Another discussion - about AFCI's - raised the assertion that the NEC will lose respect as it becomes just another marketing tool for manufacturers.

Other comments suggested that the code writing proces has become corrupt, with manufacturers twisting the code for their own ends.

We've certainly seen the NEC drift into design areas of late.

Is the day near when the NEC is considered but another worthless 'infomercial?' Does it try to be too many things to too many folks? Do we really need to update it every three years?

Have we reached the point where we can hear mary Jane Amp cry out "let them run romex!" ?

Reno:
I heard a few comments from area EC's and some AHJ's at meetings related to the "Bubble Cover" mfg's possibly influencing that requirement.

As to the AFCI's, New Jersey did not adopt the AFCI requirements up to and including 2005 NEC, which was effective as of 11/01/06.

The only place I have seen AFCI CB's is in the big box store, and installed by one homeowner on his whirlpool tub.

I keep telling the homeowners that apply for permits to DIY, that the NEC is NOT a design tool, but that may change.

Good thread!

John

The book reads like it was written by lawyers.

[This message has been edited by ITO (edited 11-30-2006).]

Good comment,


Ken

Reno, thank you for bringing this to life here.

In the arc fault thread It was asked what could be done about this kind of issue.

I feel that to totally exclude manufacturers from the Code Making Panels (CMP)'s, would be a mistake. They can provide valuable input as to what is available or possible in terms of equipment, materials and upcoming technology.

However, the conditions of thier participation MUST be changed so that they can only act in an advisory capacity, with absolutely NO VOTING POWER AT ALL!!!

This should be the first major change.

Secondly, it seems that, by following the threads on proposed rules and submissions by EC's and others in the commentary stages, that the CMPs, like most government-type bodies, tend to ignore the input of the folks in the real world who have to install/repair/design and inspect electrical systems. thus making such installs, etc. far more expensive with no tangible increase in safety.

Like I said in the arc fault thread, the current trend will cause more people to ignore the draconian Code and attempt thier own fixes, with predictable results.

And I agree with reno that the drift to areas clearly regarded as design issues, in direct violation of art. 90.1c which specifically points out that "This Code is not intended as a design specification nor an instruction manual for untrained persons."
(Bold emphasis mine.)


Yes and absolutely not.

It may not be intended as such, but this is exactly what it is. Many installations require no design at all outside of compliance with NEC- if that doesn't should "design guide!" I don't know what does. If you look at any document that does purport to being design specs (MIL-HDBKs and the like), you'll find they're remarkably similar.

The issue of getting people on the code panels that do not represent big organizations is the cost. All of the expenses and lost work time has to be covered by the panel member. If you are representing a big organization or company, those parties cover the costs. In many cases the organization that covers the costs gives you "directed votes" on some issues.
Don

I agree with Don on financial backing for code panel members. I do think that the makeup of the code panels seems fair and not loaded with manufacturers reps. Steve is correct in that the code book is not a design manual for "untrained persons" but I do believe it is a book of rules for design professionals (excluding interior decorators)and for the most part their projects use the code book as their guide. As for updating every 3 years - I support that 100%. We have to remember that the code book is a reactive document and when the insurance companies and manufacturers see a problem they address it with new products and rules. GFCI's, thermo protection in recessed lights, bubble covers (yes bubble covers) GFPE, PPE and AFCI's are examples of this type of reaction. Technology moves so fast we do need to review the code every 3 years for sure. So this is the other side of the issue for this thread. Go ahead hollar at me in uppercase.

Edit for typos

[This message has been edited by George Little (edited 11-29-2006).]

Were the AFCIs and bubble covers added to requirements just to drum up more biz to their respective manufacturers?

I hope the statistics will show that AFCI's reduce losses due to fires. I'm not sold on the bubble cover unless it prevents nuisance tripping. Only time will tell I guess.

We used to be able to run romex a bit closer to the edge of the studs, remember? Sort of parallel method. Then stackers got invented. Then the code got changed. I lost faith way back then. How about when smurf tube got invented. Seems like it got accepted pretty darn quick. Carlon must have hosted some really good parties.

