ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues NEC Style

Sparky,

Good Question.
At this point We don't know for sure which (or any) is wrong. To pick an 'obvious' example, in 210.8(B) (2002 NEC) The Exception for Snow-melting equipment is after Kitchens, not Rooftops. It could be an error/oversight, or it could be that We are supposed to be reading a little differently than We have become accustomed to.

Same argument applies to the Crawlspace Exception in 210.8(a) It is not after Crawlspaces anymore. The Exception was clearly permitted in the past, was it changed?, a misprint/omission error?, or is this a new style? No answers yet.

I think if We can get a definitive answer as to the proper interpretation of the NEC Format as it applies to exceptions everything will be much clearer as to what, if anything, is wrong.

Anyone know how We can find out?

Bill

Bill:

The best way is to call NFPA 617-770-3000, and ask for the Electrical Department.

There are 6 staff liaisons there who answer questions related to the NEC.

Here is a link for the NFPA proposal form that should be used to send one or more proposals into NFPA for action in the next code cycle. The NEC proposal form and instructions can be found at the back of the 2002 NEC.
NFPA PROPOSAL FORM
http://www.nfpa.org/PDF/DocProp.pdf?src=nfpa

Should an interpertaion be pursued first?

Joe,

Thanks, I called but was unable to actually talk to someone about it, but I did get an Email address of someone that should be able to help. I'll keep you posted.

Bill

So what if the exceptions seem inapplicable to a bathroom ..it doesn't hurt. Its possible that someone might include laundry spaces in a bathroom adjacent to the garage..so the exceptions could very well apply. As for snow melting equipment outlets in the kitchen..THAT would be a stretch of imagination, but the exception wouldn't hurt.
The code book I have has lots of mistakes..correlating committee didn't do a very thorough job. Maybe someone else already mentioned it, but 210.8 has redundant, unnecessary, misplaced wording right after 210.8(a)(2)Exc.2

Elzappr,

I'm not sure what your mean about some of the things you mentioned, but the point I was trying to make is more about wanting to know how to read the code. I almost said 'Interpret', but that would not be correct. Words or phrases can be interpreted differently sometimes, but we must first know how something should be read.

I just brought this question up as a topic of conversation, but seemed to end up with more questions than answers. I'm not sure how to interpret why there was so few participants with opinions on this either.

Bill

I hear you Bill, I know I commented a little on some miscellaneous items that were brought up by others, so let me just answer your question.
I'm interpreting, based on the style manual info supplied by others in this thread, that exceptions apply to the preceeding main rule..as reformulated per each listed item. My contention is that the code is screwed up in 210.8 because they left a sentence in the wrong place, even 'tho they repeated it later, in the proper place. Given that they messed that part up, it would be no surprise that other items might be misplaced.
The enumerated items listed under the main rule each reformulate the rule..more economical than creating a whole bunch of rules using almost the exact same language along with each listed item. That is why the exceptions follow various listed items. If the exceptions don't make sense, then perhaps there is a scenario that you just haven't run into yet..like inaccessible receptacles in bathrooms, or appliances in bathrooms..OR, maybe they just screwed up! This is what they apparently did in 210.8(B). They should have put the exception right after item (2). I've never heard of electric snow melting equipment outlets in a kitchen before, but I'm willing to learn if such a scenario ever exists..maybe in Afganistan!?

Trying to follow all of this and not get out of balance. I read the main rule as GFCI in seven (7) areas.
Area 2 Garages has two (2) exceptions.
Area 3 Outdoors has one exception.
Area 5 Unfinished basements has two (2) exceptions.
Since the exceptions are placed where they are placed,then they have to be read as applying to the area under which they are placed. The "Receptacles that are not readily accessible" exception appears under three different areas. If it were meant for all seven (7) areas, then the wording would have to be different. Exception No. 2 to area 5 Unfinished basements does not apply to Area 4 Crawl spaces and does not apply to kitches per the Commentary. Exception no. 2 to area 2 Garages applies to that area only, not to bathrooms or Wet bar sinks of area 7.
That's the way I read it.

Sounds right, Warren 1.

It seems that trying to interpret the "How to read the NEC" is just as confusing as reading the NEC itself. They need to come out with the NEC for Dummies series so that we contractors and the inspectors are not at odds with the interpretation of the code.