HOW DO THE NEC AND IEC 60364 HELP PROVIDE ELECTRICAL SAFETY?

Copyright Material IEEE Paper No. PCIC-2000-34 George D. Gregory Senior Member IEEE Square D Company PO Box 3069 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 USA Melvin K. Sanders Member IEEE TECo., Inc. 206 SE Eastlawn Drive Ankeny Iowa 50021 USA
Abstract - Electrical safety requires a combination of standards and enforcement processes that must be carefully integrated so they work together. Two main standards are used to provide electrical safety in facilities: the lnternationale Electrical Technical Commission (IEC) system in Europe and the National Electrical Code (NEC).

Joseph H. Kusca Member IEEE Killark Electric Mfg. Co. 3940 M L King Dr. Saint Louis, MO 631 13 USA Craig M. Wellman Senior Member IEEE DuPont Co. P.O. Box 80840 Wilmington, DE 19880 USA

Giuseppe Parise Member IEEE University of Rome La Sapienza 00184 Rome Italy

Our goals are to promote harmonized product standards so everyone can use the same standard product lines and to promote correlation of the NEC, a national how to do it code, and IEC 60364, the international electrical installation standard, so the process of harmonizing product standards is not impeded.

These two systems provide electrical safety when used separately, but using a mix of the two raises many technical issues that are complex and not obvious to most users. This paper examines some of them, showing some similarities and differences while looking at related product issues.
lndex Terms -- Codes, electrical safety, electrical standards, international standards, global standardization, IEC 60364, NEC.
1. INTRODUCTION

II. THE ELECTRICALSAFETY SYSTEM

Electrical equipment and installations must satisfy both functional and safety requirements. Products and installations can be considered essentially free from hazards [NEC 90.1 (b)] This statement is essential to define the responsibility of every national or international installation code correctly. It complies with the new approach of the European Resolution of May 7, 1985 that states as voluntary and with presumption of compliance the use of IEC-EN 60364. Figure 1 provides a visualization as to how the components work together. [9]

Large organizations today are international, having multinational customers, clients or constituencies and facilities in a variety of countries. Suppliers may be from many countries, with products and services regulated by specific codes, standards, duties and trade agreements in countries in which they are used and produced. This paper will look briefly at the elements of an electrical safety system and how they impact decisions regarding electrical installations, reviewing and comparing the NEC with IEC 60364. [I ,2] The base for the review and comparison of the two documents is a report for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) titled Electrical Installation Requirements - A Global Perspective. [3] This report is available on NEMAS web site. It states One or the other of these documents serves as a basis for national wiring rules in various countries throughout the world.

Certification Safe Products and Safe Installations

Fig. 1 Electrical Safety System The installation code states requirements for safe systems and is closely linked to product standards and conformity assessment certification processes. Performance requirements for products must support the details of the installation code and visa-versa. The inspection and enforcement function helps to assure that the installation code has been followed. These functions are essential in

0-7803-6338-5/00/$10.00 0 2000 IEEE

- 323 -

00CH37112

providing for safe installations and must be linked and mutually supportive. Each function is in each system though they may exist in different forms. The linkage of these components is important, since individual components alone cannot be changed. The effectiveness of code requirements is also dependent on application of supporting products as well as enforcement.
111. COMPARE THE NEC & IEC 60364

The original drafts discussed were the few CENELCOM 100 European documents available and the intent was to enable harmonization of electrical installation rules in order to facilitate trade among them. European practices continue to be adopted in IEC 60364 because the European countries are predominant in TC 64 and the working groups.

