# Normalization of Deviance



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Some code is good, other code is bad. Much of is it written for reasons other than safety, and we all know that. 

A lot of it is completely arbitrary. For example, why can I reidentify a black #4 conductor with white tape to use it as a neutral but not a #8 conductor? Someone literally *pulled that code requirement out of their ass*, yet many people here would tell me that I am doing the wrong thing by breaking the code and using white tape on that #8.

Why blindly follow someone else's lunacy? "Just because"? To feel better about yourself because you are following someone else? Less emotional liability when you don't have to think for yourself?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

That was so well done Hax, I was thinking about UL's the two cables per nm connector listing bullcrap when they make 2" Romeo connectors and you can only put two 12-2's into one of them just because some crack head decided so. It would look 30 times better to be able to bundle up half of the loads going into some panels thru one or two bigger Romex connectors than having to put a dozen or so into a panel especially a surface mounted one . Or how about when under somebody's 20 foot wide 40 foot long covered lanai I have to make sure to use bell boxes for splices instead of 4"square ones up under the roof overhang of the thing because the code book says its a damp location up there even though it is perfectly dry.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Sometimes the customer shows me how crazy code is. 

Try to explain to a customer why they can plug their under cabinet light into the counter outlet, but I can't hardwire the same light into the same outlet. Explain to them that I have to do $600-800 in extra work running a cable around their kitchen and out to the nearest general circuit and then they have to pay a plasterer and painter to come in and close up the holes and paint it. 

When they ask you *why* and your only answer is "_There is no actual reason other than because someone else said so and I am blindly following like a brain-dead, brainwashed fool_." you tend to rethink your position.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

HackWork said:


> Sometimes the customer shows me how crazy code is.
> 
> Try to explain to a customer why they can plug their under cabinet light into the counter outlet, but I can't hardwire the same light into the same outlet. Explain to them that I have to do $600-800 in extra work running a cable around their kitchen and out to the nearest general circuit and then they have to pay a plasterer and painter to come in and close up the holes and paint it.
> 
> When they ask you *why* and your only answer is "_There is no actual reason other than because someone else said so and I am blindly following like a brain-dead, brainwashed fool_." you tend to rethink your position.


I know a guy who put a sink light on a kitchen GFCI circuit yesterday. What a jackleg.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

We need Borgi to correct us.................


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Just to try to clarify, the point of the post is not suggesting you should blindly follow standards, in the article it actually discusses legitimate reasons for deviation. To me a big takeaway is actually related to what you are pointing out and how bad parts of standards promote bad behavior. The main takeaway I got though is about the habit and lack of recognition and the kind of spiral effect these can create. This is in no way an attempt by me to get a dig in to the code critics, to me it is more of a dig at poor code if anything, but also not my intent at all.


----------



## Forge Boyz (Nov 7, 2014)

Oh dear. My kitchen has the same thing. I'm going to have to get that guy back here to fix it.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## Forge Boyz (Nov 7, 2014)

Link doesn't work

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

macmikeman said:


> We need Borgi to correct us.................


Borgi likes trolling.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

here's a file if that didn't work, if you google normalization of deviance there are other articles as well that look similar


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

That's a good article and speaking as a former pilot, it's completely accurate. 

One thing that stands out to me as the article translates to our trade is when a code requirement is obviously stupid, how do we change it? 

Here's an example......in the nearly 30 years I've been in the electrical trades, I've thought the 42 circuit limitation was incredibly dumb. Suppose that I, with absolutely zero written credentials, were to submit my opinion to the code-making panel that covers this requirement.

I would be laughed at.......and most certainly not taken seriously. 

The basic structure of a flight department is vastly different than the electrical code. Both make rules, as they should. But the flight department will take even the newest pilots opinions very seriously. Code doesn't care what anyone in the field thinks. 

One issue is that your average everyday flight department is operated by highly experienced pilots who still fly the lines. They are not a gang of educated idiots who have no practical experience or have not worked with tools for so long that they've lost touch with reality. As it is obvious with our code-makers........

