SmartPlug Install Wiring Question

[KWKloeber]

Receptacles shall be of the grounding type with a terminal provided for the grounding (green) conductor as shown in .....  FIGURE 13.............

I think I "mistyped" -- should have been be Figure "13" for power cords/inlets.

Sounds pretty definitive to me.  No leeway.  No "for example, see" or "among others." 
Shall be (in the case of 30 amp shore cord) a NEMA L5-30 (twist lock) end.  SPs did not meet that requirement when they were installed or do they currently.  But I'd still install one, with or without a thermal breaker.

It's interesting to follow how, when one believes in a code requirement, it can be defended by among other things "because it's code."  But when one disagrees with a code requirement or allowance, it can be argued to the death using "common sense."   I really don't want to start hiking down this path, but a Darryl/Darryl, one-in-a-million chance-of-happening, scenario could likewise be used to defend ABYC eliminating the negative buss bonding requirement, if GFCIs and an ELCI are installed.

FACT: A splice kit that is designed to be as safe and as robust (actually more robust) than the UF cable/sheath it's on, is no less safe when used on a NM cable. It's just "not allowed, because...."  This has nothing to do with needing hand tools to get at it, it's a different different animal than open terminals and fingers (which the "hand tools" speaks to.)  One cannot refute that fact that it's "as safe," or explain how it is more dangerous than something more easily damaging the NM cable that's right next to that splice.

kk   

[mainesail]

Receptacles shall be of the grounding type with a terminal provided for the grounding (green) conductor as shown in .....  FIGURE 13.............

I think I "mistyped" -- should have been be Figure "13" for power cords/inlets.

Sounds pretty definitive to me.  No leeway.  No "for example, see" or "among others." 
Shall be (in the case of 30 amp shore cord) a NEMA L5-30 (twist lock) end.  SPs did not meet that requirement when they were installed or do they currently.  But I'd still install one, with or without a thermal breaker.

Read very carefully what I wrote and outlined.. You're referencing the shore connection end" of the cordset not the boat side....

11.6.2.2.1.3 The shore power cable shall be flexible cord with the minimum properties of Type SOW, STW, STOW, SEOW, or STOOW, and shall be suitable for outdoor use. The shore connection end of this cable shall be fitted with a locking and grounding type plug with the required number of poles and shall comply with Article 555 of the National Electrical Code (see FIGURE 12 and TABLE VII-A).

FACT: A splice kit that is designed to be as safe and as robust (actually more robust) than the UF cable/sheath it's on, is no less safe when used on a NM cable. It's just "not allowed, because...."  This has nothing to do with needing hand tools to get at it, it's a different different animal than open terminals and fingers (which the "hand tools" speaks to.)  One cannot refute that fact that it's "as safe," or explain how it is more dangerous than something more easily damaging the NM cable that's right next to that splice.

Would that splice kit be allowable under NFPA 70 / NEC for an AC termination inside your house or would the NEC require a junction box? Would you make that sort of AC splice inside your own house or addition or kitchen remodel, before an electrical inspector was to visit for a CO?

You are trying to compare an underground cable splice kit to an above ground standard which has its roots firmly derived from NFPA 70/ NEC. IIRC correctly the requirements for enclosure, on AC systems, are directly derived from NFPA/NEC with some less stringent "enclosure" requirements.

I've never once said it is not safe or may be less safe just corrected your point about it meeting the standards requirements, which it does not.  All this discussion over a $6.00 plastic box......

It's interesting to follow how, when one believes in a code requirement, it can be defended by among other things "because it's code."  But when one disagrees with a code requirement or allowance, it can be argued to the death using "common sense."   I really don't want to start hiking down this path, but a Darryl/Darryl, one-in-a-million chance-of-happening, scenario could likewise be used to defend ABYC eliminating the negative buss bonding requirement, if GFCIs and an ELCI are installed.

I don't believe I have ever offered any personal opinion pro or con regarding the AC/DC bond when an ELCI is installed other than to say that it is technically required under E-11, even with an ELCI installed.

My personal opinion or common sense matters little on this subject because the standard is the standard. It is the ABYC standard whether you or I like it or agree with it entirely or not. I can tell you there are lots of areas I disagree with the ABYC on yet I still can't ignore the standards requirements unless I am exceeding them.

In many cases where I disagree they fall short of what I consider a safe practice so I exceed them. A good example of this is the crimp pull standard which is simply pathetic. I have been pushing for this to be addressed for a while, perhaps in 2018... I would never settle for the ABYC crimp pull numbers and choose to exceed the standard, by a lot.