C. Relation Of One To The Other

IEC 60364 provides the fundamental principles for wiring rules used in the European Union (EU). Other countries either develop their own legally mandated and applied wiring rules based on IEC 60364 or use the application document of another country. The NEC provides wiring rules for the USA, and suitable versions are adopted in Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela, Panama, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and other nations. Until recently IEC 60364 and the NEC have had no formal relationship to each other. The U.S. has been a member of the IEC since its inception, but participation has been nominal until very recently. While American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards have been widely accepted and have been the preferred standards in many countries, the NEC and IEC served different areas of the world. Globalization and international standardization has changed this. We do find commonality. A 1999 Temporary Interim Amendment (TIA) to the NEC added Section 90-l(d) stating: The requirements of this Code address the fundamental principles of protection for safety contained in International Standard Electrical Installations of Buildings, IEC 60364, Section 131. They are in harmony, and fundamental principles for electrical safety are the same throughout the world. This change to the NEC was a significant step toward recognizing IEC 60364 in ANSI electrical standards. This confirms a harmony for basic electrical safety -- there are more similarities than differences between the two. Some installation and wiring rule differences do exist because of the different electrical systems, building codes, practices, environments and infrastructure.

One or the other of these documents serves as a basis for national wiring rules in various countries. Electrical production based on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agencys 1997 World Fact Book shows:

Billion kWh
3,700

This indicates Europe, based on IEC 60364, plus North America, where the NEC originates, account for more than half of the worlds production of electricity. Both are widely used throughout the world. The NEMA document provides a survey of similarities and differences that should be addressed.

A.

What Is The National Electrical Code?

First published in 1897, it is presently revised every three years by the National Fire Protection Association. I t s purpose, stated in Section 90-1, is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity. [I] The NEMA report states it is a specific set of rules intended to be used for design, installation and uniform enforcement of electrical system installations based on North American principles and practices. [3]

B. What Is IEC 60364?

IEC 60364 was started by Technical Committee 64 of the IEC. Clause 12.1 of Part 1 states, This standard contains the rules for the design and erection of electrical installations so as to provide safety and proper functioning for the use intended. [2)It is a single standard published in a number of interrelated parts and contains fundamental principles, practices and performance requirements based on European national standards but are generally applicable to all systems. Individual user countries and localities draw from this standard for specific wiring rules.

D. How Are They Similar?

The following points come from the NEMA report. [3] Both establish performance requirements that address fire and electric shock protection. Both address installation of premises wiring systems and equipment. Both are applicable to electrical systems of premises for residential, commercial and industrial use.

- 324 -

Neither covers installations for generation, transmission or distribution of electric energy, nor those under exclusive control of electric or communications utilities. Both need effective coordination with appropriate product standards to be successful in implementing electrical safety. The scope of both covers from the service point (point of supply) to outlets. Electrical safety in both is for avoidance of fire and electrical shock hazards. The NEMA report explores the various sections of both documents point for point and in general finds that each point in one is covered by a corresponding point in the other and each provides an adequate range of coverage in terms of the other.

electrical installation requirements that can be adopted and implemented without development of additional wiring rules. [3] It contains the detailed mandatory material needed to make it comprehensive and enforceable.
4) Adoption By Authorities: IEC 60364-1, Chapter 13 states: Fundamental Principles, Note: Where countries not yet having national regulations for electrical installations deem it necessary to establish legal requirements for this purpose, it is recommended that such requirements be limited to fundamental principles which are not subject to frequent modification on account of technical development. The contents of Chapter 13 may be used as a basis for such legislation.

E.

How Are They Different?

1) Approach: The IEC 60364 approach is considered open as a way or a guide for a way. The IEC system is based on an analytical approach of requirements, generalizing criteria, resolvingadditional situations and opened to non-specific items. The IEC system highlights the role of the technical operator, designer or inspector, etc to accept the responsibility to choose, design and organize to the specific installationcode. The installationthen has the presumption of compliance.

The NEC states on the inside of the back cover: Adoption by Reference: Public authorities and others are urged to reference this document in laws, ordinances, regulations, administrative orders or similar instruments. ... Adoption by Transcript: Public authorities with lawmaking or rulemaking powers ... will be granted a royalty-free license to print and republish this document in whole or in part, with changes and additions, if any, noted separately, in laws, ordinances, regulations, administrative orders, or similar instruments having the force of law.... Adopting the NEC does require that a legislative body or agency adopt a change in the law every three years if they want to stay up-to-date. IEC 60364 is not an inspectors or planners document. Rather it provides guidelines for writing such a document. The NEC is a document intended for use by planners and inspectors, to be adopted by authorities performing the inspection. It contains both performance and prescriptive requirements.

