I need to stop reading the ROP

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
Now that the ROC is out, I've been reading some of the comments which refer back to the ROP and it's just leaving me disgusted.

Let me give you an example.

ROP page 262, bottom right corner
3-40 Log #2185 NEC-P03
(Table 300.5)

The submitter points out that rigid conduit under a airport run way is required to be deeper when the voltage is lower. . The panel statement doesn't dispute his point and the panel member that wrote the explanation of the negative confirms that the submitters point is correct and the numbers on the tables "does not make sense".

But the the panel states, "the submitter has not provided a technical basis for making this change."

The "technical basis" is common sense. . If lower voltage wiring is to be required to have greater protection, the panel should be the one providing the explanation.

Hey CMP3 ! . What's your "technical basis" for rejecting common sense ?

I'm reading many proposals that do not contain any "technical" data and are accepted. . If there's a reason not to accept this proposal, I think the panel should be required to supply it. . Even if their reasoning is suspect, they need to provide it. . When they make a comment about "technical basis" or the times they use the "design issue" copout, there should be feedback from the rest of us in the electrical trade/industry to hold them accountable for not handling proposals correctly.

Here's a list of the "bright" minds on code panel 3
Richard Owen, Minnesota, StPaul, IAEI
Lawrence Ayer, Ohio, Biz Com Electric and Independent Electrical Contractors
Paul Casparro, Pennsylvania, Scranton Electricians JATC IBEW
Les Easter, Illinois, Allied Tube & Conduit, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Sanford Egesdal, Minnesota, Egesdal Associates, Automatic fire Alarm Association
Dennis Horman, Utah, PacifiCorp, Electric Light & Power Group
Ray Keden, California, ERICO, Building Industry Consulting Services
Ronald Maassen, Wisconsin, Lemberg Electric, National Electrical Contractors Association
Steven Owen, Alabama, Associated Builders & Contractors
David Pace, Alabama, Olin Corp, American Chemistry Council
Melvin Sanders, Iowa, Things Electrical, Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers
John Sleights, Connecticut, Travelers Insurance

Do you know any of these guys ?

Give them a call and ask them how they explain their vote.

David
 
Just to clarify:

I have no comment or opinion on what the burial depth should be. . I really don't care what number they wish to put on it. . My objection is with how the panel is handling it, or actually mishandling their reply.

Using copout phases is not acceptable and they should be held accountable for not handling their responsibilities properly.
 
David, I agree with your sentiment. The "design issue" and "lack of technical substantiation" lines very frequently are copout statements.

Sometimes, I have to wonder how much time they spend looking at each proposal, and giving it a chance.

There are times where it is evident that technical substantiation would be logically required for a change. The abuse of the "technical substantiation" phrase kinda ticks me off sometimes.

The other thing that can be a bit confusing is why a proposal will be rejected one cycle and then accepted the next. Eric Stromberg, a member of this forum, submitted a proposal for changing the name of supplementary grounding electrodes (250.54) for the 2002 or 2005 NEC. It was rejected with a blowoff answer, if I remember correctly.

I (unknowingly at the time) submitted practically the same proposal for 2008, and it was accepted, changing it's name to "auxiliary" to prevent confusion. The obvious question on my end is, "What changed?"

Sometimes I think they do not pay long-term respect to the impacts they have. Once a section is in the door and accepted for a cycle, if it was a bad idea, they are loathe to remove it without sometimes unattainable "technical substantiation." There have been times it seemed they wouldn't budge on an issue without it, but then a simple logical statement changed their minds.

With so many proposals to go over, maybe 20 CMPs ain't enough. ;)
 
I actually think the way they are handling it makes some sense. There is no reason to make changes to the code without some justification, even if the code requirements are not logical.

Think about the grounding requirements. very few of them make any technical sense at all, but to just go and change them after all these years does not make any sense either.

The cost to retrain everyone that uses the code has to be an astounding number. making changes just because you can, even if there is a good reason should be avoided.
 
dnem said:
... If there's a reason not to accept this proposal, I think the panel should be required to supply it. ...
Click to expand...
Who or what would be the compelling authority? NFPA is a private enterprise. They get to be just as screwed up as they want.

carl
 
Bob, I understand your perspective, and it has merit. No change should be made haphazardly.

petersonra said:
The cost to retrain everyone that uses the code has to be an astounding number. making changes just because you can, even if there is a good reason should be avoided.
Click to expand...

I think of it this way, especially in light of the events surrounding the EGC/EBC decision: if the retraining results in safer installations, then the effort is well worth the cost, IMO.

My dad told me a story about how many years ago my grandpa, a plumber by trade (after whom I'm named) ran one conductor out to an outbuilding, drove a ground rod, and connected it to the neutral of the outbuilding's branch circuit. When the results were dismal, he asked an electrician why it didn't work; he connected the circuit to ground.

The electrician's response was that the ground rod was not a good enough connection to ground, he needed the neutral conductor.

Was the electrician right or wrong?

Whatever your response to this question, I'd say that it denoted a lack of understanding of the basics of our job. Now, this is a story from a plumber to his son, to his son, over decades. There's no telling as to how accurate it is. But I think everyone can agree there is an old-school philosophy that electricity is attempting to seek the earth that the story reflects.

Even if the electrician had the correct theory in mind, the plumber could have walked away without correction, not realizing the true error of the installation.

Some would read this far and say, "Well, the plumber has no business messing with wiring without proper training." Now, replace the "plumber" with "apprentice" and it takes on a whole new perspective. The apprentice will grow into an electrician with a mistaken principle in his head, and who's to know?

I think as long as the code uses terms that can be read without contradicting incorrect theories, there is a safety issue involved.

The book is revised every three years, and retraining of one type or another takes place based on this cycle. The expense is already there, so making important changes is simply getting more bang for our retraining buck, IMO.
 
So the CMP's lame response is like the old saying, "I've been doing long enough to know better but to long to change"

The truth is, if the change was made it would be right for the future wouldn't it.

Roger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top