The European ISO/RCD does allow for unbonding with an RCD (still required without one) but of course that code is Federal law and I am pretty certain most boat owners in the US would rather see a voluntary standard than a forced Federal code when it comes to their boats. I really don't think  US boaters want that can-o-worms opened up (though rumor is Canada may be getting it as law).

I have tirelessly explained the ABYC reasoning behind why the ABYC chose to keep the bond. I have tried to explain this when others are advising DIY's publicly to ignore the ABYC, and it is what it is.

Whether or not I actually agree with it is inconsequential to the discussion of compliance with the safety standard. There are many ways to make a boat safe with regard to AC systems but many of them won't pass standards muster. Heck my buddy Dave has a 230 year old barn that is still standing. There is nothing about it that meets current legal building codes and he could not rebuild it the same way today, if it burned down. Does this make it an unsafe barn? Not at all it just does not meet building code. Does your splice make it "unsafe"? Nope, just means it does not meet accepted safety codes which you asserted it does. If you wanted to change that portion of the ABYC E-11 standard you'd need to challenge the NFPA/NEC and get it charged there first.

My suggestion to anyone dealing with AC systems to simply follow the accepted ABYC safety standards or to exceed them.

[KWKloeber]

au contraire, mon ami.

Section 1 1 . 1 3 is PLUGS AND RECEPTACLES is NOT specific to shore power posts.

it covers both DC plugs and receptacles (so obviously NOT just shore side plugs and receptacles) and AC plugs and receptacles.

Under 11.13, is 11. 13.2 FOR DC SYSTEMS
AND
11 .. 13.3 FOR AC SYSTEMS

And in fact the "back mounted" cover box is not an approved method (as I said, but is a common sense work around alternative to ripping out the OEM installation) due to
11 .. 13.3.1 Receptacles shall be installed in boxes that meet the requirements of.............
SO, merely slapping a box on the back side of the bulkhead to cover the AC receptacle/wires IS NOT, as you said claim would be, an acceptable method.

11.13.3.2 (ie, Figure 13) Receptacles shall be of the grounding type with a terminal provided for the grounding (green) conductor as shown in FIGURE 12, FIGURE 13 and FIGURE 14.
   pertains to all AC receptacles. The text doesn't differentiate between shore receptacles or boat side receptacles.

kk

[mainesail]

au contraire, mon ami.

Section 1 1 . 1 3 is PLUGS AND RECEPTACLES is NOT specific to shore power posts.

it covers both DC plugs and receptacles (so obviously NOT just shore side plugs and receptacles) and AC plugs and receptacles.

Under 11.13, is 11. 13.2 FOR DC SYSTEMS
AND
11 .. 13.3 FOR AC SYSTEMS

And in fact the "back mounted" cover box is not an approved method (as I said, but is a common sense work around alternative to ripping out the OEM installation) due to
11 .. 13.3.1 Receptacles shall be installed in boxes that meet the requirements of.............
SO, merely slapping a box on the back side of the bulkhead to cover the AC receptacle/wires IS NOT, as you said claim would be, an acceptable method.

11.13.3.2 (ie, Figure 13) Receptacles shall be of the grounding type with a terminal provided for the grounding (green) conductor as shown in FIGURE 12, FIGURE 13 and FIGURE 14.
   pertains to all AC receptacles. The text doesn't differentiate between shore receptacles or boat side receptacles.

kk

Ken,

The shore end of a shore power cord falls under the LAND BASED STANDARDS. The boat end does not.

The wording is very clear on this. Shore power cords have their own section beginning at 11.6.2.2 SHORE POWER..



The shore connection end is NOT the boat end...

11.6.2.2 SHORE POWER
11.6.2.2.1 Shore Power Cable

11.6.2.2.1.2 Except where the shore power cable is permanently connected to the boat, the boat end of this cable shall be terminated with a locking and grounding female type connector to match the boat power inlet (see FIGURE 12  and FIGURE 13).



11.6.2.2.1.3 The shore power cable shall be flexible cord with the minimum properties of Type SOW, STW, STOW, SEOW, or STOOW, and shall be suitable for outdoor use. The shore connection end of this cable shall be fitted with a locking and grounding type plug with the required number of poles and shall comply with Article 555 of the National Electrical Code (see FIGURE 12 and TABLE VII-A).



You know with as much time as you put in pouring over the standards you really should get trained & become a certified tech and then get on one of sub committees or email dist lists for standards dev. You'd learn a great deal about interpreting them, how they are created and how and where they stem from. You don't get paid anything but its a good experience....