Inherent in this is the information & training requirement about safety as an essential imperative for all workers (Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989) and as a duty for the technical operator. IEC 60364 is published in a number of interrelated parts and contains normative references to other standards. Training in its use is difficult and is relatively expensive, as it does not have a formal revision schedule. The NEC approach is considered closed, it is the way, or do it this way. The NEC system is based on a synthetic (assumed set of conditions) approach (with feedback); it is a comprehensive set of electrical installation requirements for safety and the Installation Code. It is revised every three years and highlights the variations.
2) Approval: The approval of the IEC documents and of the NEC is an effort respectively by manufacturers, testing laboratories, inspectors, labor, utilities, facility owners.

5 ) Scope: IEC 60364 covers a system from the point of supply for a building to the socket (receptacle) outlets. It does not include rules for appliances or other electrical equipment. Product requirements are in separate IEC standards, which are developed by other committees with liaison to TC 64 for installation issues. The NEC covers a system beginning at the service point of a premises up to and including the outlet(s) and it also includes some rules for appliances and other utilization equipment, which the code making panels elect to include in the installation code.
IEC 60364 does not include rules for installations in areas with explosive atmospheres. Those rules are provided in IEC 60079. The NEC includes rules for hazardous (classified) locations (explosive atmospheres). NEC rules include both traditional North American systems and rules that harmonize with those of IEC 60079. The scope of IEC 60364 is limited to voltages up to 1000 V, with no similar voltage limitation in the NEC. TC 99 is

3) Use: IEC 60364 provides broad performance requirements and is not usable as an installation document by electrical system designers, installers, or enforcing authorities, but rather it can serve as a guide for development of national wiring rules. The NEC is a comprehensive set of

- 325 -

developing a standard for installationsfor over 1000 volts with the European Standard, CENELEC HD 637 SI: 1998-12 Power installations exceeding 1 kV a.c. The draft presents a conflict between the values of admissible touch voltages on the LV side stated by IEC 60364 and those suggested for the MV supply side of premises wiring [12].
6) Examination Of Equipment For Safety: The NEMA report concludes that for IEC 60364, compliance with the safety requirements of the relevant equipment standards is to be made by visual inspection on permanently wired electrical equipment. NEC provisions in 90-7 relieve the inspection authority from delving into internal wiring of appliances and equipment, and rely for safe operation on equipment that has been certified by a qualified electrical testing laboratory as meeting appropriate standards. [3 pg 121 The concept of examination of the run of goods at factories, called follow-up inspection and testing, is an integral requirement of UL product certification to satisfy the NEC.

In the NEC, 240-3 reads, Conductors ... shall be protected against overcurrent in accordance with their ampacities .... Protection against overcurrent implies protection against both overload and short circuit conditions. Similarly, IEC 60364-4 433.1 reads, Protective devices shall be provided to break any overload current before such a current could cause a temperature rise detrimental to insulation, joints, terminations or surroundings of the conductors. Also, 434.1 reads, Protective devices shall be provided to break any shortcircuit current flowing in the circuit conductors before such a current could cause danger due to thermal and mechanical effects produced in conductors and connections. Again, on fundamental principles, the two documents are in harmony. In IEC 60364 the cables ampacity IZshall not be less than the design circuit current IB (continuous and non-continuous load), and if the protective device is a circuit breaker, it shall also be IZ= IS. For feeders, the NEC 215-2(a) and 215-3 mandates that the overcurrent device (and then Iz) shall not be less than the non-continuous load plus 125 percent of the continuous load [13]. The starting-point of NEC in determining the overload capacity of cables is the conductor emergency loading temperature 8 E which can be tolerated by a cable for a given maximum time per overload. IEC 60364 deals with overload protection of cables essentially in terms of current values; the admissibility of overload currents for moderate periods is asserted as a consequence of the prescribed coordination criteria between conductors and protective devices. An emergency loading current (1.451~) is admissible in a conventional time (between one- and two-hours for CB) within which the protective device shall ensure its operation. Briefly, in the IEC system for each admissible overload the conductors with a low cross sectional area are stressed more than those with a high cross sectional area. In the NEC system, all conductors are considered to be stressed equally ~41. The overcurrent protection requirements in the IEC system are independent of the system. The manner of earthing will affect the earth fault loop impedance and that will affect the way in which earth fault protection is provided. The overload protection and short-circuit protection are considered separately and may be provided by separate devices or a single device. A single set of fuses or a single circuit breaker is the most common form of protection except in cases in which equipment protection requires dedicated brotection such as in motor circuits. The short-circuit protective device must clear a fault in a time that will meet the k2S2 requirements of IEC 60364-4 434.3, (adiabatic equation involving conductor cross sectional area, time tc 5% and energy let through [15]. For a current limiting device the

