Fixing the NEC

[Elect117]

I think that the metric first is the least of the problems with the entire process. I know Don is close follower and a proponent of how the NFPA works which somewhat surprises me. I've read many of his PI's going back to the days when they were called proposals. They're always well thought out and usually have a very legitimate substantiation. I'll go on record as saying his has some of the best proposals that have repeatedly been rejected. I wonder why he keeps going back for more rejection.

Because if nobody tried to address issues with the CMPs they would end up writing more nonsense. Even losing battles keeps the CMP on thier toes.

Gotta beware! Don and Wayne are lurking and ready to PI. lol

 

[infinity]

Because if nobody tried to address issues with the CMPs they would end up writing more nonsense. Even losing battles keeps the CMP on thier toes.

Gotta beware! Don and Wayne are lurking and ready to PI. lol

I'm glad that those guys do but it hasn't changed the way the system operates which is flawed. Anyone ever try to get on a CMP? There are many qualified individuals on this forum who would be excellent CMP members. There chances on getting on a CMP are between slim and none. From what's been reported even here on this forum it's who not what you know. Let's start with new CMP members every two code cycles.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

But he is working on things that are not made or designed here.

GM started switching to metric in the early 70s, and it was pretty much completed before 1990.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Well, maybe someone should submit a PI to change it. I

A PI cannot change it. This was done by the NFPA main office and nothing in a PI can change a decision by the main office.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I wonder why he keeps going back for more rejection.

After three rejections on a proposal I give up

 

[hbiss]

GM started switching to metric in the early 70s, and it was pretty much completed before 1990.

Granted, I haven't worked on a GM product since before then, but are you saying that all GM products now use metric fasteners? If so, it was probably to make life easier because of all the foreign made parts they use.

-Hal

 

[EngineeredElectric]

16. Get rid of the torque rule. I don't know anyone that follows it.
17. Get rid of the available fault current labelling rule. Most don't follow that either.
18. Get rid of more labelling rules. The labels are getting ludicrous and everything is plastered in red stickers. It's stupid.

There are plenty more, but that's just off the top of my head. The code has been getting more and more stupid every cycle, and I'm sick of it. Start deleting stuff, and changing with the times instead of adding more and more garbage on top of garbage.

I'm hear-hear on 1-15.

16 I'm fine with. 90% of electrical failures I have repaired in the factories occurred at the lug, mostly mechanical. Torquing to spec may or may not have prevented some of those, but at least it's a start. I do sometimes look at the torque specs with some skepticism, but that's a different conversation.

17 In order to accurately calculate the available fault current the utility must tell you the AFC at the utiltiy transformer. I have spoken to 3 'engineers' at ComEd (Chicagoland) on 3 different occasions, each one did not what available fault current even is. The closest I ever got to an answer was a paper that with 3 different transformer configurations on it (They couldn't tell me which one was installed at the location in question) with a range of 10k-25k amps written next to each of them. I know a company that does nothing but facility arc flash studies for corporations who have nothing better to spend their money on and asked him how they get AFC from ComEd. He said they don't, ComEd doesn't know. His company just guesses. The arc flash values and one line diagrams he provides are educated guesses at best, totally made up sometimes. The entire thing is a giant circus put on for insurace companies.

When I need to find the AFC I just call a lineman and have him open the utility transformer for me so I can see the specifications, then I calcaulate it based on infinite AFC at the primary conductors. The difference between infinity and hundreds of amps at the primary side doesn't actually change the values downstream meaningfully.

18 Hard agree.

It may be easier to influence local/state electrical code alterations than the NEC itself. You may not be able to convice the NFPA to delete 210.12, but you might be able to convice your local government to do it.

 

[tortuga]

This one is interesting

10. Get rid of the stupid pop up island/peninsula receptacles.

Take it one step further since they deleted article 720 I have speculated that a PI to delete all of part III from Article of 210 might fly, but not with the effect you would like, as it would be covered in other codes like the residential code, kinda like rules on voltage drop is not in the NEC but appear in almost every states energy code.
I have herd a compelling argument that all of 210 part III required outlets is outside the scope of the NEC 90.2, the code is not a design manual and should not need to delve into details about where lights and receptacles go. Hazards from a cord hanging off a countertop are the same as if you had a rope there, its not a electrical hazard its a design issue. What's 720 got to do with it? Well 720 used to cover off grid dwelling units, like a cabin that runs off 12V that meets the NEC definition of dwelling used to have a 'out' from the required outlets as its not grid connected, I think there is no longer any 'out' for a off grid 'dwelling' AKA cabin but I may be wrong. Rather than delve into what kinds of dwellings need required outlets and lights and where just move all that to the building codes, as its not in the scope of 90.2.