[KWKloeber]

Does your splice make it "unsafe"? Nope, just means it does not meet accepted safety codes which you asserted it does. If you wanted to change that portion of the ABYC E-11 standard you'd need to challenge the NFPA/NEC and get it charged there first.

Rod, I'm really confused, you have my head spinning --- you seem to have taken a 180. 

First, you at least inferred that an AC splice, outside an enclosure, was a "shock hazard" (citing the ABYC language "shock hazard.")  Maybe you personally didn't believe that to be true, but reinforced that with the comment that UF cable splices were at ground potential (so not a shock hazard as they would be on a boat?)

Then, that every AC splice must be in an enclosure,
ABYC E-11 standard is no different than NFPA 70/NEC standards in that any AC splice must be in an enclosure.  Which is not true, and I pointed out an underground splice.

And, I take exception that using "splice" and "termination" are interchangeable.  Thus:

ABYC Training Manual (Current ABYC Electrical Training Manual)
"It is still sometimes necessary, however, to make splices in AC wire runs. When doing so, make all AC terminations inside appropriate enclosures that can only be accessed with the use of hand tools."


I read, and you may interpret it differently,  that "splice" is generic -- (i.e., sometimes necessary to not have one complete run of wire.)  "terminations" speaks to one precise and specific method.  A wire spliced according to NEC splices on UF cables is NOT a wire termination. Again I read, and you may interpret it differently, that am enclosure is required for "shock protection" as ABYC text clearly states, because of the possibility of contacting open terminals. The thought that it's thrust is to require enclosing an alternate, perfectly safe, method of joining wires, due to a :shock hazard" by that alternate method, is not common sense.

So (putting smart plugs aside,) what (I think, as I re-read the last post) this boils down to is that:

1) You now agree such a splice (as on UF cable) is as safe, but that ABYC just doesn't allow them.  'nuf said on that.
2) You now agree that a slapped on back cover on a receptacle does not meet ABYC.
2) You interpret the term "wire terminations" to include "splices."
3) Whereas I say, a "wire termination" is not a "wire splice."

I disagree on your interpretation, and feel that you're reading something into "splice" that is not explicitly stated in ABYC.  I maintain that ABYC doesn't dissallow splices outside a box as a method -- it simply doesn't speak to the method, it only speaks to "terminating" two AC wires inside a box [joining those terminations using a boss or strip.]  And I support that interpretation with "common sense" examples comparing the shock hazard of open "terminations" vs. (as you have agreed is a safe) properly done "splice," and if NEC allows it, then there's a case to be made that it should also be acceptable on a boat.

kk

[KWKloeber]

Rod, even your "shore cord" citation supports exactly what I am saying....

11.6.2.2.1.2 Except where the shore power cable is permanently connected to the boat, the boat end of this cable shall be terminated with a locking and grounding female type connector to match the boat power inlet (see FIGURE 12  and FIGURE 13).

The BOAT end of a SP cable DOES not conform to Figure 13.  Change Fig 13 if you want to, but SP cable end doesn't meet what ABYC specifically requires/states. 

And 11 .. 13.3.1 speaks to ALL receptacles, it does not exempt boat-side receptacles/inlets. Where does section 13 exempt that receptacle?  A SP receptacle is not a 5L-30 as in Fig 13. 

Let's take another tack -- Alternately, where does ABYC state that OTHER than Fig 13, and a NEMA plug/socket is acceptable? 

In fact, taken together, "receptacles" and the "shore power cord" sections are complimentary (and understandable common-sense-wise, say the same thing and are not contradictory) -- the boat end has be as shown on Fig 13.  e.g. a 5L-30 for 30 amp.

There's no leeway given to use a different configuration.  if there is leeway, where is it stated?  Forget the cable/sheath standards, that's fluff to the discussion.

If the code was silent on, or stated that the cord end and inlet has to only be "compatible," or meet some performance standard, there would be leeway to use a configuration OTHER than a NEMA (per Figure 13.)

kk

[mainesail]

First, you at least inferred that an AC splice, outside an enclosure, was a "shock hazard" (citing the ABYC language "shock hazard.")  Maybe you personally didn't believe that to be true, but reinforced that with the comment that UF cable splices were at ground potential (so not a shock hazard as they would be on a boat?)

Ken,

Please answer my question about NFPA 70/NEC allowing that splice ABOVE GROUND. Unless your vessel is sitting on the bottom of the ocean there is no correlation between the two and you are comparing apples to t-bone steak. Your boat is not below ground or sunk you inhabit it.