IEC 60364 allows examination of labels or documentation to verify that an item complies. Equipment made by a manufacturer with QA certification is readily identified as meeting standards. However, European national laws guarantee that production is independently monitored and regulated. 7) Referenced Documents: IEC 60364 makes extensive reference to normative documents.. The NEC does not make any normative or mandatory references to other documents, which allows it to easily be adopted by legal jurisdictions. However, as the NEMA report says, some equipment is specifically required to be listed (certified), which by definition in the NEC means that the equipment ...meets appropriate designated standards.. .. It requires third party certification by listing or labeling.
IV. APPLICATION EXAMPLES

The differences described above provide a macro idea of differences. However, differences that impact system designers and users will be found in their relation to specific installations. We will look at several examples.

A. Conductors And Overcurrent Protection

The NEMA report points out that the ampacities of conductors are similar for similar cross sections by comparing values of 75% conductors in NEC Table 310-16 with dose of 70% conductors in IEC 60364-5-523, Table 52-C9. The comparison always shows the NEC value to be slightly more conservative. Correction factors for ambient temperatures and for number of conductors run together are similar.

- 326 -

manufacturer declares this and for a non-current limiting device it is determined from fault 1% Under the NEC system, a single overcurrent protective device, circuit breaker or set of fuses, is required for protection of conductors in Section 240-20(a). Only where specific equipment is intended to be protected, such as motor circuits in Article 430, are separate devices permitted for overload and short-circuit protection. In these cases, the separate overload device is primarily for protection of the equipment. Product standards for fuses and circuit breakers have differences that make the products not interchangeable. Fuse characteristics for time versus current and for shortcircuit let-through values are different; however, circuit breaker time versus current characteristics are quite similar. For short-circuit protection, North American circuit breaker standards require tests with conductors rated for specific temperatures. Circuit breakers are labeled with the range of conductor sizes tested and with a maximum conductor temperature rating, because the conductor size and initial temperature impacts the results: the conductor serves as a heat sink allowing more current to flow before the breaker trips. In some tests, the conductor also limits the test current allowing a higher interrupting rating. The test with conductors also demonstrates protection. Alternatively, many manufacturers of IEC rated circuit breakers publish values of let-through I2t to compare with k2S2 values of conductors. Terminal temperature rises during temperature tests at rated current are permitted to be a maximum of 70C under IEC 60947-1 covering switches and circuit breakers as well as control equipment. [6] Temperature rises in UL 98 for switches are permitted to be a maximum of 30C measured with dummy fuses in place of real fuses, although this means the temperature rise with real fuses is not tested. [8] Temperatures rises in UL 489 for circuit breakers are permitted to be a maximum of 50C. (71 Some suggestions for harmonizing circuit breaker standards appear below. As we review the design and installation of the system, we find differences in products and practices that go far beyond differences in voltages and frequencies. Product standards are closely linked to a particular installation standard, i.e. selection of conductors size, insulation temperature rating and overcurrent devices is defined in the installation standard, but product standards determine actual performance of this equipment using the family of underlying product standards -- UL or IEC. In the NEC, the underlying product standards are not listed as normative references and are not shown at all in most cases, although there is close correlation between those product standards and the NEC.

