NEC 2005 Handbook

Perhaps my problem with the whole idea of too many standards. At a certain point we are overcome with standard overload. The original idea was to make the code easier to enforce. We ended up making it more complicated. Florida has codified everything but the NFPA electric code and some parts of the fire code, adopting NFPA standards as written. I suspect Florida end up rewriting the whole thing into the FBC ... as soon as THEY figure out what the NFPA standard acttually says. My main beef with NFPA is the way they will reference another standard, without quoting the text they reference. In my smoke detector quest I actually followed the references and in no case was the reference more than a few dozen words ... but without another $100 book, you couldn't read them. It was clear they were just selling books. I have lived intimately with the NEC for over a decade as an inspector. I understand how it is developed. The mob rule process they have to "improve" this document has simply made it a Fibber McGees closet of contradictory rules that get reshuffled every 3 years, fixing one problem and creating two more. Why should every stupid thing someone MIGHT do be in the law anyway?

Reply to
gfretwell
Loading thread data ...

And how would you propose to have a Standards organization work and support itself and its work?

There are only two board members of NFPA that are full-time NFPA employees. While I don't have renumeration figures, I seriously doubt the Directors are gettin obscenely wealthy from their compensation from NFPA.

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

Well, duh... kickbacks from electrical equipment manufacturers, of course. Why do you think AFCIs are now required for bedrooms?

Reply to
Goedjn

- Duane Bozarth -

- Nehmo - Since you concede not having figures, your "seriously doubt" doesn?t carry any weight unless you give some basis aside from the absence of figures for your opinion. Elaborate if you can.

?Non-profit? is just an IRS distinction, 501(c)(3). The term doesn?t really mean the company, or ?organization? if you insist, doesn?t make any money. Furthermore, the situation isn?t simple because there are sister and sub organizations involved with the NFPA.

And please explain what the status of "full-time employee" has to do with anything? What are you saying? That only employees make money from an organization?

Reply to
Nehmo

That there isn't a set of stockholders or other partners or private ownership mechanism. The Directors serve as do Directors of other corporations as a board of experienced business professionals that, undoubtedly, sit on multiple Boards in almost every case. In general BofD salaries are not exceedingly lucrative in the perjorative sense to which you and others here seem to have as a mindset.

True, but in general the focus of nonprofits is not _primarily_ one of making profits. But, if they perform a useful service and meet the rules of the IRS, what's wrong with that?

That, except for two, their primary compensation comes from their "day job", not from serving on the BofD of NFPA. Those two, of course, are primary officers on the Board by virtue of the position within the organization.

There is an annual filing w/ the IRS for all 501(c)(3)'s which can be looked at to determine a significant amount of the information. I don't have the inclination nor time at present to go look for it.

Just out of curiousity, what would you think an appropriate level of comensation for such a position? And why?

BTW, I noticed there's a VP position open that would probably pay pretty well if you want to get in on the gravy train! :)

And a couple of EE positions, as well if you'd like to actually contribute to the Standards themselves...

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

OK, I went and found the IRS Form 990 from 2003 (last one online at the location I used).

Total salary of the top five officers was just over $1M. All Board of Directors members (other than the two previously mentioned who are fulltime employees) serve _without_ compensation.

Nice living, but certainly not outrageous imo for the officers of an orgainzation of roughly $65M revenues, and something otoo 250 employees it would seem estimating from the list of 110 w/ salaries of $50k or greater (the ones specifically listed were all top officers, the other higher paid appear to be the professionals on staff). BTW, they ended the year w/ a net operating gain after cost of programs, materials and other expenses of roughly $3M. That's about 5%.

The link I used is one to which I am registered as a board member of a nonprofit here that we use for research for grant writing, etc., and unfortunately protects the pdf file from cut 'n paste so I can't pick out specific data easily, but these are freely available if you want to go look on you own.

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

...

...

That would be "principal" operator whose business model might be based on a "principle"... :)

I'm saying that entities have chosen to reference the NFPA (or NEC or any other Standard) is their choice in lieu of developing a separate code on their own. It was the proliferation of such varying standards that was a major impetus for the founding of the NFPA 100+ years ago. That it has been successful is, imo, more a testament to the efficacy of the codes and standards they developed than vice versa as you would seem to want to assert.

