ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues This should start some fights AFCIs on retros

-Submitter: James T. Dollard, Jr., IBEW Local 98
Recommendation: Add a new list item to 406.3(D) as follows:
406.3(D)-

Call me cynical,not trying to be Juvenile.
But the economy is BAD. Non and Union Electricians are hurting.
My first take was a way to boost business.I respect that. We all try.
But in this manor would be absolutely ludicrous!!

Not that is the reason but....
I see no other from the hip.

As Above,I can only see a bad situation getting worse,RE- 'Handy man',and additional lack of permits leading to loss of revenue and GOOD Electricians going bad,at the choice of compliance and a living.

This seems to me to be a lot of hot-air.
If all you folks are so up in arms about these changes, why did you not bother to make sure you got your comments in to the Panel, BEFORE the closing date?

Mike I doubt there has ever been a code rule that got more proposals and comments than changing/deleting 210.12
I saw Reno was there. They all got blown off as being "unfounded" for one reason or another and that was it.

I thought this was the year 2010, not 1885.
The Panel members need to be looked at, if they can't handle discussion points, after all isn't that why they have things like this?

Honestly. very few trades people know that they can comment.
By the time they realize it... comments are closed.
damn! Massachusetts has been on the 2008 code since 1/1/2008 and most of them don't even know it.
(owners and such yes)
Now the new cycle!!? When the heck do ya have time to work? you are always (seemingly) trying to catch up!
Let alone enter your thoughts in writing in X amount of time!!!! BS !!!

Other parts of the Country are still on the 2002.

What gives? I'm with Greg, slow it down,lets get caught up and on the same page.

Then extend the cycle to 5 +- years.

Heck Lee, I would be happy with a uniform adoption of the Code. One county here I think is on the 93, while others are somewhere in between.

I also don't like some of the reasons the panel give for rejection of a change. Seems like the intent is overlooked, perhaps because the person didn't quite use the words the panels would have used. Do the panels ever go back to the submitter and ask for clarification?

Jim, the reasons behind actions of the panels are as many as the stars in the skies. There are a few things, though, that need to be kept in mind:

First, it's always easier to prevent a decision from being made, than it is to get that decision reversed; with AFCI's the opponents are trying to undo a 'done deal.' My first involvement in 'the process' was exactly such an effort. While ultimately successful, you would not believe the stir it caused;

Second, as that Ford engineer said, everyone has opinions; you need DATA to make yours stand out. If there's a problem, you need to be able to demonstrate first that the problem exists, then that your proposal will address that problem.

Third, I like the multitude of jurisdictions, with their various editions and local ammendments. This is our final means of stopping bad code. The situation is already topsy-turvy, in that many times the AHJ feels he has to 'justify' why he's not following a 'model' code. This has it exactly backwards; it's for the 'model' code to sell itself to the AHJ. That is, the NFPA has to satisfy me - not the other way around.

While I can see your point about not adopting what some might consider a bad code, keeping track of what is and isn't allowed under different versions is a royal PIA. I remember asking a chief inspector if I could use something that had been changed in a later version vs the edition that jurisdiction had adopted. He said absolutely not. He had asked the legal department for that county and was told if he allowed that he would be breaking the law. I really can't see if it is safe enough on one side of a county line why it would be unsafe on another side. Of course that is all before you get the lawyers involved.

The flip side of the legal issue could be when you are held to the more recent standard that is adopted elsewhere even tho it is not adopted. Kind of like what you did was legal under past codes but gets twisted into it could have been safer under more recent codes and you should know better as a professional.

Jim:

That's why here in NJ we have the Uniform Construction Code (UCC; 5:23 et al).

It may be a pain in the butt, but the whole state is supposed to be on the same page.

Supposed to be the same here in NY, but one local township insists on doing its own thing.

Bill