B.

Circuit Breaker Standards

To harmonize low-voltage circuit breakers, we would need to look separately at the residential unit called a miniature circuit breaker (MCB) in IEC terms and the industrial molded-case circuit breaker (MCCB). Both products are covered in a single standard in North America, for example UL 489 in the USA. [7] In the IEC system, the MCBs are covered in IEC 898 and the MCCBs in IEC 947-2. [lo, 111 Concerning the MCCBs, it would be desirable to see the North American requirements included in the IEC Standard to facilitate more universal designs. Items that might be considered are in at least three key areas. One area is individual pole short circuit tests in which multiple ground faults are simulated at line-to-line voltage. Although Annex C of IEC 947-2 presently contains a test that goes a long way toward satisfying this condition, the test current values are 25% of ultimate interrupting rating and could be considerably lower than that required by North American standards. A second is the wiring terminal temperature rise of 80C permitted in IEC 947-2 (after operational tests of breaking capacity) compared with 50C (for a new unused breaker) in North American Standards. The elevated temperatures of the IEC rated products could cause hot spots in conductors of the type used in North America that could lead to insulation failure. Perhaps the lower temperature rise could be added in an annex since the higher temperatures are clearly acceptable with wires used with IEC rated products in Europe. A third difference is the larger spacing for creepage and clearance in North American standards. The spacings as stated in UL 489 are linked to National Electrical Code Table 384-36. They are larger than needed strictly for dielectric integrity and include considerations for workmanship and unexpected occurrences. It is essential that product standards remain correlated with the wiring rules to maintain the integrity of the system, but why must the spacing remain in the NEC? If we turn to the MCB, the primary issue is that IEC 898 today does not recognize North American voltages of 120, 120/240 or 240 Vac. We understand that Working Group 1 of IEC Technical Committee 23E is evaluating this addition. Such changes would go a long way toward bringing the standards together for these circuit breaker products.

- 327 -

V. HARMONIZATION EXAMPLE INCREASED SAFETY STANDARDS

VI. CONCLUSIONS

A. What Should Users Be Doing Now?

An example of what can be accomplished can be seen in a change to the 1996 NEC - adoption of the international zone system of area classification. The Instrument Society of America (ISA), an organization of users and product manufacturers has played a leading role in the drive to improve electrical safety in classified areas. It has a committee (SP12) that focuses on standards and practices for classified areas. The SP12 Committee is made up of many subcommittees with specific scopes. For example, there are SP12 subcommittees for each of the protection techniques for classified areas both for the traditional North American Division System and the IEC Zone System. An interesting example of working towards Global Harmonization can be found in the efforts of the ISA SP12.16 Subcommittee that worked to develpp an American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standard and harmonize it with the IEC standard for the type of protection, Increased Safety. One factor that made the effort of developing a harmonized standard for increased safety different was that this protection technique was developed in Europe and clearly the expertise for the protection technique is still with European organizations and companies. One of the first meetings of the SP12.16 Subcommittee was instructional. A second meeting was held in Germany so it could include lab tours to view demonstrations of the test techniques for various types of increased safety products. Later, working group meetings to address motors and lighting were held in Germany. After ANSI recognition of the ISA Increased Safety Standard, ISA arranged for that standard to be submitted to the IEC by the U.S. National Committee so it could be considered for the next revision to the IEC standard, with the US to act as the convenor of the working group. This action resulted in the IEC establishing Working Group 13 to develop a revision. The WG has submihed a revision proposal to TC 31. This example demonstrates how an organization and the users in one country not only worked to harmonize the requirements of an international standard for use in their own country, but how they worked to have some of their deviations considered for adoption in the international standard to bring the requirements of the national and international standards into harmony. Simple mixing or combining of safe products and a sound installation code does not assure safety. Even specifying the most stringent code, standard or industry practice will not suffice. Applying either installation standard with its related product standards will assure a safe installation, but when mixing product and installation standards from the different systems, the designer must accept full responsibility for avoiding application or protection failures. This is very difficult because many standards are involved and they are expensive and not readily available. However, if characteristics and energy let-through figures are available, an installation can be designed to comply with IEC 60364 using UL listed or labeled circuit breakers or fuses. Unfortunately, the NEC is presented in a way that prevents doing this unless manufacturers obtain listings for their products based on ANSI or American testing laboratory standards or users get permission from the authority having jurisdiction. Full resolution cannot be achieved until product standards are harmonized. In the meantime, users should maintain the NEC and IEC separation of installation standards and related products wherever possible.

