Are other standards as horrible as the NEC?

[gadfly56]

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.

Working in fire protection, it's second nature that all backflows get tested annually. You might see if your local fire protection company does backflows and is willing to do yours. Here in NJ, fire protection contractors are allowed to test sprinkler backflows. On the other hand, $100 is pretty cheap.

 

[retirede]

Working in fire protection, it's second nature that all backflows get tested annually. You might see if your local fire protection company does backflows and is willing to do yours. Here in NJ, fire protection contractors are allowed to test sprinkler backflows. On the other hand, $100 is pretty cheap.

The reason it’s only $100 is that there are about 50 homes in my neighborhood that have irrigation. They schedule enough homes to fill the entire day for one guy.

 

[GoldDigger]

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

But we do have occasional variations and alternatives depending on the venue. NEC, NESC, IBC, CEC, BS 7671.
And they are all likely to be ambiguous in totally different places, while also being subject to local language and jargon contexts.

 

[mtnelect]

This might help to explain.

 

[electrofelon]

This might help to explain.

So your position is yes the NEC is awful because you need to read another book to try and understand it?

 

[Fred B]

So your position is yes the NEC is awful because you need to read another book to try and understand it?

In some ways the NEC is designed as a legal document and at some level is "Legalese" in its language. Thus its own statement that it is not a design or installation manual. So as is case with most codes it needs some working knowledge of what is being covered by a specific code. I think that the code panels are comprised of individuals from multiple disciplines it gets some of the wording that get "off" to say the least.
Even here in this forum many times someone that has a clear idea in their minds but will have difficulty putting into word so others understand. So someone else will have an imput that the first will say "that is what they were saying" or that "its not what they were saying".

 

[jim dungar]

In some ways the NEC is designed as a legal document and at some level is "Legalese" in its language. Thus its own statement that it is not a design or installation manual. So as is case with most codes it needs some working knowledge of what is being covered by a specific code. I think that the code panels are comprised of individuals from multiple disciplines it gets some of the wording that get "off" to say the least.

Actually the NEC says it us not a design manual for untrained individuals. You should have continual training to use the NEC.

Part of the problem is to be less ambiguous requires more specific words and little to no trade jargon or slang. There is also the problem with definitions of words over different generations. And finally the product life over multi-decades between an initial installation and future modifications.