The 2005 ROP is available for download now. Get started on your comments!!
Don

Don,

If a proposal was rejected because supporting evidence did not acompany it can it be provided now with comments? Or is it too late for that?

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 07-07-2003).]

...just slightly off topic -

Don - I had heard NFPA was going to provide access to older ROPs/ROCs via the internet.

Is this true? If so, what kind of timetable before these are available?

Bill,
I'm not sure, but I think that you can submit supporting evidence in the comment stage. I know that you cannot submit new or substantially changed wording, but as long as it supports the original proposal, they should consider it.

Dana,
I haven't heard that the older ROPs and ROCs were going to be placed online. It would be a good idea.

Don

Don,

My reason for asking is that I had submitted a proposal for an Exception to 210.8(B)(3) that would allow a Receptacle behind an Appliance (ie: Refrigerator) in Commercial Kitchen to be non-GFCI protected.
It was rejected for lack of substantiation.

My "substantiation" was that GFCI protection is not required behind Refrigerators in Dwelling Units and it is already recognized in 525.23(B) that some cooking and refrigeration equipment is incompatible with GFCI protection and therefore not required by that section. I thought that an established code section would provide substantiation for a proposal that (I thought) just asks for some consistancy among sections.

What are your thoughts? Was my reasoning flawed?

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 07-07-2003).]

Hello Bill

For other than an appliance, what would the need for a receptacle be? Such as behind a refridgerator, which is not really accessible anyway, is it?

Pierre

Bill,
Sometimes the CMPs are real picky about what they will accept. The nondwelling unit kitchen GFCI requirement has generated a number of proposals. I don't think that this issue will be completely resolved this code cycle.
Don

Pierre,

I'm not sure what you mean.
I thought that pointing to something already established/conceded in another area of the same standard would be a good substantiation, and an opportunity to get rid of another inconsistancy.

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 07-08-2003).]

Don,

I thought it was a good argument just on the basis of existing code sections. What do you think?

Bill

Bill,
I think that should be good enough, but apparently the CMP doesn't.
Don

Don,

Thanks, I figured maybe I was missing something.


Bill

I submitted a proposal for a wording change of 210.52(B)(1) which the committe accepted in principal and then the rewording they proposed in my opinion still has the same problem the original wording has.

My submittal is on page 297 at the top. I can understand not accepting my exact wording, but rewriting it with the same problem seems like they didn't get the concept of the problem to begin with even though they accepted my proposal in principal.

Let me know what you think--is my english or logic off base?

Hello Bill
sorry I am responding so late to you.
I read my post, must have been dilusional that day.

The different areas of a standard, although would seem to be related sometimes are not.
Point in hand, a dwelling unit kitchen and a commercial kitchen.
In a dwelling kitchen the cleaning methods are much different. The Health department does not inspect them, even though some should be.
In the commercial kitchens, the health department makes inspections for cleanliness. Because of this, the kitchens are mostly cleaned daily. Today these kitchens are being cleaned a lot of times with a 'washdown'. The reason for the 2002 code change in a kitchen is two fold.
1. The wash down creates a hazard for the cleaner.
2. The equipment in kitchens today are required to be on wheels for access to clean behind them. The people doing the cleaning are using the receptacles behind the equipment to plug in their cleaning equipment.

There have been reported injuries and death from shock, therefore the code change.
So the two different kitchens create different requirements.
Just a note. The GFCI protection for the fridges, can be a breaker. Most of the commercial equipment requires its own circuit anyway.
A friend of mine wired a huge commercial kitchen and was called in because the cleaning crew was experiencing shocks. I wired a commercial kitchen (stainless steel walls) next door to his job and because of his experience I used 'in use' covers and GFCI breakers. The cook was screaming at me because he said his food would go bad. Its 2 1/2 years later there has not been one problem. As a matter of fact I am getting married there Friday.

Pierre

[This message has been edited by PCBelarge (edited 07-22-2003).]