2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Sam, I have heard that also and that is what I am running at work. I just hate to bite the bullet to get a new one. :D
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

I am on Panel 10 but that doesn't make me special
Click to expand...
Of course it does Charlie, now instead of me just griping about the code in a general sense It can be all your fault. Of course I'm kidding.

What does Panel 10 do? you being involved with something in 240 Overcurrent Protection, doesn't narrow it down much.

The problem is that the NFPA staff has a computer in the meeting room to take down the exact words and punctuation that the panel wants. It is projected on a screen so that everyone can see exactly what will go into the Code. It is unlikely that many mistakes go into the Code but they do sneak in. For instance, 240.93 was not intended to be in the Code but it is there. It will show up in the errata as an error. The interesting thing is that I was the reason for the error.
Click to expand...
To me, the way you decribe it, it sounds like a pretty good proofing proccess. It's actually kind of hard to imagine many ways of goofing it up. But you, being the recourseful individual that you must be, have managed to find a way appearently. (again, no offence intended)

So the often cumbersome language is the desired result. See, that's one of the things that bothers me most. Is it really not possible to make the language more readably?
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

When the revision for 240.86 was proposed, I didn't think it would make it through the process so I made a motion to accept it in principal and put it into Part VIII as 240.93. The panel finally did accept the revision into 240.86 and rejected the idea of having it in Part VIII. When the 2005 Code was printed, there it was. A goof but the language was accepted by the panel in the proposal stage so I did mess it up. It is really no problem in this case since all of Article 240 applies to Supervised Industrial Installations except as modified by Part VIII.

Articles 240 and 780 is all Panel 10 has responsibility for revising. Article 780 has not had a proposal for a couple of cycles.

As far as making the language more readable. There is a joke that asks what the definition of a camel is. The answer is that it is a horse that was designed by committee. That is what the Code is a product of, a committee, actually 19 technical committees and a TCC. The Code language is actually developed in committee.

As an example, I prepare a response for every proposal for the panel to act on and I give a copy to our NFPA staff person. When it is time to act on the next proposal, I always have a motion ready. If it to accept in principal, that language is ready for the panel to tear apart and rewrite but the shell has already been given to work on. The same for a move to reject, the panel statement has already been written. All that needs to be done is for everyone to have their whack at it and we then vote on it. :D
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Yeah, so all the work is done weather there is a need to do it or not in order that the minutes of the meetitng or hearing be kept to a minimum because someboy's time is more important (not necessaily more valuable) than somebody elses. I don't know how much I actually agree or disagree with it but it is the epitomy of beauocracy. And it looks like wasted energy.

But what I just said is really only griping.

I know for every person there's a different view but in your opinion what do think can be done to make the language better?

[ November 27, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: 2005 NEC 300.15(L) Handhole Enclosures

Every cycle, there are people who send in a proposal for rewriting things for more clarification. In some cases, they are wrong in their intent and the panel will reword the section to make it more clear. In other cases, the proposal has a lot of merit and it is accepted as is or with some modification. If something doesn't make sense and nobody makes a proposal to change it, nothing will be done.

With all that said, that is why we started the new part of the forum Proposals for the 2008 NEC. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top