Here's another.....I believe that the sole reason that manufacturers reps are allowed (maybe required, I don't know) on code-making panels is to determine whether or not a proposed device can indeed by made and at what cost. But NEVER to propose any type of new device. 

How far do you suppose I'd get with that one.........


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

HackWork said:


> Some code is good, other code is bad. Much of is it written for reasons other than safety, and we all know that.
> 
> A lot of it is completely arbitrary. For example, why can I reidentify a black #4 conductor with white tape to use it as a neutral but not a #8 conductor? Someone literally *pulled that code requirement out of their ass*, yet many people here would tell me that I am doing the wrong thing by breaking the code and using white tape on that #8.
> 
> Why blindly follow someone else's lunacy? "Just because"? To feel better about yourself because you are following someone else? Less emotional liability when you don't have to think for yourself?


Very very well stated!!


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

micromind said:


> That's a good article and speaking as a former pilot, it's completely accurate.
> 
> One thing that stands out to me as the article translates to our trade is when a code requirement is obviously stupid, how do we change it?
> 
> ...


The 42 circuit limit is no longer in the code, by the way. Maybe the 2008 code that did away with it.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

micromind said:


> One thing that stands out to me as the article translates to our trade is *when a code requirement is obviously stupid*, how do we change it?
> ~
> Suppose that I, with absolutely zero written credentials, were to submit my opinion to the code-making panel that covers this requirement.
> 
> I would be laughed at.......and most certainly not taken seriously.


In addition to that, it is also wrong that we can't simple *clarify* existing code articles.

I still have issues with grounding multi-family services. Most people say that we don't need irreversible splices on the conductors going into each panel because they are taps and not the GEC itself. But not everyone feels that way because the code is not clear about that. Any 5th grader can make it clear, but they will not accept anything for the reasons that you stated.

That is just wrong, and shows how the code is all a bunch of bologna. Why should we respect something so stupid?


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Some code is good, other code is bad. Much of is it written for reasons other than safety, and we all know that.
> 
> A lot of it is completely arbitrary. For example, why can I reidentify a black #4 conductor with white tape to use it as a neutral but not a #8 conductor? Someone literally *pulled that code requirement out of their ass*, yet many people here would tell me that I am doing the wrong thing by breaking the code and using white tape on that #8.
> 
> Why blindly follow someone else's lunacy? "Just because"? To feel better about yourself because you are following someone else? Less emotional liability when you don't have to think for yourself?



Very true. Re-identifying a black to a white is a code I ignore. A lot of the supply houses around here don't keep #6 or #8 white in stock, so what is a guy to do? Order a cut and wait a day or 2 for it to be delivered, or throw some white tape on it and call it a day?

Kitchen circuiting is also ridiculous. Having 5-7 dedicated circuits going to a residential kitchen is insane, especially as appliances become more energy efficient. Why can't I toss a dishwasher that draws 4A on to the countertop circuit? Why do I have to run a dedicated circuit for it? Why can't I pop out off a receptacle for a gas range igniter to power the 350cfm range hood? Idiots with no field experience, that's why. Sure, we make more profit installing 6 or 7 dual function breakers, but the reality is houses don't need that much power.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Going_Commando said:


> Very true. Re-identifying a black to a white is a code I ignore. A lot of the supply houses around here don't keep #6 or #8 white in stock, so what is a guy to do? Order a cut and wait a day or 2 for it to be delivered, or throw some white tape on it and call it a day?


 That is a clear example of code that was implemented by the manufacturers by not only being on the code making panel, but by also passing around envelopes of cash under the table to the other panel members.



> Kitchen circuiting is also ridiculous. Having 5-7 dedicated circuits going to a residential kitchen is insane, especially as appliances become more energy efficient. Why can't I toss a dishwasher that draws 4A on to the countertop circuit? Why do I have to run a dedicated circuit for it? Why can't I pop out off a receptacle for a gas range igniter to power the 350cfm range hood? Idiots with no field experience, that's why. Sure, we make more profit installing 6 or 7 dual function breakers, but the reality is houses don't need that much power.


