Are other standards as horrible as the NEC?

[electrofelon]

Just curious, as I admit I am not familiar with any other code/standards documents. Are most of them as awful as the NEC or is the NEC uniquely bad? In case it's not obvious, I am referring to the NEC's chronic horribly ambiguous wording, tradition based requirements, lack of statistical reasoning and scientific input, and near complete reluctance by the publisher and CMP's to address any of this.

 

[electrofelon]

Just want to be clear this a genuine question and not meant to be satire or rhetorical.

 

[infinity]

I can tell you that the New Jersey version of the UCC (NJAC 5:23) building code is written in a format that is horrendous to navigate. When compared to the NEC the NEC format with sections and articles is so much better.

As afar as the NEC wording the proposal format of NEC which allows anyone to write nonsense is part of the problem. And then you have the CMP appointment process which resembles not what you know but who you know to get onto a panel that gives you less than the best people for the job.

IMO the CMP member term should come with a limit. And to your point about ambiguity and code that has no substantiation that's directly on the NFPA. There needs to be better editorial oversight on what wording ends up in the code. The one that sticks in my craw is the requirement for a switch in a dwelling to be "near" the entrance to the room. Are the people who approved such ambiguous wording actually paying attention? Whoever vote yes on that proposal needs a time out.

 

[LarryFine]

I think a lot of the chaff remains because they try to modify existing sentences instead of deleting and re-writing paragraphs at a time. It's as if they're afraid of the responsibility of producing concise rules.

 

[electrofelon]

Thanks for the input. It does seem like it could be so much better. Just curious how common these issues are in other standards/trades/documents.

There should definitely be some sort of process to avoid the horrendous wording that gets in time after time. Perhaps any new wording would have to go thru a committee consisting of electricians, a few English majors, and a few "normal" people.

I think they definitely need some sort of rules or "constitution" that would provide guidelines for justifications for new codes. Right now it really seems like a flip of a coin on whether something gets adopted based on a documented problem or statistics or the "it seems like A good idea" principle.

Finally, there needs to be some process to fix or delete things that have been in the code forever. Just because something has been in there for 80 years (and no one remembers why) doesn't mean it makes sense.

 

[infinity]

I think they definitely need some sort of rules or "constitution" that would provide guidelines for justifications for new codes. Right now it really seems like a flip of a coin on whether something gets adopted based on a documented problem or statistics or the "it seems like A good idea" principle.

Yeah we know thwt the "good idea principle" has taken over because you can see code changes with zero substantiation. The changes that I find more critical are the ones that attempt to remove ambiguity or mistakes from the code language. Many of the topics that we discuss here make for excellent code change proposals. Someone will say when I read that section XYZ I read it to say ABC, the other guy says it really means DEF, these are the sections that need to be worked on. Maybe there is a grammar review that I don't know about but if there is it isn't working too well.

 

[LarryFine]

CMPs should be required to have experience in the field in their respective trades and specialties.

If that's already a requirement, then I'll think of something else.

 

[kwired]

I find out in rural areas here electrical code is only one where inspectors and inspectors that take time to learn the code actually are on same page majority of the time. Most dwellings out here have little other codes that are enforced, buildings with public access usually get certain amount of inspections done by fire marshal, but seems nobody knows what the rules are to be followed. Engineered projects are usually fine if they follow plans and specs. Builders who frequently do larger projects maybe have more of an idea what fire marshal will want when they have more of a design/build project.

I am not aware of how they cite violations and such in other than electric. Usually if fire marshal wants something done differently there is much complaining about it and they usually don't fully know why they need to do it the way that was requested.

Electrical inspections OTOH, we do get verbal notifications to do something a certain way here and there or asked "are you going to ...." if something isn't done that they are expecting. But if you get an official correction notice it will state what code section is in violation and may have extra commentary explaining what the issue is or even suggestions of things that could be done that will be compliant. Other trades they usually just get told they must do something a certain way and no code section references or often no great explanation of why what was done is any sort of a problem.

 

[retirede]

My home irrigation system has a backflow preventer per code that was installed by a licensed plumber. It was tested at installation and I have the test certificate. That was in 2011.