5. Role Of The NEC Relative To The IEC 60364

David Latimer, chair of the TC64 Committee reported: Almost all countries which have adopted IEC 60364 as the basis for their National Standards provide guidance either produced by themselves or taken over from another country; but not all national standards which take up the IEC60364 technical content are in the IEC 60364 format or layout. VDE100, NF C15-100, and BS7671 are ways of complying with 60364 using equipment to IECICENELEC standards and indeed to VDE, NF, and BS standards. All of these standards are used widely. The installation guidance can be divided into two classes, one of which is broad guidance expanding upon the principle, for the assistance of the senior designer engaged in large and/or difficult installations. The other is do it this way guidance. The NEC is a do it this way document, which with its broad scope covers the widest possible range of situations. I believe that installations carried out to the NEC will in general comply

- 328 -

with the requirements of IEC60364. comply with Chapter 13.

Without doubt they

"I do not believe that the NEC is suited to be nor could it become an internationalstandard. What it is suited to be and could be declared to be is a way of making an installation which complies with IEC60364 when using equipment listed by UL or to US Standards and I would welcome that."

enforceable document, so design, construction, and inspection people can work effectively. Countries involved in the IEC process do that with some level of a "how to do it document." Recognizing what should be reconciled and what should not be reconciled is an important step. Examples and a direction for each are listed below: Hazardous classification systems -- NEC adopted Zone system in 1996! 2 Units of measurement -- SI system is being proposed for NEC for 2002 edition! 3 System voltages -- No change in practice is feasible due to installed base, can add detailed requirements for 120 volt system to IEC 60364. 4 Plugs and receptacles -- No change feasible or justified in most countries due to installed base. 5 Equipment compatibility with different voltages and frequencies -- Electronic products already converted! 6 Protected equipment zone up to receptacle as in 60364 or including equipment as in NEC -- Can add as option in 60364 if desired. 7 Top voltage of 1000 volts in 60364 vs. no limit in NEC. IEC TC 99 Committee has started developing standard for over 1000 volts. 8 Metal vs. plastic materials for product enclosures Should reconcile rules for fire resistance. 9 Grounding -- Appears to be quite different, but not a significant conflict. 10 Cable overcurrent protection -- Understand basis for each standard's method as a first step.

C. Where Do We Need To Go?

We need to harmonize dialectically IEC 60364 and the NEC and the related product standards so a global market with worldwide access to best available products for all is achieved, and to do that in a way that maintains or improves electrical safety. We need to move toward a standards system that maximizes the commonality of product standards. Conflicts and voids between the two installation documents and the product standards should be identified, analyzed in comparison, highlighting the different ranges of application, and resolved as needed to correlate them with the intent of improving safety requirements in each document and increasing the flexibility to use alternate methods. Prescriptive requirements should be replaced with functional requirements so the market and product safety standards organizations can respond quickly to changing markets and technologies and can move toward reconciliation of NA product standards with EU product standards. The NEC contains no normative references to other standards, only references for information in "Fine Print Notes." But, in the NEC process, approval of product requirements is not completely left to manufacturers and testing laboratories as it is in Europe. Inspectors, labor, utilities, facility owners, and other users also get a voice by participating in the development process for the next edition of the NEC. The NEC Code Making Panels accept prescriptive product requirements in the NEC because that is the only way they can assure those requirements will be mandatory. Unfortunately, this same process makes innovation a slow and difficult process. As an alternative, a more rigorous process could be taken to have qualified personnel investigate accidents and then incorporate the learnings in product standards. [16] Usually standards issues are reconciled by moving to a higher more general level and that has happened in the case of IEC 60364. But providing safe installations in a practical way means getting the details into an easily understood and