I responded with ABYC wording (below) which is very clear and is the standard regardless of the termination type you choose or how safe you deem it to be. NEC does not allow for that splice above ground and nor does the ABYC because that portion is derrived from the land based standards.
.
ABYC E-11
"11.14.4.3 INSTALLATION - AC
11.14.4.3.1 All connections normally carrying current shall be made in enclosures to protect against shock hazards."




Then, that every AC splice must be in an enclosure,
ABYC E-11 standard is no different than NFPA 70/NEC standards in that any AC splice must be in an enclosure.  Which is not true, and I pointed out an underground splice.

If you really can't comprehend the difference between an underground or well type splice and why the NFPA/NEC mandates boxes in structures then I can't help you.

"And, I take exception that using "splice" and "termination" are interchangeable.  Thus:

ABYC Training Manual (Current ABYC Electrical Training Manual)
"It is still sometimes necessary, however, to make splices in AC wire runs. When doing so, make all AC terminations inside appropriate enclosures that can only be accessed with the use of hand tools."


I read, and you may interpret it differently,  that "splice" is generic -- (i.e., sometimes necessary to not have one complete run of wire.)  "terminations" speaks to one precise and specific method.  A wire spliced according to NEC splices on UF cables is NOT a wire termination. Again I read, and you may interpret it differently, that am enclosure is required for "shock protection" as ABYC text clearly states, because of the possibility of contacting open terminals. The thought that it's thrust is to require enclosing an alternate, perfectly safe, method of joining wires, due to a :shock hazard" by that alternate method, is not common sense.

So (putting smart plugs aside,) what (I think, as I re-read the last post) this boils down to is that:

1) You now agree such a splice (as on UF cable) is as safe, but that ABYC just doesn't allow them.  'nuf said on that.
2) You now agree that a slapped on back cover on a receptacle does not meet ABYC.
2) You interpret the term "wire terminations" to include "splices."
3) Whereas I say, a "wire termination" is not a "wire splice."

I disagree on your interpretation, and feel that you're reading something into "splice" that is not explicitly stated in ABYC.  I maintain that ABYC doesn't dissallow splices outside a box as a method -- it simply doesn't speak to the method, it only speaks to "terminating" two AC wires inside a box [joining those terminations using a boss or strip.]  And I support that interpretation with "common sense" examples comparing the shock hazard of open "terminations" vs. (as you have agreed is a safe) properly done "splice," and if NEC allows it, then there's a case to be made that it should also be acceptable on a boat.

kk

It has become apparent that you just want to argue what you "think" or "want" the ABYC E-11 standard to be saying.  I'll pm my number...

[KWKloeber]

Rod,

Sorry I must have missed your specific question.  for chrissake NEC allows a (WORSE!!!) virtually unprotected splice (ie a tyco splice) outside an enclosure in a an aboveground structure.  I can't say whether a "protected" splice as on UF cable would be allowed.  I'm not saying that I'd EVER DO a tyco splice, in fact I previously said that I wouldn't.

Look, it revolves around reading something into a code that isn't explicitly stated, which happens with virtually every law and regulation once they are issued.

There's nowhere that clearly states that a "wire termination" is the same as a "splice" or vice versa.  As further evidence of terminations vs. splices the code requires DC wire terminations (i.e. on a strip) on strips where terminals cannot be physically shorted.  It obviously doesn't (and wouldn't make sense to include wire splices (butt crimps) in that category of wire terminations.

And, although it's for DC, the code speaks to and differentates between a splice -- 11.14.5.3 --  ("conductor to conductor") and terminations ( "conductor to terminals")  a splice is clearly called out differently than a termination.  And the AC enclosure requirement is called out for terminations (wire-to-terminal, not wire-to-wire) splices.

You interpret that a "wire termination" is the same as a "splice."  I do not, and if something isn't precluded, then it's allowed.  \

Let's just agree to disagree?  My brain is getting fried with what is a difference of opinion on something that the code does not explicitly cover or state in its verbatim text.

kk

[lazybone]

Does your splice make it "unsafe"? Nope, just means it does not meet accepted safety codes which you asserted it does. If you wanted to change that portion of the ABYC E-11 standard you'd need to challenge the NFPA/NEC and get it charged there first.

Rod, I'm really confused, you have my head spinning --- you seem to have taken a 180. 