 

[jim dungar]

the code is not a design manual

Read the entire sentence of 90.1 (2017). There is nothing that says the NEC cannot contain design elements at all.
The text says it is not a design specification or instruction manual for untrained individuals.

 

[AC\DC]

Read the entire sentence of 90.1 (2017). There is nothing that says the NEC cannot contain design elements at all.
The text says it is not a design specification or instruction manual for untrained individuals.

design specification! That is contradicting what you just claimed

 

[Master Nater]

Here are some ideas to actually make the code better, instead of reworking language to make it still nonsensical:

1. Delete 210.12 completely. AFCI is a waste of money, and they don't actually do anything. The first ones that had ground fault protection in them at least did something.
2. In 210.8 delete "through 250-volt" for receptacles. Trying to use GFCIs on inverter driven equipment is stupid, and a waste of time.
3. Delete GFCI protection for EVSE. They all have built in GFCI protection anyway, so all you are protecting is the branch circuit feeding the EVSE, which is stupid. Also delete the 3 phase part too. Manufacturers are not building them, so people have to do all kinds of janky stuff to make it compliant. We had to put in a receptacle for a 3 phase fryer, and there was an Eaton panelboard. We had to install a Square-D QO plug on 3-circuit can with a 3-pole 50 amp gfci. It was ridiculously expensive when all we did was pull an extra wire through a conduit to replace an existing 2-pole 50 amp receptacle.
4. Bring load calculations into reality. Namely, show window receptacles, recessed lights, track lighting, and lighting load calcs in general. Everything is LED now. Also allow a reduction in residential load if central heat/air is installed. If you have central air, you aren't going to have a window shaker in every room.
5. Get rid of the 2 ground rod rule if you don't measure 25 ohms to ground with 1. Ground rods don't do anything except maybe help the utility. Call 1 good, even though they don't do anything for your house electrical system. Around here they usually aren't 8' long anyway, since the soil is so rocky.
6. Get rid of the intersystem bonding jumper. I've never seen one actually used, and new installations are all basically fiber optic, so its not used at all. Its irrelevant.
7.Delete 805.156. See #6, its an obsolete ruling because fiber has replaced DSL, and only a tiny fraction of homeowners use a copper land line. Fiber and Cable both need modems (or whatever they call them) and they aren't installed outdoors.
8. Bring back the rule that lets emergency disconnects feed the service disconnect with a 3-wire wiring method. Outside disconnects are a good thing, but don't make people rip apart their houses to install a 4th wire that doesn't do anything for safety.
9. Ban pull-out style disconnects. They are fine for HVAC condensers, but are proven to be unsafe when using actual resistive or EV charging applications. Just get rid of them.
10. Get rid of the stupid pop up island/peninsula receptacles. They are junk. Go back to allowing receptacles in the side of the island. People accepted that even if they thought they were ugly. I was talking to a GC in Texas that says they just leave a coil of wire below the island to pass inspection, and then their electrician comes back and installs a receptacle in the side of the island. If someone wants to plug a cheesy triple tap 16 gauge extension cord into their side island receptacle and run a toaster off it, then that's their problem, and being stupid should hurt.
11. Get rid of the separate barrier rule for multi-gang meter packs. Anyone dumb enough to go flailing around in a live meter pack should feel pain for it. Stop making stuff more expensive because someone was a moron 30 years ago.
12. Get rid of the bonding rule for portable generators. No one drives a ground rod to hook their 5000w generator to when they roll it out because they lost power. It's a stupid rule that no one follows, and it confuses inspectors into thinking they are supposed to look for a ground rod.
13. Mandate minimum wiring compartment size for light fixtures. I just installed a few Lithonia 2x4 flat panel troffers and the wiring compartment was smaller than my thumb, but somehow its rated for 2 12-2 cables. You couldn't even fit 3 yellow wirenuts in it with the wires cut to 3" long. Make them follow them same rules we have for boxes or something. The 6" wafer lights I installed to replace CFL cans had far larger wiring compartments. It's stupid.
14. Get rid of the raintight fitting rule for EMT installed outdoors. Raceways outdoors are a wet location, so the wire inside is designed to get wet. Those things sucks, and for some reason whenever I install EMT outdoors, there are little gaskets and metal rings laying on the ground. It's very strange.
15. Fix 110.26(A)(1) for 151-600 volts to ground. 1 meter is 39.37" and 3'6" is 42". Pick one.
16. Get rid of the torque rule. I don't know anyone that follows it.
17. Get rid of the available fault current labelling rule. Most don't follow that either.
18. Get rid of more labelling rules. The labels are getting ludicrous and everything is plastered in red stickers. It's stupid.