In 2021 I get a notice from my rural water supplier that my backflow preventer must be re-certified annually. I called them and asked what was going on. The reply was that it’s always been required by code, but they’ve never bothered enforcing it until now. I have 30 days to get it done or they shut off my water. My guess is that whatever government agency responsible did an audit or something and found out they weren’t requiring customers to get an annual certification.

Not all licensed plumbers have the credentials to do the certification. The only one in our area that is charges $100 to do it. Takes 15 minutes.

I get why it’s required, but every year seems excessive. I guess I should be thankful that I’m ahead $900 for those years they never bothered. And my valve still tests perfectly - just like it did when installed.

 

[electrofelon]

Getting a bit off topic here but if you think about it it's crazy how many rules/standards/laws/codes there are. There is far more rules than there are people to enforce them or know all the rules. Along the lines of Kwired's post: here in upstate NY electrical is mostly a 3rd party private agency. The county does all other inspections, framing, plumbing, foundation, etc. these inspections are quite lax because they are far short of having enough people that know anything about all these different trades. Doubt they have anyone who is even close to an expert in even one trade. This makes a case for simpler easier to read codes. What is the point of having such a huge complex code of no one person can even know it?

 

[jaggedben]

I think to the extent I'm familiar with other codes they are just as problematic in the same general ways. Consider the rules around firepathways on roofs with solar, and the way they seemingly assume that all residential roofs are gable or hip layout and all commercial roofs are flat.

 

[petersonra]

The problem seems to be with bad rules, rules based on financial benefit, and lack of rules being required to be about safety. That and rules that are really design choices.

 

[Fred B]

NEC doesn't hold exclusive rights to such ambiguity and poorly structured regulation. If regulations could be written in a clear and understandable way as well as logical and scientifically correct you wouldn't need lawyers.

 

[GoldDigger]

NEC doesn't hold exclusive rights to such ambiguity and poorly structured regulation. If regulations could be written in a clear and understandable way as well as logical and scientifically correct you wouldn't need lawyers.

"The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from."

 

[kwired]

"The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from."

yet when it comes to which one has been adopted as the law you usually only have one choice

 

[jtinge]

NEC doesn't hold exclusive rights to such ambiguity and poorly structured regulation. If regulations could be written in a clear and understandable way as well as logical and scientifically correct you wouldn't need lawyers.

I've always told my colleagues to avoid using adjectives that might sound nice but leave a requirement subject to interpretation. Words like "near", "robust", "close to", 'sufficient", etc. do nothing to clarify the requirement. Unless a requirement is measurable, it isn't a good requirement.

 

[kwired]

I've always told my colleagues to avoid using adjectives that might sound nice but leave a requirement subject to interpretation. Words like "near", "robust", "close to", 'sufficient", etc. do nothing to clarify the requirement. Unless a requirement is measurable, it isn't a good requirement.

"nearest point of entry" is one the worst cases of this in NEC.

has led to many official as well as non official methods of interpreting it or adding amendments to give it more specific meaning.

 

[electrofelon]

"nearest point of entry" is one the worst cases of this in NEC.

has led to many official as well as non official methods of interpreting it or adding amendments to give it more specific meaning.

Yeah no idea why they didn't just pick a number, say 6 feet of conductor* and let states/locals modify it if they want.

*If I was in charge, I would have different conditions. Metal raceways could be much longer. Also would need an allowance/clarification for measuring 230.40 ex #2 installs, and probably more allowed for larger services.

 

[charlie b]

If it makes you feel better, the codes related to a previous employment of mine (Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering) would completely re-number all paragraphs every time they issued a new edition. Can you imagine having to look up the code requirements that applied to a ship that was built 15 years ago, not knowing what requirement was provided in what article number?

For us, as an example, note that there is no article NEC 240.17. If they were to add one, they would keep the tap rules as article 240.21, and not assign it a new number.

 

[kwired]

If it makes you feel better, the codes related to a previous employment of mine (Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering) would completely re-number all paragraphs every time they issued a new edition. Can you imagine having to look up the code requirements that applied to a ship that was built 15 years ago, not knowing what requirement was provided in what article number?

For us, as an example, note that there is no article NEC 240.17. If they were to add one, they would keep the tap rules as article 240.21, and not assign it a new number.

NEC has occasionally overhauled the lay out of things, or decided something really belongs in different area than it had been in before.

Often the new layout is probably simpler especially for new learners, but is harder for those that were accustomed to what was there before.