I've followed these threads with great interest about code, changes and interpretations.
There are 2 connected parts, code and interpretation. While its hard to do much about interpretation, the code part should be more fixable. One of the largest problems as I see it, is the long time between fixes, ie 3 years. In other industries ( I used to be a commercial pilot) changes, fixes, updates came out weekly, and now thats daily with electronic information. I don't see why in the current digital world that we are dealing with 3 years between code changes. This small mistake of " wire" included where it shouldn't, should not be a problem to fix. That mistakes happen is a given with the best of intentions. So the issue is faster fixes. I don't expect this to change anytime soon, but is there any even thoughts out there in the land of code to move the code process up to the 21st century? ( I mean 6 month upgrades? how hard could it be?) Sincerely, Jay Peltz Power > [Advisory: Lengthy Post] > > > Hello William, > > Rather than focus on a specific instance, I'd like to step back > and view the larger situation. > > Over the years, numerous posts to this list-serv have related to > concerns where installers experienced inspection-related problems > ranging from individual AHJs to entire departments or other code > bodies that at a minimum are inconsistent with code interpretation, > and at the other extreme, establish their own code rules. > > To that point, and the exact thread you reference, what has become > a roadblock for an installer in one jurisdiction is approved as > fully acceptable in another, as evidenced by the original post. > > Environmental and other aspects aside for a moment, how can something > such as a conductor gauge be deemed "safe" by one AHJ, yet is ruled > "unsafe" by another? Either it is .. or it isn't. > > Nick Vida's recent mention of the City of Los Angeles goes exactly to > the heart of my comment, where he said the City has its own utility > with its own manual of requirements. > > To quote Nick: > "Through experience we know what they require, and it often has nothing > to do with NEC. If you bring up NEC to them, they usually laugh at you." > The arguments by various Wrenches related to and in support of your > point in that thread are well thought out and fully supportable by > engineering and other analysis. Unfortunately, logic and common > sense aren't always the deciding factors, as we all know too well. > > Regardless of how well proven or supported a position may be, an AHJ > may, at their discretion, accept or reject any aspect of a system. If > a field inspector red-tags a system, the installer may appeal up the > line to the CBO, who may support or overrule the decision by the field > inspector. Again, to my point, if this happens, is it because one of > them is wrong in the interpretation of the NEC (or the applicable > jurisdictional code) .. or is it because they have differing opinions > as to what is acceptable?? > > It all comes down to whomever is highest on that food chain as a > decision maker, and their opinion .. hence "whim and interpretation". > > And to your question .. yes .. I fully support the position you and > others took related to the conductor size in that thread. > Unfortunately, it's not our opinion that counts. > > For that reason, I, along with many others, are striving diligently to > try to bring some sense and sensibility to the NEC, UL Standards, and > more. > > I too serve on the same NEC and UL boards with John Wiles, Bill Brooks, > and a host of others. As for the NEC, the final decision rests with a > select group of decision-makers known as the National Fire Protection > Association and their Review Board. We can submit all the common-sense > changes we like .. and the NFPA has the final say as to what does, or > doesn't go into the Code. > > Many proposals for revision were submitted for the 2014 Code. To put > this into perspective, the "ROP" document for Sections 690 and 705 in > the new 2014 Code book consisted of more than 1,000 pages. This is > larger than the entire NEC itself, and this was for just two Sections. > For those not familiar with the process, the ROP contains proposals > and NFPA feedback on each one, and whether a proposal has been > accepted, rejected, or something in between. > > Jurisdictions are then free to use, change, or ignore any and all > aspects of the NEC as they see fit. To Nick's point above, they > do all of the above .. and again .. "whim and interpretation". > > Keep up the good work. > > > Best Regards to All, > > > Dan Lepinski, Senior Engineer > Exeltech Solar > Veteran of 41 years in solar energy > _______________________________________________ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: [email protected] Options & settings: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List rules & etiquette: www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm Check out participant bios: www.members.re-wrenches.org
