NM in conduit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: NM in conduit

Paul: I am well aware of what an ROP/ROC is, but they mean nothing until they are voted on in Salt Lake City, in late May. They are also available even if you are not a member of NFPA.

I am trying to be defensive, but I think it is a very bold thing to state what the 2005 will say before it has been voted on by the NFPA.
 
Re: NM in conduit

As in the past the majority get voted on, so I see no reason not to bring it up. If you knew what they were, Why did you think it was going to be fowarded to 2008 when it is clearly in the 2004 ROP.
 
Re: NM in conduit

Paul: If you knew what they were, why haven't you read the ROC Which is more current than the ROP, and see that re-instating the uses permitted sections is being accepted in principle? Again, all of this means nothing until after May.

Editted for typo's

[ May 07, 2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: ryan_618 ]
 
Re: NM in conduit

Paul, you must make sure you have all your Ducks in a row, guns loaded, T's crossed, I's dotted, etc... before you post a "Matter of Fact" statement here. ;)

Many here, like Ryan, are well versed in the way codes are writen or created.

I happen to know Ryan sits on an the board of directors for the Utah chapter of the IAEI along with a CMP member.

Roger
 
Re: NM in conduit

Before dismissing the ROP and ROC as meaningless until SLC, the panel statements are actual panel interpretations on a lot of different sections of the Code. Take a look at some of the proposals that were turned down by the CMP, a panel statement must be made as to the reason for the rejection. That becomes an official interpretation of the Code since the CMP must reach a consensus for the statement to be placed in the ROP or ROC. :D
 
Re: NM in conduit

Hi Charlie. I agree, the ROP/ROC's are an invaluable resource, especially when trying to establish intent. I just think that it is a bit foolish to assume (or flat out state) that anything will pass until it has been voted on, which I'm sure you would agree with. :)
 
Re: NM in conduit

I Just bought a 1951 edition of the NEC. I bet I could wire a house under the 1951 rules and have a safe serviciable home. By only making compensation for load increase, from new appliances.

[ May 09, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: bennie ]
 
Re: NM in conduit

Paul its not a done deal on code changes until the standards council meets in July. The vote at the annual meeting can be changed by committee reconsideration or by the standdards council. At the 2001 annual meeting the use of NM cable in structures exceeding three floors was voted down, but it was overturned by the standards council as the vote was incorrect. A code change can even be appealed to the Supreme Court as happened with PVC conduit in the early 1980's.
All: the ROP's and ROC's are available as a free down load, or call the NFPA and order them (free) in the electronic or paper version.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top