--

Standards harmonization must be a two way street. If we are going to move toward common standards, both North American and European committee members will have to be open to accepting ideas, standards and products proposed by the other side. We can then move toward common standards offering what the market demands: better safety and reliability at the lowest possible price for each class of application. As an example of successful product standards evolution, for years Germany and the U.K had different fuse characteristic standards. As part of harmonization, both gave way a little and they agreed on a set of characteristics. Although the US has never declared IEC 60364 to be an ANSI standard, the recently adopted TIA is a significant step toward acceptance of the principles of IEC 60364. This declaration will help the harmonization process enormously. In the beginning, U.K., Germany, France, Italy etc. all had their own very different rules or regulations or standards and gave them up reluctantly with much complaint from their home audiences. Strangely enough, some of the things that

- 329 -

the UK objected to most strenuously turned out either not to be a problem or to be beneficial.

VIII. REFERENCES
ANSVNFPA 70, National Electrical Code 1999, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, USA 1998 [2] IEC Standard 60364, "Electrical installations of Buildings," lnternationale Electrotechnical Commission Geneva, Switzerland [3] "Electrical Installation Requirements, A Global Perspective" A report by Underwriters Laboratories Inc., Paul Duks, for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA, USA 1999 [4] Giuseppe Parise, "A Summary on the Protection Against Electric Shock," IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, September October 1998 vol. 34 pages .911-922 [5] George Gregory, "North American or IEC Standards for Circuit Breakers - What is the Choice for North America?", Conference Record of the 1999 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting. [6] IEC 60947-1 (1999-02) "Low-VoltageSwitcher and Controller, Part 1: General rules," International Electrotechnicale Commission, Geneva, Switzerland [7] ANSI/UL 489, Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded Case Switches and Circuit Breaker Enclosures, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., Northbrook, IL 1996. [8] UL Standard No. 98 "Enclosed and Dead Front Switches," Underwriters Laboratories Inc., Northbrook, IL 1994 [9] James Pauley and George Gregory, "North American Codes and Standards: A Global Challenge," Conference Record of the 1998 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, pp. 2372-2378. [lo] IEC 60947-2 (1995-12), 'Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear, Part 2: Circuit Breakers, ' lnternational Electrotechnicale Commission, Geneva, Switzerland. [I 11 IEC 60898 (1995-02), "Electrical Accessories - Circuit breakers for overcurrent protection for household and similar installations," International Electrotechnicale Commission, Geneva, Switzerland. [I 21 G. Parise, "Electrical Installations Of Buildings: The IECKENELEC Protection Against Indirect Contact By Grounding And Automatic Disconnection Of The Supply Up To And Exceeding 1 kV AC", IEEE Safety Workshop April 2000 India [I 31 G. Parise, L.Martirano: "Circuits Operation Control And Overloads Protection" IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, January / February 2000 vo1.36 n.1). 1141 G. Parise, G. Rubino: "A comparison between the ANSVIEEE and the CENELECAEC approach to overload protection of insulated power cables", IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, September October 1997. 1362-1366)

[I]

At the present time, several organizations are attempting to reconcile specific recommended practices used in the US to those used in the IEC world. They are trying to accommodate the need for industrial and manufacturingindustries. But there is no overall coordination, so there is duplicate effort which contributes to frustration and safety issues in machine design, operation, and maintenance. Although the work is difficult, the effort must continue.