Re: financials, I posted data there in another response already--your newserver may not have updated yet...

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

I believe you may have chosen a rather bad analogy. AFCI's were made code for the same reason that GFCI's were; for safety. Many fires are attributed to loose connections. An AFCI may be able to detect this and kill the circuit before it sits there, day-after-day, week-after-week, lowering the kindling temperature of the surrounding construction and eventually causing a fire. BTW, bedrooms are just a start. In a future NEC edition, we may see ALL the receptacles requiring AFCI protection.

Consider all the costs associated with developing a standard. Travel vouchers, luncheons, mailings, etc. I chair a consensus committee for a standard (ANSI, not NFPA) and there's a tremendous amount of work that goes into creating one of these. BTW, the cost of the standard when placed on sale is set by the association underwriting the standard, and not by ANSI.

You (or if may have someone else, hard to keep track) are right about how much it costs to maintain a set of standards. We spend hundreds each year on standards, and not just the standards, there are state amendments, testing, courses for certification and maintaining licenses and certifications, travel and lodging, etc. All of this gets passed along to the client of course. But that's the cost of doing business.

Reply to
Dennis

Plus a massive lobbying effort by Cutler Hammer who developed the AFCI in the first place. The other manufactures were dragged, kicking and screaming, into the AFCI market.

Reply to
gfretwell

Is we used that logic we could abandon all of the building codes and still not have the death toll we have from people not wearing seat belts. Think of all the people who would be put out of work! The reality is the "tombstones" that drive code law are so few and far between it only takes a couple stupid accidents to cause a half billion dollar industry to start up. AFCIs are a good example.

Reply to
gfretwell

Now there's some in there I _can_ agree with...

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

- Nehmo -

process of

- Duane Bozarth -

- Nehmo - But you missed the other error, so you only get %50 on my subtle test. It's in there.

Reply to
Nehmo

The strange thing is, when I was vacationing in Idaho I found vast areas of the state that do not really have any building code enforcement and I didn't see houses falling down or big scorch marks on the walls. I was expecting to see fire trucks in front of flaming buildings everywhere I went based on the things I hear on these groups. ;-)

Reply to
gfretwell

The idea for AFCIs actually came from work at UL that was sponsored by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The CPSC was interested how to reduce residential electrical fires. AFCIs did not exist at that point.

Current AFCIs only detect "parallel" faults (and 30 ma ground faults). They do not currently detect "series" faults, like loose connections, but will be required to starting 2008. I think series faults are harder to distinguish from normal usage.

bud--

Reply to
Bud--

As near as I can tell from the information easily available on the net, the number of lives that will be saved yearly by requiring AFCIs everywhere in the universe is in the low double-digits. They are a defense against a trivial-to-nonexistant threat.

Reply to
Goedjn

That'd be fine by me.

Reply to
Goedjn

Thanks for the information, Bud. I hadn't done ant real research into these (to any great extent) and picked up that we will be seeing them on more branch circuits (possibly) from the 1003 IRC commentary. Interesting info about the series/parallel detection.

I was just looking over the UL website concerning arc-faults, and it appears (to me at least) that they were placed into code primarily to detect flexible cord sets (lamp cords). (Of course they will detect all arcing faults and shorts as well.) But that makes sense as a lot of fires can be traced directly to defective cordsets and extension cords. The discuss series/parallel arcing, but don't specifically state that it is parallel only (although I'm have no doubt you are correct.)

Thanks again, Dennis

Reply to
Dennis

That is why they started with bedroom circuits. More prevalent use of extension cords (lamps, alarm clocks, electric blankets, etc.) and the higher probability of damage resulting from beds rolling over the cords.

Ben Miller

Reply to
Ben Miller

Add to that the fact that people are sleeping in close proximity to the fault.

Ben Miller

Reply to
Ben Miller

Well your just a fountain of wisdom, Ben. (I mean that in a good way, I learned a lot reading your posting.)

Thanks, Dennis

Reply to
Dennis

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.