[RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)

[jay peltz]

I've followed these threads with great interest about code, changes and interpretations.

There are 2 connected parts, code and interpretation. 

While its hard to do much about interpretation, the code part should be more fixable.
One of the largest problems as I see it, is the long time between fixes, ie 3 years.

In other industries ( I used to be a commercial pilot) changes, fixes, updates came out weekly, and now thats daily with electronic information.

I don't see why in the current digital world that we are dealing with 3 years between code changes.  
This small mistake of " wire" included where it shouldn't, should not be a problem to fix.  That mistakes  happen is a given with the best of intentions. So the issue is faster fixes.

I don't expect this to change anytime soon, but is there any even thoughts out there in the land of code to move the code process up to the 21st century?
( I mean 6 month upgrades? how hard could it be?)

Sincerely,

Jay

Peltz Power






> [Advisory: Lengthy Post]
> 
> 
> Hello William,
> 
> Rather than focus on a specific instance, I'd like to step back
> and view the larger situation.
> 
> Over the years, numerous posts to this list-serv have related to
> concerns where installers experienced inspection-related problems
> ranging from individual AHJs to entire departments or other code
> bodies that at a minimum are inconsistent with code interpretation,
> and at the other extreme, establish their own code rules.
> 
> To that point, and the exact thread you reference, what has become
> a roadblock for an installer in one jurisdiction is approved as
> fully acceptable in another, as evidenced by the original post.
> 
> Environmental and other aspects aside for a moment, how can something
> such as a conductor gauge be deemed "safe" by one AHJ, yet is ruled
> "unsafe" by another?  Either it is .. or it isn't.
> 
> Nick Vida's recent mention of the City of Los Angeles goes exactly to
> the heart of my comment, where he said the City has its own utility
> with its own manual of requirements.
> 
> To quote Nick:
> "Through experience we know what they require, and it often has nothing
> to do with NEC. If you bring up NEC to them, they usually laugh at you."
> The arguments by various Wrenches related to and in support of your
> point in that thread are well thought out and fully supportable by
> engineering and other analysis.  Unfortunately, logic and common
> sense aren't always the deciding factors, as we all know too well.
> 
> Regardless of how well proven or supported a position may be, an AHJ
> may, at their discretion, accept or reject any aspect of a system.  If
> a field inspector red-tags a system, the installer may appeal up the
> line to the CBO, who may support or overrule the decision by the field
> inspector.  Again, to my point, if this happens, is it because one of
> them is wrong in the interpretation of the NEC (or the applicable
> jurisdictional code) .. or is it because they have differing opinions
> as to what is acceptable??
> 
> It all comes down to whomever is highest on that food chain as a
> decision maker, and their opinion .. hence "whim and interpretation".
> 
> And to your question .. yes .. I fully support the position you and
> others took related to the conductor size in that thread.
> Unfortunately, it's not our opinion that counts.
> 
> For that reason, I, along with many others, are striving diligently to
> try to bring some sense and sensibility to the NEC, UL Standards, and
> more.
> 
> I too serve on the same NEC and UL boards with John Wiles, Bill Brooks,
> and a host of others.  As for the NEC, the final decision rests with a
> select group of decision-makers known as the National Fire Protection
> Association and their Review Board.  We can submit all the common-sense
> changes we like .. and the NFPA has the final say as to what does, or
> doesn't go into the Code.
> 
> Many proposals for revision were submitted for the 2014 Code.  To put
> this into perspective, the "ROP" document for Sections 690 and 705 in
> the new 2014 Code book consisted of more than 1,000 pages.  This is
> larger than the entire NEC itself, and this was for just two Sections.
> For those not familiar with the process, the ROP contains proposals
> and NFPA feedback on each one, and whether a proposal has been
> accepted, rejected, or something in between.
> 
> Jurisdictions are then free to use, change, or ignore any and all
> aspects of the NEC as they see fit.  To Nick's point above, they
> do all of the above .. and again .. "whim and interpretation".
> 
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> 
> Best Regards to All,
> 
> 
> Dan Lepinski, Senior Engineer
> Exeltech Solar
> Veteran of 41 years in solar energy
>