There are plenty more, but that's just off the top of my head. The code has been getting more and more stupid every cycle, and I'm sick of it. Start deleting stuff, and changing with the times instead of adding more and more garbage on top of garbage.

WHOOAAAHHHHH!!!! BACK UP THE COMMON-SENSE TRAIN!

how are the code panelists supposed to get the manufacturing lobbyists to give them bags of money, if they can't make stupid codes that break article 90? - PRACTICAL SAFEGUARDING. (also, that the code is not intended to be a design tool)

 

[Master Nater]

It does not appear that you understand the process. The code is written by people like you submitting Public Inputs.

no it's not. and you know it. not a damned single person with any common sense, submitted that any of those garbage AFCIs should go anywhere further than a bedroom, and many others.

 

[jim dungar]

design specification! That is contradicting what you just claimed

No it is not, I said design elements are allowed in the code.
Design specifications require more information than simply "put a receptacle every 2ft".
Almost every design specification package I have seen involves much more than receptacle spacing and power/sqft such as construction and installation specifics.
The terms 'design specification and installation' manual are modified by 'for untrained individuals'.

 

[Master Nater]

the island/peninsula receptacle placements are a prime example where the code would have been better off to just stay out of the way. before there were design specs (which violate article 90) there was no liability with what happened with island/peninsula receptacles, except upon the electricians that wire them. a few code cycles ago, the code was written where 'now you must install a receptacle in the island, because dumb people are plugging in crock-pots across the walkway and are hurting themselves.'

so, the code panelists decided to stick their nose, where it doesn't belong. then, they determined that one plug in a big island just wasn't enough. so, they instituted more regulations about having to have more than one if the island was x-amount of square feet. next, they found out that stupid little kids were pulling things off of the island/peninsula when they're plugged in below the counter-top. well, this just opens up authorities having jurisdiction to liability (funny how responsibility goes hand-in-hand with authority). now, they've all but written it all back out with the requirement to add a "provision" for an island receptacle.

it seems to me, this is just one of the many times when the Good-Idea-Fairy should have just shut it's mouth and stayed out of things. but now, it's opened itself up to liability, because it stuck it's nose where it didn't belong ... designing wiring. which i already mentioned, violates it's own very first article. chapter 90.

 

[Master Nater]

I'm hear-hear on 1-15.

16 I'm fine with. 90% of electrical failures I have repaired in the factories occurred at the lug, mostly mechanical. Torquing to spec may or may not have prevented some of those, but at least it's a start. I do sometimes look at the torque specs with some skepticism, but that's a different conversation.

17 In order to accurately calculate the available fault current the utility must tell you the AFC at the utiltiy transformer. I have spoken to 3 'engineers' at ComEd (Chicagoland) on 3 different occasions, each one did not what available fault current even is. The closest I ever got to an answer was a paper that with 3 different transformer configurations on it (They couldn't tell me which one was installed at the location in question) with a range of 10k-25k amps written next to each of them. I know a company that does nothing but facility arc flash studies for corporations who have nothing better to spend their money on and asked him how they get AFC from ComEd. He said they don't, ComEd doesn't know. His company just guesses. The arc flash values and one line diagrams he provides are educated guesses at best, totally made up sometimes. The entire thing is a giant circus put on for insurace companies.

When I need to find the AFC I just call a lineman and have him open the utility transformer for me so I can see the specifications, then I calcaulate it based on infinite AFC at the primary conductors. The difference between infinity and hundreds of amps at the primary side doesn't actually change the values downstream meaningfully.

18 Hard agree.

It may be easier to influence local/state electrical code alterations than the NEC itself. You may not be able to convice the NFPA to delete 210.12, but you might be able to convice your local government to do it.

while i partially agree with #17, there is no guarantee that the utility company isn't just going to take your service conductors, and land them on a much larger, or much lower impedence transformer, changing the entire fault current. until the POCO is held responsible for changing everything, i don't see how the fault current is within our control.