NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION - NFPA 70, Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA)

[mtnelect]

Soliciting public comments on the 2020 edition: Proposed Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA): No. 1653, Reference: 210.8(F) and Exception No. 2

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I tried to vote on one and I cannot get access. I signed in to Nfpa link and nfpa.org and I get invalid login. I tried calling nfpa but they are gone for the holiday's

 

[Dennis Alwon]

What are you trying to say about #2

 

[Dennis Alwon]

btw, you have the wrong link

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I think this is the link

https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/Proposed_TIA_1654_NFPA_70.pdf

 

[texie]

Is this the type of thing that the TIA is about? https://cassonhardware.com/products/bocci-22-drywall-mud-in-mounting

 

[mtnelect]

Is this the type of thing that the TIA is about? https://cassonhardware.com/products/bocci-22-drywall-mud-in-mounting

I assumed this TIA was about office Cubicle Funiture and not architectural outlets. This takes electrical outlets to another level.

 

[texie]

I assumed this TIA was about office Cubicle Funiture and not architectural outlets. This takes electrical outlets to another level.

These things have been around for a number of years now but I have never actually seen one. In my view they are not compliant and recipe for real problems. Interestingly the specs say "Certified: UL standards 498 and 514D". Note it does not say listed. I did not look for it in the White book though.

 

[kwired]

Presuming OP was intending to address 210.8(F) though his attachment was for something else.

Funny thing as I see it is it was an electrocution caused by improper EGC to an AC unit that was a major player in adding 210.8(F).

Now we are adding an exception that eliminates the very thing that prompted this section in the first place?

I do disagree with the original decision, yes someone was electrocuted, but it was also a situation that would have been prevented had it complied with equipment grounding requirements in 250 part VI.

attachment is from the second draft report with comments on why it was accepted also take a look at the negative comment, proper equipment grounding making this unnecessary was pointed out there.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I am confused. 210.8(F) is about gfci

Presuming OP was intending to address 210.8(F) though his attachment was for something else.

Funny thing as I see it is it was an electrocution caused by improper EGC to an AC unit that was a major player in adding 210.8(F).

Now we are adding an exception that eliminates the very thing that prompted this section in the first place?

I do disagree with the original decision, yes someone was electrocuted, but it was also a situation that would have been prevented had it complied with equipment grounding requirements in 250 part VI.

attachment is from the second draft report with comments on why it was accepted also take a look at the negative comment, proper equipment grounding making this unnecessary was pointed out there.

I think the other way around. The tia he posted does appear to be what he is talking about.

 

[kwired]

I am confused. 210.8(F) is about gfci



I think the other way around. The tia he posted does appear to be what he is talking about.

Later posts - maybe he wasn't intending to talk about the GFCI TIA. IDK how he referenced that one but posted content of something else.

In the process I did find it kind of interesting that the one particular situation that was kind of a key factor in getting 210.8(F) to be added is exactly what the TIA is trying to make an exception for though.

 

[mtnelect]

Soliciting public comments on the 2020 edition: Proposed Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA): No. 1653, Reference: 210.8(F) and Exception No. 2

It's my fault ... I should have listed this:

Soliciting public comments on the proposed 2023 edition: Proposed TIA No. 1649, Reference: 314.29(A)

 

[roger]

Duplicate