V I . SUMMARY
The North American and European countries have gone in separate directions on electrical standards with large cost and safety consequences for their home markets and international markets. In a survey of installation requirements in IEC 60364 and the NEC, we find more similarities than differences. Greatest similarities exist in the fundamental principles. There are also strong similarities in the application of laws of physics. Differences arise in application of the codes to specific installations. Product standards and the enforcement systems linked to each document are different and drive different practices for installations. These differences arise in part from differences in building codes, infrastructure, political structure and environment as well as the different voltages and electrical systems that have become standard. The recent TIA revision of the NEC, which recognized the harmony in safety principles, is a first step in recognizing commonality. At present, mixing of elements of the two approaches in design and in the field can only be done with great care. But continued cooperation between bodies working on areas of harmonization will be supportive of organizations doing business internationally. Though there will be a need for the two systems to exist independently for the indefinite future, we may reach a point in which a single system design can satisfy the collective requirements of both systems with minimal conflict. Clearly there are potentially great benefits if there could be a universal installation code, with harmonized product standards that would lead to one product and certification for all markets. It is not practical to think that we can have international codes and standards without provisions for national or even local deviations, however, the objective must be to work towards global harmonization wherever practical.

- 330 -

[15] Parise, U. Grasselli, R. Zan, M.K. Sanders: "Electrical Power Systems: the NEC and the IEC Approach" 1996 IEEE-IAS I&CPS Technical Conference New Orleans May 5-7. [I61 G. Parise, S. Annibaldi, L. Martirano Safe Operation of Electrical Installations In EU, I&CPS Conference Cleatwater, Florida 2000

NCCER instructor certified for Electrical Apprenticeship training. He is also a member of IAEI, NFPA, SAE and is an ICBO Certified Electrical Inspector. He serves as an alternate member of NEC CMP 3 for IEEE, a member of NFPA 708 and NFPA 79, a member of four IEEE color book committees, and a member of the SAE HS 1738 Committee. Craig M.Wellman graduated from the University of Delaware in 1966 with a BEE degree. He has been a project engineer and consultant for the DuPont Company in Wilmington Delaware since 1973. He is a senior member of IEEE, the secretary of the Codes and Regulations Subcommittee of the PClC Standards committee, an author of three previous PClC papers, and a presenter of two tutorials. He is a member of the NEC Technical Correlating Committee and a member of the CMA ElectricalCodes and Standards Task Group. He is a registered professionalengineer in the state of Delaware.

IX. VITA
George D. Gregory has been an IEEE member since 1970. He earned the BSEE and MSEE degrees from the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago. He is presently Manager, Industry Standards with Square D Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USA with primary responsibilities in low-voltage overcurrent protective devices. Mr. Gregory is active in the Industry Applications and Power System Engineering Societies of IEEE. He is Chair of the IAS Power Systems Protection Committee, Chair of the Blue Book Working Group, and a contributorto the Battery Systems Protection Working Group. He is Chair of the NEMA Circuit Breaker Section, USA Deputy Technical Advisor to the IEC 176 Subcommittee and a member of NEC Code Panel 10 (representing NEMA). He is a registered Professional Engineer in Illinois, Iowa and Puerto Rico. Joseph H. Kuczka graduated from Washington University St. Louis in 1975 with a BSEE degree. He is Technical and Industry Standards Manager for Killark of St. Louis, where he has been employed since 1964. He is a member of numerous national and internationalstandards writing organizations including IEEE, ISA, UL, NEMA, NFPA, CSA and IEC. He has co-authoredsix PClC papers. Giuseppe Parise has been an IEEE member since 1982. In 1972 he received his degree in ElectricalEngineering from the University of Rome. He has been at the university ever since and is currently an Associate Professor of Electrical Power Systems. His research and consulting activities cover power systems design, planning, safety, security, and energy management. Since 1983, he has been a member of Superior Council of Ministry of Public Works as expert of power systems. He is member of the Italian ElectricalCommission (CEI) CT/SC 11A "Generation, transmission and distribution systems of electric power" and of the IEEE\IAS Power Systems Grounding Subcommittee. Melvin K. Sanders is President of TECo., Inc., a Codes and Standards Electrical Consulting and Education Corporation and licensed contractor Des Moines, Iowa. Retired after 241/2 years at John Deere Des Moines, he presents electrical education programs and is a contract ElectricalInspector for Polk County, Iowa, graduate of Des Moines Area Community College with an Applied Sciences Associate Degree, and

- 331 -