|
1 members (Scott35),
253
guests, and
31
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
Member
|
Bill,
Up until the '95 draft copy of the 96 NEC, it was very clear that the exception only applied to 210-8(a)(2). The Exception started out with the words, "Exception #1 to (a)(2)". I don't know if these words appear in the 96 NEC as I don't have a copy here at home. The words do not appear in the '99 code and I can't find any proposals in either the 95 or 98 ROPs and ROCs that reflect the deleting of these words. Does any one know how the deletion came about?
Don(resqcapt19)
Don(resqcapt19)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
Member
|
No, but knowing such may lend to future clarification.......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,116 Likes: 4
OP
Member
|
Don,
In looking at 210-8(a) in the 1990 NEC I see what you mean. At that time this section was in a different format also. 210-(a)(1) and (2) are each what I would consider as rules as per the style manual. The format of this same section the 1999 NEC is that of a rule followed by a list.
I'd like to repeat that my questioning goes beyond the examples presented here, but if you look at (1990 NEC) 210-8(a)(4) there is an Exemption from GFCI protection for certain receptacles in Crawlspaces - it appears immediately after the rule stating that GFCI protection is required in crawlspaces. So clearly there are exceptions for crawlspaces. Now go to the same section in the 1999 NEC the exception is under (5) but I believe that it is still meant to apply to (4) (crawlspaces)
I don't really mean to debate specifics, as I think there is a much larger issue here if we can't be sure which exemptions apply to which rules. I think that there will always be a problem with interpretations of wording, but this is something which shouldn't be in dispute.
Bill
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
Member
|
Bill,
I think that this is a lack of coordination when the sections are changed and new parts added or other parts deleted. In the cases we are looking at the application of the exceptions is very clear in the old codes and becomes ambiguous in the new code after changes not directly related to the exception were made. I agree that it is a very real problem for the use and enforcement of the NEC. These things should be caught by the CMP or if it gets by them, then by the correlating committee. Looks like a good place to start with proposals for the 2005 code.
Don(resqcapt19)
Don(resqcapt19)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26
Member
|
Bill, these exceptions apply to the "main rule" which I believe are the key words here.
2001 NFPA Style Manual. See Section 2.6 Exceptions. (from Joe's input)
2.6.1 Placement and Order. Exceptions shall
immediately follow the MAIN RULE to which they apply.
If the exception does not apply, you cannot use it to change the main rule. These exceptions are for those isolated cases not within the main rule which is the entire rule.
So I believe bathrooms can have dedicated outlets - if not change the wording of the code to clarify this exception, and the numerous others within the code.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,116 Likes: 4
OP
Member
|
johngeorge, This are excerpts from the 2001 NEC Style Manual. 2.1.3 Articles. Articles are chapter subdivisions that cover a specific subject such as grounding, overcurrent protection, lighting fixtures, and so on. Each article shall have a title. Articles are divided into sections and sometimes into parts.
2.1.4 Parts. If an article is sufficiently large, it shall be permitted to be subdivided into parts that correspond to logical groupings of information. Parts shall have titles and shall be designated by Roman numerals. (See example.) Parts typically consist of a number of sections; see 2.4.2.1 for section numbering in articles that are subdivided into parts.
Example:
I Installation
II Construction Specifications
III Grounding
2.1.5 Subdividing Sections. Sections shall be permitted to be subdivided for clarity, with each subdivision representing either a rule or a part of a rule. Up to three levels of subdivisions shall be permitted, and any level shall be permitted to contain a list.
2.1.5.1 List Formats. Lists are a method of structuring the items necessary to complete a rule. Lists in any subdivision level shall be numbered, and listed items shall be single words, phrases, or sentences. Items in a list shall not contain titles.
(Example)
Example:
Chapter ---- Chapter 2 Wiring and Protection
Article ---- Article 250 ---- Grounding
Part ---- II Conductors
Section ---- 250.121 Identification and Size of Equipment Grounding Conductors.Unless otherwise required in this Code, equipment grounding conductors shall be permitted to be bare, covered, or insulated.
