This article was posted 03/14/2011 and is most likely outdated.

TIA No. 1005 on NFPA 70, National Electrical Code®, 2011 edition
 

 

Topic - NEC
Subject - TIA No 1005 on NFPA 70, NEC 2011 Edition

March 14, 2011
This newsletter was sent to 16741 newsletter subscribers
Ask a Question |  Continuing Education |  Quizzes |  Free Stuff |  Instructors |  Products | Seminars | Subscribe | Unsubscribe
[ image1 Post Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ]  

TIA No. 1005 on NFPA 70, National Electrical Code®, 2011 edition

Image1

At its meeting of February 28 – March 1, 2011, the Standards Council considered an appeal from Carvin DiGiovanni of the Association of Pool and Spa Professionals, requesting that the Council issue proposed Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) No. 1005 on the 2011 edition of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code® (NEC).  The proposed TIA seeks to modify Section 640.42(B) to create two exceptions such that certain listed self-contained on- or above-grade outdoor spas and hot tubs would be exempt from the requirements for equipotential bonding of perimeter surfaces.  
 
Proposed TIA No. 1005 was balloted through NEC Panel 17 and the Technical Correlating Committee (TCC) of the NEC in accordance with the NFP Regulations Governing Committee Projects, to determine if it had the necessary three-fourths majority support on merit and emergency nature to establish support for issuance.  While the TIA passed the ballot of both Panel 17 and the TCC on merit (technical and correlation, respectively), it failed both the Panel and TCC on emergency nature.  When a TIA fails to achieve the recommendation of the responsible Panel and TCC for issuance on both merit and emergency nature, under NFPA rules, the default recommendation of the codes and standards development process is to not issue the TIA.
 
The appeal requests that the Standards Council overturn the action recommended by the codes and standards development process, and issue the TIA.  The Council has reviewed the entire record concerning this matter and has considered the written arguments put forth in this appeal.  On appeal, the Council generally defers to the responsible Panel on technical issues, and here the Panel supported the technical merit of the TIA and the TCC supported the correlation merit.  The TIA, however, failed the ballot on emergency nature by one vote with Panel 17, and three votes with the TCC.  The question of emergency nature is one on which the Council gives less deference to the judgment of the Panel and TCC since evaluation of emergency nature often involves issues of a non-technical nature that the Council itself has an obligation to evaluate to ensure fairness in the treatment of subjects addressed by TIAs. 

The Council concludes the TIA meets the test of emergency nature and accordingly has voted to uphold the appeal and issue TIA No. 1005.

http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/FD11-3-10-d_D11-2_TIA_NFPA70.pdf

 

 

Click here to post a comment

[ Post Your Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ]
[ View More Newsletters ]

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be
displayed or published on the internet without the prior written permission of Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc.

http://www.MikeHolt.com     1-888-NEC-CODE (1-888-632-2633)

 
 
Comments

  • I believe the code article should be 680.42 B

    not

    640.42B

    william smith  March 16 2011, 3:31 pm EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • It appears that the reference should be for 680.42 (B) inlew of 640.42(B)

    Bruce Resman  March 15 2011, 9:11 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • Is this saying a wall that is say 2 feet from the spa has to be more than 28 inches higher than the spa or that a horizontal surface has to be more than 28 inches lower than the spa?

    VIC  March 15 2011, 8:45 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • The Standards Council was wrong to overturn the action recommended by the codes and standards development process. First, by claiming that the Council itself has an obligation to evaluate to ensure fairness in the treatment of subjects, it dismisses the ability of the TCC and the Code Panels to do so and effectively torpedoes a long-standing existing process. Why should the Committees reach any future decisions if there is always the concern that they will be second guessed by the Council? Secondly, the Council reversed the Committees' decisions without any statement on exactly how those decisions were unfair. As a result, the Council's decision to issue the TIA appears to be arbitrary and without justification,

    Heinz R.  March 15 2011, 8:35 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • No this exception to not bond a self containted hot tub is stupid. Most hot tubs have 220 volt hard wire application. If a motor or wire goes to ground and is not hooked th the expontial grounding it will cause a large potential, deadly potential. Even with that, the seperate grounding points will have a potential difference. Bad ideal. PV

    perry Vogler, Done Right Electric.  March 15 2011, 7:20 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • It appears that the allmighty dollar has outweighed safety with acceptance of this TIA. The permiter bond around a outdoor hot tub is needed as much as it is needed around a pool.

    shortcircuit2  March 15 2011, 6:56 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

Get notified when new comments are posted here
* Your Email:
 
        
 
Add Your Comments to this Newsletter
* Your Name:
   Your name will appear under your comments.

* Your Email:
   Your email address is not displayed.
* Comments:

Email Notification Options:
Notify me when a reply is posted to this comment
Notify me whenever a comment is posted to this newsletter