Actually it didn't get in the code the first time that it was proposed...it had to wait to the next code cycle, and there was litagation that lasted for years and reached the Supreme Court. It seems that the steel conduit people paid for a number of their people to join the NFPA, go the May meeting where the code is voted on and vote that Article out of the code. One of the changes made after that was a 6 month delay between joining the NFPA and being able to vote at meetings.
Don

As far as I am concerned the stackers made wiring less safe here. The old standard was, if the wall wasn't thick enough to get 1.25" back (like 3/4" furring on a block wall) you used EMT sleeves. Now, with the stacker, I can just put that 1.25" to the side of the furring and be "hold your nose" legal. Of course that homeowner trying to "find the stud" with a nail has about as good a chance of hitting Romex as the furring.

Bubble covers are just a solution looking for a problem. They certainly do not keep the water out but they do provide excellent housing for paper wasps.

I actually like Smurf tube if you understand it's limitations. Carlon hypes it as the wiring method of the 21st century, good for everything, which it isn't but it is a good upgrade from Romex and it is great for low voltage.

A few represenatives from my company whent to Mike Holt's 2005 and 20008 code seminar.

He stated in 2008 all 15 circuits in a dwelling will be required to be ACFI protected. - ?Proposed?

This is what came from the comments phase (from the NEMA report)

(B) Dwelling Units. All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sun rooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination type installed to provide protection of the branch circuit.
The vote on this comment was 7-3-1. IBEW, IAEI and IEC voted negative because they believe the expansion should have been to all circuits.

Remember when a neutral was a neutral?

To beat this dead horse one more time--it is not necessarily the frequency of the code updates that becomes so burdensome, but the sheer complexity of the code and the number of code changes which happen every three years.
Most electricians are not lawyers thank God, so trying to understand this very complicated document becomes almost impossible without many hours of study every year. So most of us I suspect learn to look up what we need to do a respectable and safe job.
Meanwhile, there are many in the business of teaching the code changes every three years. And where would NFPA be without all the income from the NEC and all the other literature they sell. Talk about built in motivation to do frequent and complicated code changes. For the same reason we will likely never see a flat federal income tax, because many people would have to close down either their tax prep or software businesses with the loss of many jobs. Turbo tax no longer works with Windows 98, so Microsoft even benefits from that. It just goes on and on like me. You can shoot me off of the pedestal any time you like!

As I have said before do engineering to do what you want. (I even am willing to allow licensed electrictians to do engineering.)

Despite claims that it is not the NEC is a design manual. For the most part a pretty poor one.

The US Military has issued a number of excellent design documents that augment the NEC for government facilities (but also largely apply to any commercial building) and are free on the internet. I keep a copy of a dozen different mil-handbooks on my desk right beside my NEC:
http://65.204.17.188//report/doc_ufc.html

Steve,
I never got a chance to thank you for those links...so, Thank You. They are interesting reading.

It seems some of the links on the page you linded to don't work. i.e. Arctic and Sub arctic design guide. Any clues on where to find those?

Thanks
Mike

You might try a google search, often they're on random websites. If you can find the base number the Army/Air Force/Navy used (vice the UFC #), that might help you search as most people seem to go by the old numbers.

Assist has a lot of documents, too, but I was under the impression that access was restricted. Can't hurt to try! http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/

Thissound a lot like the argument when the NFPA came out with NFPA 1983 "Standard on Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services", which originally called for any rope used in a rescue activity to be "red tagged" and destroyed after that single use. The Code stated that it was not even allowed to be used for training or utility (equipment hauling) purposes!

At $0.69 a foot as the cheapest price about that time, a "standard" 200' section of rope runs $138... not including shipping.

After a significant uproar by the emergency services community, alleging that the "fix was in" at the NFPA by the rope manufacturers, and replies by rope makers alleging a lack of knowledge by the committee members, the Code was "revised" to allow continued service as long as the rope was inspected thoroughly after each use.

As a new "rope dope" in 1985, I told a few guys debating the fiasco that erupted that NFPA now stood for Not For Practical Application.


[This message has been edited by DougW (edited 02-23-2007).]

Has the NEC lost focus? No.

Has the NEC taken some questionable turns lately? Most definitely.

I think that if it continues on this path, there should be some kind of legitimate "revolt" (for lack of a better term.) I don't know how this could be accomplished, but I do think it should happen if design issues as opposed to safety issues are made into code rules.

Peter