Requiring dedicated circuits for connected equipment with known current draw makes sense.
Requiring dedicated circuits to random outlets based on nothing but some guy's assumptions of what _might_ be used by someone else is design, and something that the code specifically says it doesn't get into, which is a blatant lie.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

I guess the house would burn if we didn't put an outside receptacle within 25' of HVAC equipment. Or could be an HVAC guy doesn't have a cord longer than 25'!
Guess they don't consider that 99% percent of techs/installers/etc. use battery operated tools anyway.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

A Little Short said:


> I guess the house would burn if we didn't put an outside receptacle within 25' of HVAC equipment. Or could be an HVAC guy doesn't have a cord longer than 25'!
> Guess they don't consider that 99% percent of techs/installers/etc. use battery operated tools anyway.


What they have been doing is connect their little pigtail with alligator clips to the feeder, using ground as a neutral when necessary, and (depending where they connect) sometimes working on the equipment hot. So that is why the code was added.

Some code has safety in mind. Not that I agree with it all, but at least it's on the right track.

Other code is either downright stupid and completely arbitrary, far into design and not safety, or only added to make the manufacturer's money.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

A Little Short said:


> I guess the house would burn if we didn't put an outside receptacle within 25' of HVAC equipment. Or could be an HVAC guy doesn't have a cord longer than 25'!
> Guess they don't consider that 99% percent of techs/installers/etc. use battery operated tools anyway.



I haven't seen a single AC company crew that uses corded tools in about 7 years now. They use chargers , but those can plug into any of the other required outdoor outlets. Boy's it's time for a revolution. I'm not supporting the idea of you each using a silencer pistol to waste the local electrical inspector with two well placed shots thru the heart, but I just bet someday sooner or later somebody will..........


----------



## Forge Boyz (Nov 7, 2014)

Actually HVAC guys still do need power. Their vacuum pumps are not cordless.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

More stupid codes - formal dining rooms don't need 20 amp circuits anymore. Nobody uses hot plates. Half bathrooms don't need a 20 amp circuit in them either.


----------



## Signal1 (Feb 10, 2016)

MTW said:


> More stupid codes - formal dining rooms don't need 20 amp circuits anymore. Nobody uses hot plates. Half bathrooms don't need a 20 amp circuit in them either.


I've never seen anyone use a hot plate.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> I know a guy who put a sink light on a kitchen GFCI circuit yesterday. What a jackleg.


I know someone who put some undercabinet lights on the SABC recently. He may have used 14/2 as well. :whistling2:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Here is another one. Table 310-15 (B) (7). For single family dwelling feeders. (Not talking about the service cable size now, just for feeders part) . Calculated dwelling load is 90 amps. If I have a 200 amp service and I have one single panel and I feed that panel with a 100 amp breaker instead of a 200 amp single breaker, I can run #2 aluminum service to it. Because it carry's the entire load of the dwelling. But if I put in two panels instead of one, each fed by a 100 amp breaker to serve the exact same loads but better spread out, I have to put in 1/0 aluminum ser cables for each of the two feeders. This makes so much "no sense" when you consider it, we really should be marching a million of us down the promenade at the Jefferson Monument doing a million man march............... I want all the money I ever had to spend on NEC code books and classes returned to me right now this instant.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

HackWork said:


> *What they have been doing is connect their little pigtail with alligator clips to the feeder, using ground as a neutral when necessary, and (depending where they connect) sometimes working on the equipment hot. So that is why the code was added.*
> 
> Some code has safety in mind. Not that I agree with it all, but at least it's on the right track.
> 
> Other code is either downright stupid and completely arbitrary, far into design and not safety, or only added to make the manufacturer's money.



So why didn't they require the receptacle 3'-5' instead of allowing up to 25'. Do you think the HVAC tech is going to go get a cord if the receptacle is farther than his cord will reach? He probably will just pull out his "pigtail" anyway.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Signal1 said:


> I've never seen anyone use a hot plate.


