- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
The public inputs for the 2017 NEC have been posted by the NFPA.
http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp?id=70-2014.ditamap&pubStatus=FDRTom do you have a link?
Actually it seems one cannot view other persons PI's as we could previously. Seems you can only view your own PI's and the first draft....without sifting through all others...
Public Inputs with Responses PDF (http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/70_A2016_NEC_FD_PIResponses.pdf)You can go to First Draft Ballots and see PI's with responses, I think you can also see final ballots with votes and affirmative commentary.
Seems we had all this information in one place with the old ROC.
Public Inputs with Responses PDF (http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/70_A2016_NEC_FD_PIResponses.pdf)
But that only shows the PI's that made it to the first revision (i.e. the rejects are omitted).If you go to First Revision with Final Ballot Results you can see the actual vote with the panel members Affirmative or Negative statements to the panel statement. ...
That is a big issue. Under the old system, proposals that were rejected in the ROP often were accepted in the ROC based on the comments. It really takes the public out of the process leaving it up to the CMP members....
When it comes to comment stage, I'm guessing we can only comment on the accepted PI's, and not comment on rejected PI's. That seems a bit biased IMO.
That is a big issue. Under the old system, proposals that were rejected in the ROP often were accepted in the ROC based on the comments. It really takes the public out of the process leaving it up to the CMP members.
Isn't that the date when the public comment stage begins?What does the July 17, 2015 date mean at the top of the page when you go to the first draft report?
One of my PI's has a response message of...might be part of the reason they changed it. a lot of organizations do not really want input from outside.
I had much the same response to a PI that said you could parallel conductors of any size as long as the OCPD had a rating no greater than the ampacity of a single conductor. They wanted testing to say there is no hazard.One of my PI's has a response message of...
"The existing text is clear and the proposed revision does not provide adequate substantiation to warrant the change without further testing. The submitter is encouraged to work with appropriate agencies to develop test data."
The PI involves sizing feeders and OCPD's after the initial OCPD's of single phase inverters connected to 3Ø systems line-to-line in a delta configuration. According to current wording, the feeders and OCPD sizing must be based on the [arithmetic] sum of inverter output ratings rather than the vector sum. It is a known fact since the advent of 3Ø systems that line currents are less than double phase currents, i.e. line current = phase current × 1.732. Are these guys really that dense???
I did a brief search for a feedback avenue. Didn't find anything with substance.....
The NFPA needs to hear our feedback that the new system is not acceptable.
They probably have a thing against ring circuits.I had much the same response to a PI that said you could parallel conductors of any size as long as the OCPD had a rating no greater than the ampacity of a single conductor. They wanted testing to say there is no hazard.
Maybe so, but as long as the OCPD has rating equal to or less than a single conductor what is the hazard. I think in Europe, the ring circuit has an OCPD with a rating of twice that of the conductor.They probably have a thing against ring circuits.
They have something new called NFPA Xchange that has an electrical section. I have a couple of comments there. I was at the NFPA conference expo in Chicago yesterday, and they were really pushing you to join Xchange.I did a brief search for a feedback avenue. Didn't find anything with substance.