ECN Forum
Posted By: txsparky Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/06/03 02:19 AM
Is anyone watching the NFPA getting grilled by 60 Minutes on why sprinklers arent required on a building occupancy of 299 but is required for an occupancy of 300.They(NFPA)don't have an answer or any data to support the 300 breaking point.

Kinda reminds you of the "42" circuit panel doesn't it?
Posted By: nesparky Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/06/03 03:19 AM
The code commmittes made a choice when writing those code sections.
Sometime those choices look bad when later actions occur.
Balancing reasonable safety standards vs costs will always be a subject for discussion.
You can NOT legislate against a foolish action(s). Fools and those who do not think of consequences of thier actions will always cause injuries,death and damage- just give them time. [Linked Image]
Posted By: Electricmanscott Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/06/03 12:53 PM
nesparky, the point is they could not say how they came up with the number 300. It seems like a number pulled out of the air. This seem to be the method of operation sometimes.
Posted By: txsparky Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/06/03 02:22 PM
nesparky,
I know that you can't legislate against foolish actions.I was trying to point out that some codes seem to have no rhyme or reason.Take for example 250.140 which allows type SE bare conductor to be used as a grounded conductor in existing range and dryer installations,but not a bare conductor in type NM. Hello,bare is bare,no matter what type of cable it is in! Where is the logic in it?
I feel that an organization that began in 1896 should base it's codes on past data and have something to back up their reasoning.Don't just tell me that thats the way it is and thats how it's going to be.Come on,they have had 106 yrs to come up with these codes and substantiate the reasoning behind them.
Having said that,I still feel the code works,just don't care for all of the grey areas.I don't want to hear someone say that we use that number because we always have.Tell me what the previous CMP that made the rule based it on.
Posted By: rowdyrudy Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/06/03 02:33 PM
txsparky: You are very correct regarding no ryme or reason items. Some excerpts from court decisions on the NFPA 70 are:
"....no factual data to support this contention."
"....no substantiation has been submitted."
"....no knowledge of fire loss data to support rule." This one was testimony by a NFPA committee member.
So, are some of the sections inserted in the code without anything in support? Yes!
Could we do without the NEC? NO!
Rowdy
Posted By: jdevlin Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/06/03 02:39 PM
And if the number was 200 someone would ask what about 199.
Posted By: txsparky Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/06/03 03:20 PM
Quote
And if the number was 200 someone would ask what about 199.

So, why not just explain how you arrived at that number.If nothing else,admit that they picked it at random and that they will assess it further as data is compiled.

[This message has been edited by txsparky (edited 03-06-2003).]
Posted By: nesparky Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/07/03 02:04 AM
All I am saying is that when this or any section of a code is written, a decision was made. That decision was what that section of code should read and how it was worded. Sometimes committees make decisions that make no sense later but seemed good at the time. There are many reasons this happens. If a commitee later cannot justify why a decision was reached, you can bet that not everyone was on the same page and there was some pressure to make a decision.
When something happens to make people ask questions, committees can look bad.
Still when used properly, it's still the best code making system we have. Far from perfect and can be worked on.
Posted By: George Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/07/03 05:01 AM
The NFPA does not make law. The body that adopted the code as law should have been asked to justify its decisions.

That includes the AHJ, the police, and the fire departments as they are the chief advisors of the adopting body.

The NFPA made the decision becasue it was a reasonably safe compromise.

Before the fire how many of you had lobbied for a lower number? (retorical)
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/07/03 08:02 PM
Look here for the 60 Minutes piece and the report:
http://www.nfpa.org/Research/FireInvestigation/RIslandFire/Interview/Interview.asp
Posted By: sparky Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/07/03 09:03 PM
An arbitrary number, amount, size, etc is just fine as long as it is dealt with in that context.

When lawyers litigate or students inquire on these figures they should be presented in this light, not like some theological stone tablet.

But this is what we have assumed in our complacency, a sect of NFPAocarats who would make a defined line of something obviously grey and hang thier hat on it.
Posted By: maintenanceguy Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/07/03 11:15 PM
An arbitrary number is all you could ever get no matter how good the reason.

Eventually you'd have to consider the actual cost of installing sprinklers and the actual cost of buildings burned down and compare that to the "cost" of lives lost or saved. And the dollar value placed on a life will always be nothing more than arbitrary.

There is no accurate way to solve this problem so 300 is as good a guess as any to me. Besides, a building with an occupancy of 300 persons is a much smaller building than you may realize.
Posted By: kale Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/08/03 12:16 AM
Yes, but couldn't the number 300 be substantiated by saying a building with an occupancy of less than 300, having the required number of (available) exits could empty in X amount of time? And that has been found to be adequate amount of time to evacuate under "normal" fire conditions?
Posted By: golf junkie Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/08/03 12:35 AM
Hi Kale,

Welcome to the board.

More likely the 300 number is based on the combined experience of the committee members who wrote that section of the code. It was proposed, beat around, and compromised upon, like all code issues are.

That in my opinion, is a resonable way to formulate a code. Just because you can generate a calculation based on facts related to a situation doesn't guarantee that you will get a better answer.

GJ
Posted By: sparky Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/08/03 12:53 AM
and the disclaimers follow suit.....
Posted By: The Watt Doctor Re: Arbitrary Numbers from NFPA - 03/08/03 08:09 PM
There may seem to be many arbitrary numbers used by the NFPA, and some of the numbers may in fact be arbitrary. I can't answer for the NFPA. I will say that 60 Minutes can skew a story to make it look any "way" they want it to. IMHO any time you watch a news story or any story for that matter, you are getting a distorted view. The old saying holds true. "Perception is life's cruelest form of reality." So, I will be careful in the position that I take in this matter, and I'll reserve any judgement until all the facts are on the table. I will also add that the NFPA is made up of imperfect human beings, and as a result, the NFPA is an imperfect organization.
Lastly, a resounding AMEN to Rowdy for the following:
Quote
Could we do without the NEC? NO!
I agree with you 100%.

From behind the pulpit,
Doc
© ECN Electrical Forums