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

I have recently gotten a response from NFPA on this;

Question to NFPA;
Answer:

Does anyone know when the Errata comes out?

I'm interested to see if any of our examples were modified or clarified.

Bill

Bill:

I expect to see the 2002 NEC errata sometime in the next two weeks, and it will be available on the NFPA Web Page.

I believe that the answer I gave above was correct, and was supported by the reply you received.

Joe,

Yes, I believe that your (and Don's) response to the original example is supported by the NFPA response.

I was thinking of the other examples that came up later on such as the placement or wording of the exception following 210.8(B)(3)

and 210.8(A)(4)crawlspaces seems to have lost it's exception somewhere along the way.

Bill

Bill, Thank you very much for your follow-up on this question. I also want to state that I'm impressed with the form and clarity of your query to NFPA. Well Done!

From the 2002 Errata;

This provides some clarification to snow-melting equipment being related to rooftops rather than kitchens It is curious that it wasn't moved. The meaning of this section is clear now but the format doesn't seem consistant.

Bill

The code book is a classic example of folks looking at the detailed data too much for too long.

In my first contract situation there was a huge error found only after the contract was signed and we had to finish developing the billing module in the software and it came to light that the agreement was priced incorrectly. "We" had agreed to price equipment at a much lower'drop ship' price for installed equipment which included a 1-year warranty rather than having it priced in a 2-tier structure with a reasonable mark up for installed/warranteed equipment. The two distinctions showed up in all the verbage throughout the contract except in the pricing.

The Director was livid as this was discovered months after work had begun. In his rage he said that uninformed, uninvolved people could've detected the discrepancy better than the 'red team review' had simply because they would've questioned the 'hanging' nature of the 2nd tier mentioned so frequently throughout. To make a long story longer, I have no idea what it cost the company (a BIG company that no longer exists) but I can say it probably cost someone their job!

Perhaps the NEC folks could hire the proofing out to catch some of the 'readability' issues.