I heard it was because women used to iron on the dining room table. Who really knows.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

macmikeman said:


> I haven't seen a single AC company crew that uses corded tools in about 7 years now. They use chargers , but those can plug into any of the other required outdoor outlets. Boy's it's time for a revolution. I'm not supporting the idea of you each using a silencer pistol to waste the local electrical inspector with two well placed shots thru the heart, but I just bet someday sooner or later somebody will..........


What if they have no hart?


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

drsparky said:


> What if they have no hart?


Then I'd say through the brain but most inspectors don't have one of those either........


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> Here is another one. Table 310-15 (B) (7). For single family dwelling feeders. (Not talking about the service cable size now, just for feeders part) . Calculated dwelling load is 90 amps. If I have a 200 amp service and I have one single panel and I feed that panel with a 100 amp breaker instead of a 200 amp single breaker, I can run #2 aluminum service to it. Because it carry's the entire load of the dwelling. But if I put in two panels instead of one, each fed by a 100 amp breaker to serve the exact same loads but better spread out, I have to put in 1/0 aluminum ser cables for each of the two feeders. This makes so much "no sense" when you consider it, we really should be marching a million of us down the promenade at the Jefferson Monument doing a million man march............... I want all the money I ever had to spend on NEC code books and classes returned to me right now this instant.


That's a really stupid rule. #2 is good enough for a "main power feeder" but using the same sized breakers for the same purpose (sub panel), it's magically too small now. Most guys around here run #2 ser anyways and throw it on a 100a breaker, and not a single one of those houses or businesses has burned down yet from an overloaded feeder...


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> Here is another one. Table 310-15 (B) (7). For single family dwelling feeders. (Not talking about the service cable size now, just for feeders part) . Calculated dwelling load is 90 amps. If I have a 200 amp service and I have one single panel and I feed that panel with a 100 amp breaker instead of a 200 amp single breaker, I can run #2 aluminum service to it. Because it carry's the entire load of the dwelling. But if I put in two panels instead of one, each fed by a 100 amp breaker to serve the exact same loads but better spread out, I have to put in 1/0 aluminum ser cables for each of the two feeders. This makes so much "no sense" when you consider it, we really should be marching a million of us down the promenade at the Jefferson Monument doing a million man march............... I want all the money I ever had to spend on NEC code books and classes returned to me right now this instant.






Going_Commando said:


> That's a really stupid rule. #2 is good enough for a "main power feeder" but using the same sized breakers for the same purpose (sub panel), it's magically too small now. Most guys around here run #2 ser anyways and throw it on a 100a breaker, and not a single one of those houses or businesses has burned down yet from an overloaded feeder...


is it a conditioned space?

310.15(B)(16) 75c Al #2 *90A*

310.15(B)(2)(a) ambient correction 69-77F *1.05* for 75c conductor insulation

90x1.05*=94.5A*

240.4(B) round up rule *100A breaker, #2 75c Al*


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

I didn't expect the thread to go this way but it's funny because I had been thinking of asking for a list of bad code sections, I am (perhaps)naive enough to be working on code proposals.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> is it a conditioned space?
> 
> 310.15(B)(16) 75c Al #2 *90A*
> 
> ...


Oh god, here we go again...


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Oh god, here we go again...













you're not telling me you don't use the .88 factor for outdoor(96-104F) circuits are you?:biggrin:


:vs_peek::vs_peek:Normalization of Deviance, Normalization of Deviance :vs_peek: :vs_peek:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Wiresmith said:


> is it a conditioned space?
> 
> 310.15(B)(16) 75c Al #2 *90A*
> 
> ...



That doesn't work. The temperature outside is always 84 deg everyday.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> That doesn't work. The temperature outside is always 84 deg everyday.


that's why i was asking if the wire was in a conditioned space (most houses and commercial environments)

edited to add: even if it derives from an outdoor location, so long as the outdoor part is not more than the lesser of 10% of the run or 10'
310.15(A)(2)Exception

edited to add: or if it is underground deep enough, around here 4' is 55F year round, being on a volcano mileage may vary. you can use 1.15 at 55F though. And buy that pretty girl another drink


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

SER cables are not rated for 75 deg column inside, they are rated 60 deg column just like NM cables , thanks to some jackass who submitted to require SER to conform to already existing rules for Romex. Fits right in with the jist of this whole thread. 


