Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Do you want to send in your Vote

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    31,501

    Do you want to send in your Vote

    Here is a TIA that was sent in by Ryan Jackson-a mod here at mike holt. Email ballots are due by Jan. 18 so vote if you so wish to either support the TIA or not. Send email to scaldwell@nfpa.org

    NFPA 70®- 2017 Edition National Electrical Code® TIA Log No.: 1244 Reference: 590.4(G) Comment Closing Date: February 16, 2017 Submitter: Ryan Jackson, West Valley City, UT 1. Revise 590.4(G) to read as follows:

    590.4(G) Splices. A box, conduit body, or other enclosure, with a cover installed, shall be required for all splices. Exception: On construction sites, a box, conduit body, or other enclosure shall not be required for either of the following conditions: (1) The circuit conductors being spliced are all from nonmetallic multiconductor cord or cable assemblies, provided that the equipment grounding continuity is maintained with or without the box. (2) The circuit conductors being spliced are all from metal sheathed cable assemblies terminated in listed fittings that mechanically secure the cable sheath to maintain effective electrical continuity.

    Substantiation. The new allowance to the 2017 version of 590.4(G) allows for open splices for any temporary installation. This allowance used to apply only to construction sites when certain criteria was met. As written for the new edition, an open splice is permitted for any temporary installation, provided that similar criteria to the construction site rule is met. This means that areas such as Christmas tree sales lots, for example, can have open splices where the public would have access to them. This is obviously an unsafe installation, as 300.15 makes perfectly clear. Unfortunately, 300.15 doesn’t apply here as this rule specifically modifies it, as permitted by 90.3. This leaves the AHJ no authority to reject an installation that is obviously a safety hazard and a fire hazard. Emergency Nature. The standard contains an error or an omission that was overlooked during the regular revision process. The proposed TIA intends to offer to the public a benefit that would lessen a recognized (known) hazard or ameliorate a continuing dangerous condition or situation.
    Last edited by Dennis Alwon; 01-05-17 at 04:53 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Placerville, CA, USA
    Posts
    16,869
    ...except where: Exception: ....
    is redundant.
    Choose one of the other.
    I think just "Exception:" on a new line would be more consistent with NEC style.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    31,501
    I really screwed that up... Basically they took out the words "except where" and added the exception clause up to the word "the following conditions".
    Last edited by Dennis Alwon; 01-05-17 at 04:54 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    20,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
    I really screwed that up... Basically they took out the words "except where" and added the exception clause up to the word "the following conditions".
    Here's the official pdf...

    http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/Abo..._NFPA%2070.pdf
    I'll never get there. No matter where I go, I'm always here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •