comply with safety standards and be installed and used
correctly. A representative of a well-known manufacturer actively involved with the IAEI
made a comment something to the effect that “It would be foolish and contrary to our
company‟s goals for it to produce an unsafe product.” It actually goes beyond that. Even a
product designed to operate safety can easily be installed or used in a way to render its
operation unsafe. Inspectors are instrumental in locating and identifying many of those
abuses and enforcing corrective measures.

The IAEI is considered as a keystone of the electrical industry because of its unique position
and composition. It provides a focal point of interest because the work of electrical inspectors
affects most segments of the electrical industry. Being a part of the IAEI provides a variety of
benefits regardless of which part of the electrical industry the member represents. Some of
those that apply to manufacturers are:

Establishing contacts and developing effective communications: Experience as a

governmental electrical inspector and as a field representative for the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association has provided some valuable insights for me as to the different
needs and constraints of inspectors and manufacturers. Shortly after being employed by
NEMA, I became aware that a real problem existed as to how each profession perceived the
other. The expectation of each as to what the other could do was often miles apart in concept.
This observation caused me to set an objective to encourage both groups to become better
acquainted and to communicate with one another more effectively. Each needs to develop a
better understanding of the capabilities, obligations, and constraints of the other. This
objective has been successful on a limited basis but there is a great amount of work that needs
to be done. Where good communications are established between inspection authorities and
manufacturers, it significantly reduces problems and misunderstandings. This can translate
into a significant saving of time and money for both sides.

IAEI meetings are places where inspectors and other members of the industry can meet and
become acquainted in an environment where people of similar interests assemble to learn,
exchange new ideas, and address other important industry issues. These settings not only
result in educational achievements, they also provide an opportunity to develop better
communications between and within groups. It is well understood that knowing someone to
contact when information is needed or problems need to be resolved is far better than having
to start cold in the search for solutions.

Being a source of product information: Electrical manufacturers are the ideal source of
technical expertise regarding the design and use of their products. Individuals from those
companies who have the technical knowledge of product standards, products, and how they
relate to Code rules can serve as an important source of reliable information for designers,
installers, and enforcers. Many electrical products are becoming much more complex and
create a challenge for enforcing authorities to keep up with those advancements. Designers
and installers often use a limited variety of materials and equipment because they generally
select specific lines of known products that they prefer and use them as standard operating
procedures. Enforcing authorities must be prepared to inspect the installation of any type of
foreign or domestic electrical equipment and be knowledgeable enough to determine if the
installation complies with Code rules. Electrical inspectors need considerable information
regarding specific electrical equipment and materials to effectively do their jobs. The best
source for reliable information is from the product manufacturer. This is a significant reason
why manufacturers need representatives known to and involved within the inspection
community. Other sources of information are also necessary, but they are no substitute for the
data available from makers of products.

Addressing the problem of counterfeit products: Counterfeit electrical products are a

serious problem for both inspectors and manufacturers. From the inspector‟s side it presents
several problems, but the most significant one is that of safety. For manufacturers, this is a
severe problem from several aspects and can have a serious impact on them. Inspectors need
to be able to recognize counterfeit products and this information should come from
manufacturers. This has already been demonstrated by a few product manufacturers where
representatives made presentations at IAEI meetings showing examples and specific details
of counterfeit products and the differences between them and the authentic ones. Viewing
samples of counterfeit products made it clear that unless one knows exactly how to
distinguish between them and legitimate products, the imitation will likely be undetected. The
best source for that information is the product manufacturer and the best location to
dispensing it is at IAEI meetings.

Providing information during the Code development process: The IAEI has an
established procedure to allow Code proposals to be processed for organizational
endorsement. Where proposals involve electrical products, information from manufacturers is
frequently needed to give inspectors adequate data to consider before taking a position on
those proposals. Those hearings often involve extensive discussion of the merits of the issue
and where an electrical product is concerned, it is best that a manufacturer is present to both
present information and respond to inquiries.

Identification of field problems: Electrical inspectors are a good informational source for
manufacturers regarding how their products are installed and used in the field. Regardless of
how good a product is designed and made, if it is not applied in the field as it was designed, it
can become a problem. Identifying field problems provides manufacturers information that
can lead to the development of new products, the modification of existing ones, or changes in
instructions included with products. Getting this type of information either at inspector
meetings or through contacts established within the IAEI can be helpful to manufacturers. It
is especially advantageous to a manufacture if their representatives are able to deal directly
with the source of such information where it is product specific.

Correcting misinformation: Inspectors need accurate product information to aid them in

making many of their enforcement decisions. It is in the best interest of manufacturers to
make that type of information accessible to inspectors and to address misinformation
whenever it occurs. During inspector meetings where code discussion or other educational
programs are conducted, it is not uncommon for material to be presented or questions to arise
regarding the installation and use of specific products. It is highly desirable that someone
knowledgeable of the product, its application and performance, related standards, and Code
rules either be the presenter or be present to provide correct information should questions
arise.
Product exhibitions as classroom: Most IAEI meetings make provisions for electrical
manufacturers to display their products. Exhibits staffed with people who have extensive
knowledge of the products they display can be extremely effective educational settings for
inspectors for product recognition and application. While inspectors don‟t purchase these
products as part of their job, the more they know about them, the more effective they can be
as inspectors. There is no substitute for seeing the actual product and getting detailed
information on it. Product displays at meetings generally result in inspectors plying exhibitors
with questions about products in order to learn as much as they can.

It is difficult to identify all the positive aspects of IAEI membership beneficial to

manufacturers. The small fee for membership and the cost of attending meetings pales in
relation to the direct benefits realized. IAEI gains from that association also, but the greatest
value is not from membership dues or exhibit fees, but rather from the sharing of information,
the open lines of communications, and in the cooperative effort to promote safety.

You are here: Home » Departments » Editorial » Involvement in and Commitment to the
IAEI

Involvement in and Commitment to the

IAEI
[ 0 ] By Philip Cox | January 11, 2002 |

The International Association of Electrical Inspectors is fortunate to have some outstanding

leaders and workers within its membership. Many work quietly and are hardly noticed, even
by fellow members within their own chapter. Occasionally, a letter is received by the
International Office from a member who feels that the IAEI is not providing enough services
to justify the amount of dues paid. A far greater number of members acknowledge the fact
that the IAEI News alone is worth more than the cost of membership. The benefits of being
an IAEI member are greater than just the publications and services provided by the
organization. Many within the IAEI can relate stories of when they were new in the
organization and other members took the time to help them grow and become productive
within the electrical industry. Those individuals did that because they believed in helping
others and held to the principles upon which the IAEI stands. They were involved. Active
involvement in the IAEI returns a wealth of knowledge and personal satisfaction that cannot
be measured in dollars. One doesn‟t excel in any profession by sitting on the sidelines.

Keith Lofland, of the International Office staff, has recently received a letter from an IAEI
member who is an example of so many within the organization who set a high standard of
which we can all be proud. It is fitting that this letter be shared with the membership because
it demonstrates an attitude and commitment that not only benefited the individual, but also is
so important to the success of the IAEI. The letter reads:

“Dear Keith:

It‟s hard for me to believe that I have been a member of the IAEI for 50 years. WOW! Seems
it was only yesterday that I started as the electrical inspector for the City of Marshall, Texas. I
was young, 20 years old, moving to a town that only had one contractor with an eight year
old copy of the National Code. I was given a corner office on the third floor of the City Hall
and was told that I could devote one hour each day to really learn the code. I was in charge of
all city electrical facilities, pump stations, water plant, traffic signals, fire stations, buildings,
sport fields, as well as enforcement of the code. I designed, specified, supervised, maintained
everything electrical. A young man‟s dream, as I usually wore a dress shirt and tie and a hat
to make me look older as I worked with the older contractors.

I literally grew up in an electrical contracting shop in Greenville, Texas, working after

school, holidays, and summers–starting three months before my 12th birthday. So, I have
been in the electrical trade all my life. During my 10 ½ years in Marshall, I was chairman of
the North Louisiana/East Texas chapter of the IAEI, as well as hosting an annual meeting of
the Six Chapter group.