Level 1 ---- (A) Identification of Conductors. An insulated or covered conductor larger than No. 6 copper or aluminum shall be permitted to be identified, at the time of installation, by one of the following means:
List item ---- (1) Stripping the insulation or covering from the entire exposed length.
List item ---- (2) Coloring the exposed insulation or covering green.
List item ---- (3) Marking the exposed insulation or covering with green tape or green adhesive labels.
*****************
2.6 Exceptions.
2.6.1 Placement and Order. Exceptions shall immediately follow the main rule to which they apply.
Exceptions containing the mandatory terms shall or shall not are to be listed first in the sequence.
Permissive exceptions containing shall be permitted are to follow any mandatory exceptions and be listed in their order of importance as determined by the Code-Making Panel.
2.6.2 Numbering. Where there are two or more consecutive exceptions, each shall be numbered. That's my take on how it reads too. The Exception in our Example ('99 NEC 210-8(a))is to the Rule (above it) of Required GFCI protection and includes the locations in the list between them. - That would also mean that the exception concerning snow-melting equipment ('02 NEC 210-8(b)would apply to both the Kitchen and Rooftop areas. ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/smile.gif) Anybody have an older NEC Style Manual? Bill [This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 12-17-2001).]
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
Member
|
John, Bill,
I agree that when you apply the style manual rules to 210-8, that a dedicated outlet would be permitted by the wording in a bathroom.
I do not believe that is the intent of the code as I can find no proposal to extend the exception that at one time only applied to garages to the bathroom. In the 96 draft in the 95 ROP the 2 exceptions clearly only applied to garages. There are no comments in the 95 ROC that made this change. How did the wording of the exception get changed. Changes in the style manual should not be permitted to effect changes in the technical rules.
Don(resqcapt19)
Don(resqcapt19)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26
Member
|
Who started this!!
It is now clear; I think, from your last post, Bill, that LEVELS (A) (B) (C) etc are used as a rule under article numbers that are under section numbers etc. etc.
The LISTS ( the numbered parts of the rule) are used to complete the rule and clarify the LEVEL.
So if an exception comes immediately afer a LIST (1) (2) or (3) the exception would have to be part of the rule not the LIST item.
There are places in the code where an exception comes between LIST (nunmered) parts of a rule. An exception after LIST (1) and before (2) would indicate the exception only applies to this LIST (1)item; however, if the exception comes at the end of LIST item (5) we may have a clarification problem as is this case.
A clarification should be made within the exception (which has been done in parts of the code) as to the restriction for use of this particular exception, in regards to other parts of the rule if they do not or do apply.
To summarize: Exceptions are to the RULE not to the LIST which is only part of the rule - unless indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,116 Likes: 4
OP
Member
|
Don, The language already referenced seems the same in the 1999 Style Manual. More; 1.1 Purpose. The National Electrical Code (NEC) Style Manual is prepared under the guidance of the NEC Technical Correlating Committee and is used to advise members of the Code-Making Panels on the required editorial style and arrangement of the NEC. It is intended to be used as a practical working tool to assist in making the NEC as clear, usable, and unambiguous as possible.
1.2 Scope. This Manual provides editorial and administrative requirements for writing the National Electrical Code® (NFPA 70). Except as otherwise specified in this manual, the NEC® shall comply with the NFPA Manual of Style. Specifics aside, at the moment the examples We have seem to point more towards 'our' Style Manual interpretation being correct than not. And it does seem to be the rule to go by. I am not debating or challenging the correctness or interpretation of anything specific, I am just trying to make the case that something is wrong somewhere and it needs clarification. There should be no questions like this. Bill [This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 12-17-2001).]
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
Member
|
I am not debating or challenging the correctness or interpretation of anything specific, I am just trying to make the case that something is wrong somewhere and it needs clarification. There should be no questions like this. Understood. But I am confused as to where a viable ROP would apply, is this something best addressed in the 'NEC style' manual? Or in the NEC ?
|
|
|
|
Posts: 264
Joined: February 2013
|
|
|
|