:vs_mad::vs_cool:


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> SER cables are not rated for 75 deg column inside, they are rated 60 deg column just like NM cables , thanks to some jackass who submitted to require SER to conform to already existing rules for Romex. Fits right in with the jist of this whole thread.
> 
> 
> :vs_mad::vs_cool:



Am I reading something wrong? or is the code handbook wrong? I'm assuming this is the code section you are referring to

thanks, not arguing, honestly asking, I don't use SE.

NEC 17' 338.10(B)


> *(4) Installation Methods for Branch Circuits and Feeders.
> *(a) Interior Installations. In addition to the provisions of this article, Type SE service-entrance cable used for interior wiring shall comply with the installation requirements of Part II of Article 334, *excluding 334.80*.
> 
> For Type SE cable *with ungrounded conductor sizes 10 AWG and smaller, where installed in thermal insulation*, the ampacity shall be in accordance with 60°C (140°F) conductor temperature rating. The maximum conductor temperature rating shall be permitted to be used for ampacity adjustment and correction purposes, if the final derated ampacity does not exceed that for a 60°C (140°F) rated conductor.



NEC handbook (non-code) explanatory material


> While all conductors in nm-sheathed cable are required to have ...90c, 334.80 limits....to 60c column.... . This limitation applies to all uses of NM cable. In contrast to this restriction, Type SE cable is only limited to operate at 60c when the ungrounded conductor sizes are 10 awg and smaller and it is installed in thermal insulation. Type SE cable is permitted to have 75 or 90c insulation. ...its 75c if no marking.. and ampacity adjustment or correction is based on that rating........ .
> 
> ....smaller than ten and in insulation.. cannot exceed 60c . if the cable is not in thermal insulation the limit...110.14(C)...terminal temperature...



(Excluded, by bold above)
NEC 17'


> *334.80 Ampacity.*
> The ampacity of Types NM, NMC, and NMS cable shall be determined in accordance with 310.15. The allowable ampacity shall not exceed that of a 60°C (140°F) rated conductor. The 90°C (194°F) rating shall be permitted to be used for ampacity adjustment and correction calculations, provided the final calculated ampacity does not exceed that of a 60°C (140°F) rated conductor. The ampacity of Types NM, NMC, and NMS cable installed in cable trays shall be determined in accordance with 392.80(A).
> 
> Where more than two NM cables containing two or more current-carrying conductors are installed, without maintaining spacing between the cables, through the same opening in wood framing that is to be sealed with thermal insulation, caulk, or sealing foam, the allowable ampacity of each conductor shall be adjusted in accordance with Table 310.15(B)(3)(a) and the provisions of 310.15(A)(2), Exception, shall not apply.
> ...


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

*Deviance?*

No, no, no, the smarter I get...

















... more like defiance


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

HackWork said:


> I heard it was because women used to iron on the dining room table. Who really knows.


Funny, I just had this strong memory of our little house in Rochelle Park, NJ and my mom standing in the dining room with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth ironing clothes. :crying:


----------



## HertzHound (Jan 22, 2019)

I iron a few times a year. A little more than I use a three compartment crock pot looking warming tray. I iron on the table and the warming tray goes on the buffet. I'm not sure if I really need a 20 amp amp circuit though.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> SER cables are not rated for 75 deg column inside, they are rated 60 deg column just like NM cables , thanks to some jackass who submitted to require SER to conform to already existing rules for Romex. Fits right in with the jist of this whole thread.
> 
> 
> :vs_mad::vs_cool:


I don't believe that's correct, what code section limits it?


post 38 has the sections I am looking at

looks like it was the way you are thinking in 08' but they apparently changed it since then.



thanks


----------