I re-wrote the city electrical ordinance for Marshall, and also for five other East Texas cities
during my time there.

When I accepted a position with Westinghouse Electric Corp., we moved to Dallas and I
remained active in this great organization. The 11 years there and then the 25 years with
AMP Inc. allowed me to continue my association with the IAEI. The 50 years has been a
“gold mine” of learning experiences, great fellowship with so many friends and sadly the
passing of so many during the years.

I look forward to many more years in this organization, to be active and involved. This is
“my” industry–one that strives to “get things right,” ever changing, improving, promotes
safety and cares.

After observing more than 50 years in the electrical field, I just really wonder what changes
will take place during the next 50. Think I‟ll just try to stay around to find out. I know the
International Association of Electrical Inspectors will still be here doing its job.”

The best always:

Sincerely,
Ben Davis

Mr. Davis never intended for this letter to be printed, but rather that it be for Keith‟s eyes
only. When contacted for permission to print it, he was surprised that attention should be
given to him as he viewed himself as the one benefiting from the organization. He feels that
the organization gave him something of which he can be proud, but he and others like him
have set examples that are worthy to follow. The IAEI is blessed with a number of members
such as Ben Davis and is a better organization because of them. Thanks to Mr. Davis and all
others who are involved in the work of this organization, committed to it, and are not content
with just sitting on the sideline.

You are here: Home » Departments » Canadian Code » Why Should the CEC Interest
Electrical Utilities?

Why Should the CEC Interest Electrical

Utilities?
[ 0 ] By Leslie Stoch | January 11, 2002 |

The Canadian Electrical Code Part I gives electrical utilities an exemption from the code for
“installations and equipment in its exercise as a utility, located outdoors or in buildings or
sections of buildings used for that purpose.” The CEC Part I is “a voluntary code for adoption
and enforcement by regulatory authorities.” When adopted into the provincial regulations,
this exemption is almost always maintained for work that falls within the scope of an
electrical utility‟s business.

Over time, many electrical utilities have either developed their own design standards or use
standards developed by others. Two CSA standards are often used as authoritative references
for utility installations. These are CAN/CSA-C22.3 No. 1- M87 Overhead Systems and C22.3
No. 7-94 Underground Systems. In some instances, utility standards may meet or exceed
electrical code requirements, or they may also fall short. One would hope that utility
standards should satisfy minimum electrical safety requirements, especially for installations
on private property.

In a brave new world of less regulation and greater competition, electrical utilities may want
to take a closer look at their own design standards, to determine whether they should conform
with the Canadian Electrical Code. In this article, we will look at some examples where the
CEC Part III standards fail to meet the minimum safety requirements of the CEC Part I, and
visit another issue that might affect electrical utilities as changes evolve.

Let‟s begin by comparing some of the differences in high low and high voltage clearances. I
will refer to the Canadian Electrical Code as CEC Part I and the CSA Part III overhead
standards as CEC Part III. Both prescribe minimum horizontal and vertical clearances for a
broad range of voltage classifications. As an aside, there are a few instances where the CEC
Part I actually references CEC Part III when an installation strays beyond the parameters set
out in the code. As a result, some paragraphs of CEC Part III actually become requirements
of our electrical code.

For our first example, CEC Part I specifies a minimum vertical clearance of 4.0 m for low
voltage service conductors across a residential driveway. This increases to 5.0 m when
crossing the driveway to a commercial or industrial facility. Using the same example, CEC
Part III would require minimum clearances of 3.7 m for low voltage service conductors
across a residential driveway, and 4.42 m crossing the driveway to a commercial or industrial
facility. Obviously, there is some disparity between the two standards.

