text in the NEC directly extracted from another standard

[mshields]

Article 517 has certain text in it that is drawn from NFPA 99 and so annotated. If NFPA 99 is updated between NEC code cycles, such as it has been with the 2015 version, does the new, revised text become part of the NEC such that the exact wording that may be found in any of our copies of the 2014 NEC is no longer applicable?

 

[roger]

Article 517 has certain text in it that is drawn from NFPA 99 and so annotated. If NFPA 99 is updated between NEC code cycles, such as it has been with the 2015 version, does the new, revised text become part of the NEC such that the exact wording that may be found in any of our copies of the 2014 NEC is no longer applicable?

You asked the same question the other day.

NFPA 99 6.3.2.1 simply states that the electrical installation shall be in accordance with NFPA 70, which IMO means, whatever NEC is currently adopted is the only NEC at that time

The bottom line is, it would be up to your AHJ as to how it is handled.

Roger

 

[mgookin]

You asked the same question the other day.

NFPA 99 6.3.2.1 simply states that the electrical installation shall be in accordance with NFPA 70, which IMO means, whatever NEC is currently adopted is the only NEC at that time

The bottom line is, it would be up to your AHJ as to how it is handled.

Roger

I (respectfully) disagree. Here's how we always did it and I'll use the codes & editions as OP has presented the question.

If NFPA 70 says follow NFPA 99 then you go by the NFPA 99 Edition that existed when the NFPA 70 Edition was written. There is no way for the authors to look into the future and know what was going to be amended.

It would have to say NFPA 99 As Amended in order for future writings of 99 to be applicable.

I don't remember if it was a legal opinion or just someone with a convincing presentation who convinced me (us) to operate that way.

 

[roger]

I (respectfully) disagree. Here's how we always did it and I'll use the codes & editions as OP has presented the question.

If NFPA 70 says follow NFPA 99 then you go by the NFPA 99 Edition that existed when the NFPA 70 Edition was written. There is no way for the authors to look into the future and know what was going to be amended.

It would have to say NFPA 99 As Amended in order for future writings of 99 to be applicable.

I don't remember if it was a legal opinion or just someone with a convincing presentation who convinced me (us) to operate that way.

I think you need to reread my post.

Roger

 

[mgookin]

I think you need to reread my post.

Roger

You're right. What I see now is not what I thought I saw when I wrote my post.

I'd say the answer to OP's question is No, you do not use the new edition of 99 until you get a new edition of 70 after the new edition of 99.

 

[Jraef]

Especially since versions of the NEC are adopted state by state at different times. Here in CA we are still on 2011!

 

[mshields]

not sure we're on the same page

not sure we're on the same page

you stated that whichever NEC is adopted by the state is what I should go by. BUT NFPA 99 2015 edition, does something rather unique insofar as it dictates modifications to Article 700. Namely to paragraphs 4, 10, 17 and 28 with 10 having (2 hour rating) and 28 (the whole .1 vs .01) being arguably the most significant. So let's take the 700.28 requirement which in the NEC calls for .01 selectivity but according to NFPA 99, 2015 is to be changed to only 0.1 consistent with 517.

Now maybe this is a bad example because 517 already tells us to apply the 0.1 for the entire EES. Regardless, my question is do these changes to Article 700 dictated by NFPA 99 2015, apply even when the state I am in has not yet adopted NFPA 99 2015?

 

[mgookin]

If your state has adopted a code which references another code, your state has by default adopted the portion of the referenced code which is referenced in the adopted code.

It is by default adopted only to the extent it existed when the NEC referenced it.

The referenced code can change all it wants but that's not going to change what existed when the NEC referenced it.

 

[roger]

you stated that whichever NEC is adopted by the state is what I should go by. BUT NFPA 99 2015 edition, does something rather unique insofar as it dictates modifications to Article 700. Namely to paragraphs 4, 10, 17 and 28 with 10 having (2 hour rating) and 28 (the whole .1 vs .01) being arguably the most significant. So let's take the 700.28 requirement which in the NEC calls for .01 selectivity but according to NFPA 99, 2015 is to be changed to only 0.1 consistent with 517.

Now maybe this is a bad example because 517 already tells us to apply the 0.1 for the entire EES. Regardless, my question is do these changes to Article 700 dictated by NFPA 99 2015, apply even when the state I am in has not yet adopted NFPA 99 2015?

Ok, now I see where you are coming from and my opinion stays the same. As you state 517 already covers your example.

I guess when your area adopts the 2015 NFPA 99 things will get easier since article 700 chapters 4, 10, and 28 shall not apply. 700.17 basically doesn't change existing Life Safety requirements as they already stand.

Regardless, IMO if a newer edition of a standard has not been formally adopted it doesn't exist .

Roger

 

[mshields]

great input as always

great input as always

thanks!

 

[102 Inspector]

As an inspector, I agree that only the edition in affect at the time of adoption is the enforceable reference. If I have a contractor that wishes to applied a different standards such as one not currently adopted by the state, then they would have to file a variance to the state to accept the different standard. If approved, it applies to that job only and not every other job thereafter.

 

[Tom the lectrician]

All of it is extracted from somewhere...

All of it is extracted from somewhere...

The standards are created by people researching, not making things up off the top of their heads. Devices and equipment is tested and rated for certain applications. We should just maintain our awareness of those requirements and be happy that we have a guide to go on. Or else we would do things as cheap as possible, and more than likely burn up a lot more homes than havery already been by half witted self tought electric workers.

 

[GoldDigger]

... by half witted self tought electric workers.

I resemble that allegation!