First, you at least inferred that an AC splice, outside an enclosure, was a "shock hazard" (citing the ABYC language "shock hazard.")  Maybe you personally didn't believe that to be true, but reinforced that with the comment that UF cable splices were at ground potential (so not a shock hazard as they would be on a boat?)

Then, that every AC splice must be in an enclosure,
ABYC E-11 standard is no different than NFPA 70/NEC standards in that any AC splice must be in an enclosure.  Which is not true, and I pointed out an underground splice.

And, I take exception that using "splice" and "termination" are interchangeable.  Thus:

ABYC Training Manual (Current ABYC Electrical Training Manual)
"It is still sometimes necessary, however, to make splices in AC wire runs. When doing so, make all AC terminations inside appropriate enclosures that can only be accessed with the use of hand tools."


I read, and you may interpret it differently,  that "splice" is generic -- (i.e., sometimes necessary to not have one complete run of wire.)  "terminations" speaks to one precise and specific method.  A wire spliced according to NEC splices on UF cables is NOT a wire termination. Again I read, and you may interpret it differently, that am enclosure is required for "shock protection" as ABYC text clearly states, because of the possibility of contacting open terminals. The thought that it's thrust is to require enclosing an alternate, perfectly safe, method of joining wires, due to a :shock hazard" by that alternate method, is not common sense.

So (putting smart plugs aside,) what (I think, as I re-read the last post) this boils down to is that:

1) You now agree such a splice (as on UF cable) is as safe, but that ABYC just doesn't allow them.  'nuf said on that.
2) You now agree that a slapped on back cover on a receptacle does not meet ABYC.
2) You interpret the term "wire terminations" to include "splices."
3) Whereas I say, a "wire termination" is not a "wire splice."

I disagree on your interpretation, and feel that you're reading something into "splice" that is not explicitly stated in ABYC.  I maintain that ABYC doesn't dissallow splices outside a box as a method -- it simply doesn't speak to the method, it only speaks to "terminating" two AC wires inside a box [joining those terminations using a boss or strip.]  And I support that interpretation with "common sense" examples comparing the shock hazard of open "terminations" vs. (as you have agreed is a safe) properly done "splice," and if NEC allows it, then there's a case to be made that it should also be acceptable on a boat.

kk

Kk,  let me explained in a language I'm sure you will understand.  If I hired you to wire my boat and you spliced a  one foot AC extension on my boat, rather than replacing ten foot of piece of wire... I would not pay you. 

If you got away with it...
Some day a surveyor is going to do an inspection.  He/she is going to see your suspect splices. They are not going to be signed by the wizard who did them and they will have no tags referencing this thread.

He's going to flag it, he's going to say its a hazard and recommend it be done properly.   You won't be there to argue.

[KWKloeber]

That wasn't really the discussion, was it? 

Of course there's a practical aspect of whether any inspector interprets any code as another one does, and challengine them when they go overboard (it does happen by the way.) 

As I said, if I did that, I'd stick it inside a pc of flex conduit (and then call to the surveyor's attention how how I went overboard and protected what I thought might be a possible hazard of having an exposed NM cable in a locker, and graciously accept his accolades.)  LOL!! 

There's different ways to skin a surveyor and, unfortunately, half of them don't even open a locker except to say whether it's dirty and needs cleaning.

If I were getting paid for it, I wouldn't do it that way either.  But that's a different animal/discussion!

kk

Kk,  let me explained in a language I'm sure you will understand.  If I hired you to wire my boat and you spliced a  one foot AC extension on my boat, rather than replacing ten foot of piece of wire... I would not pay you. 

If you got away with it...
Some day a surveyor is going to do an inspection.  He/she is going to see your suspect splices. They are not going to be signed by the wizard who did them and they will have no tags referencing this thread.

He's going to flag it, he's going to say its a hazard and recommend it be done properly.   You won't be there to argue.

[Sailing48N]

Wow, did this topic take on a life of its own. Thanks all for the input, suggestions, and advice.

I finally got some free time to go down to the boat yesterday. It was raining the whole time which gave me perfect opportunity to look for leaks which is where most of my time yesterday was spent. It was worth it though as I finally found the source of water in the bilge!!! Because of that, I didn't finish the electrical work as I had intended. Next weekend hopefully.

So, I traced the entire run of the AC wire going from the inlet to the electrical panel. Thank you everyone for helping with that. I thought I had check inside the head cabinets be obviously didn't check thoroughly enough.

The existing wire is only 12 gauge so I'll be replacing the whole run with 10 gauge and it should not be too difficult now that I've traced the wire.

Thanks again everyone.