CEC Part I specifies a minimum vertical outdoor clearance of 7.0 m for 46 kV exposed live
parts such as cable terminations, fuseholders and switches, located outside a substation fence.
CEC Part III has different requirements for areas accessible only to pedestrians and where
there is also access by vehicles. The comparable 46 kV CEC Part III clearances would be:

 3.7 m – where accessible only to pedestrians

 5.2 m – where also accessible to vehicles

Here there appears to be a major difference between these standards for the elevation of high
voltage exposed live parts.
Horizontal clearances between power lines and buildings is another place where there are
differences. CEC Part I, requires a minimum 3 m horizontal distance between 46 kV lines
and buildings (still far too close in this writer‟s opinion). However, CEC Part III goes even
further. Here the minimum horizontal distance between 46 kV lines and buildings is 1.0 m
plus conductor swing to “a normally inaccessible surface” and 1.8 m plus conductor swing to
a “readily accessible surface.”

The CEC Part III definition of readily accessible is “that an object is accessible to persons
without the use of special means” (for example, a ladder). The amount of conductor swing
depends upon whether the line is considered to be sheltered from the wind. In the writer‟s
opinion, the horizontal clearances in both CEC Part I and Part III are both deficient. However
the CEC Part III requirements have a greater potential for problems and electrical accidents.

A further requirement of CEC Part I is calculating the 5000-volt maximum ground potential
rise, and the step and touch voltages in substations. These are determined from the ground
electrode resistance and the available ground-fault current. The first step normally involves
ground resistivity measurement, then calculating the maximum step and touch potentials as
specified in Table 52 of CEC Part I. Parameters for these calculations are found in the IEEE
No. 80 substation grounding standard.

Ground potential rise can be calculated from station ground resistance and the available
ground-fault current. Some electrical utilities are more interested in minimizing ground
potential rise, since the GPR may affect any communications equipment installed in stations.
Step and touch potentials have also been identified as a safety issue and therefore should be
considered as well.

For the reasons mentioned, electrical utility installations should comply with the Canadian
Electrical Code Part I, particularly on customers‟ property. As with previous articles, you
should consult the electrical inspection authority in each province or territory as applicable,
for a more precise interpretation of any of the above.

You are here: Home » 2002 » January/February 2002 » With the soaring cost of energy and
deregulation of the U.S. electrical power grid, alternate sources of power generation
such as photovoltaic and fuel cell technology is on the increase. Does UL List this type of
equipment?

With the soaring cost of energy and

deregulation of the U.S. electrical power
grid, alternate sources of power generation
such as photovoltaic and fuel cell
technology is on the increase. Does UL List
this type of equipment?
[ 0 ] By Underwriters Laboratories | January 11, 2002 |
Question: Alternate energy

With the soaring cost of energy and deregulation of the U.S. electrical power grid, alternate
sources of power generation such as photovoltaic and fuel cell technology is on the increase.
Does UL List this type of equipment?

Answer

UL currently Lists these types of alternative power sources and generation equipment
Distributed Generation equipment includes but is not necessarily limited to photovoltaics,
fuel cells, engine generator sets, and microturbines. The inverters or converters used to
control grid interconnection are also considered to be DG equipment.

UL Lists DG equipment under the following categories: Gas and Fuel Power Systems-
Engine Generators (FTSR), Fuel Gas Booster Compressor Equipment (IUXX), Stationary
Fuel Cell Power Plants (IRGX), Fuel Cell Equipment (IRGN); Photovoltaic Power Systems
Equipment- AC Modules (QHWJ), Charge Controllers (QIBP), Modules and Panels (QIGU),
Power Systems Accessories (QIIO), Power Units (QIJL) and Inverters, Converters and
Controllers for use in Independent Power Systems (QIKH); and Wind Power Systems- Wind
Turbine Generating Systems, Small (ZGYW), Large (ZGYZ) and Subassemblies (ZGZJ).

A list of Distributed Power Generation Equipment categories is located on page XVII, in the
front of the 2001 General Information for Electrical Equipment Directory (White Book). You
can monitor the development of new product categories for these new technologies by
accessing the Alternative Power Generation Equipment page on the Regulators page of the
UL website at www.UL.com/regulators. Just click on Alternative Power Generation
Equipment.

You are here: Home » 2002 » January/February 2002 » Are there sealing compounds such
as expanding foam, that have been Listed as a means to keep moisture or condensation
from entering equipment through service conduit or the condensation between a
refrigeration unit and the outside?

Are there sealing compounds such as

expanding foam, that have been Listed as a
means to keep moisture or condensation
from entering equipment through service
conduit or the condensation between a
refrigeration unit and the outside?
[ 0 ] By Underwriters Laboratories | January 11, 2002 |

Question: Sealing compounds

Are there sealing compounds such as expanding foam, that have been Listed as a means to
keep moisture or condensation from entering equipment through service conduit or the
condensation between a refrigeration unit and the outside?

Answer

There currently are no Listings for expandable foams or other compounds that have been
investigated for contact with conductor insulation or their ability to seal out condensation or
moisture from conduits or equipment.

You are here: Home » 2002 » January/February 2002 » Where are the markings for series
combination ratings for overcurrent protective devices located on panelboards?

Where are the markings for series

combination ratings for overcurrent
protective devices located on panelboards?
[ 0 ] By Underwriters Laboratories | January 11, 2002 |

Question: Overcurrent protective devices on panelboard

Where are the markings for series combination ratings for overcurrent protective devices
located on panelboards?

Answer

Series combination ratings for UL Listed panelboards are either (1) marked directly on the
panelboard, or (2) contained in printed instructions specifically identified for a particular
panelboard.

The instructions are required to be located on or in the panelboard in a pocket provided

specifically for this purpose.

In addition, panelboards provided with instructions are to be marked with (1) a statement
indicating that these instructions are to be consulted before installation, (2) the location of the
pocket with the instructions, and (3) where a replacement set of instructions can be obtained
should the original instructions become lost.

These are the only two methods for determining appropriate series combination ratings for
specific panelboards.

You are here: Home » 2002 » January/February 2002 » Question. Does UL List circuit
breakers with terminations that are rated for 90C wire?
Question. Does UL List circuit breakers
with terminations that are rated for 90C
wire?
[ 0 ] By Underwriters Laboratories | January 11, 2002 |

Question: Circuit breakers

Does UL List circuit breakers with terminations that are rated for 90C wire?

Answer

UL has not Listed any circuit breakers with this feature based on the understanding that this
question relates to the use of 90C wire at the 90C ampacity.

Wire rated 90C can be used if the conductor size selected complies with Table 310-16 of the
NEC, for 60C or 75C ampacities, as appropriate.

You are here: Home » 2002 » January/February 2002 » Now that arc fault circuit
interrupters (AFCIs) are required in the 2002 NEC, does UL List AFCIs and where can
I find out more UL information on AFCIs?

Now that arc fault circuit interrupters

(AFCIs) are required in the 2002 NEC, does
UL List AFCIs and where can I find out
more UL information on AFCIs?
[ 0 ] By Underwriters Laboratories | January 11, 2002 |

Question: AFCI

Now that arc fault circuit interrupters (AFCIs) are required in the 2002 NEC, does UL List
AFCIs and where can I find out more UL information on AFCIs?

Answer

Section 210.12 in the 2002 National Electrical Code (NEC), requires that all branch circuits
supplying 125V, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere outlets installed in dwelling unit bedrooms
to be protected by an arcfault circuit interrupter (AFCI).

UL covers arc fault circuit interrupters (AFCIs) under the following AFCI categories: Branch
/Feeder Type (AVZQ), Outlet Branch Circuit Type (AWBZ), Combination Type (AWAH),
Outlet Circuit Type (AWCG). These product categories are included in the 2001 edition of
UL‟s Electrical Construction Equipment Directory (Green Book).

However, they were inadvertently omitted from the 2001 General Information for Electrical
Equipment Directory (White Book). These categories will be included in the 2002 edition of
the White Book. UL also has categories for these types of AFCIs: Cord Type (AWAY) and
Portable Type (AWDO).

Additional UL information on AFCIs, including all the AFCI product categories and Listings,
background articles on AFCIs and web links to AFCI resources can be obtained on the
Regulators page of UL‟s website; just go to www.ul.com/ regulators and click on arc fault
circuit interrupters (AFCIs).