Go Back   DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum > Home Improvement > Electrical

CLICK HERE AND JOIN OUR COMMUNITY TODAY...IT'S FREE!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-09-2013, 03:42 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Indiana (USA)
Posts: 1,318
Rewards Points: 500
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


From a dated post: Does this mean that not all Spas, Hot Tubs, Pools need the Equipontential Bonding?

Quote:
Tentative Interim Amendment
NFPA 70
®

National Electrical Code
®

2011 Edition
Reference:
680.42(B)

TIA 11-1
(SC 11-3-10/TIA Log #1005)
Pursuant to Section 5 of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, the National Fire Protection Association has issued the following Tentative Interim Amendment to NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code®, 2011 edition. The TIA was processed by Panel 17 and the National Electrical Code Technical Correlating Committee, and was issued by the Standards Council on March 1, 2011, with an effective date of March 21, 2011.

A Tentative Interim Amendment is tentative because it has not been processed through the entire standards-making procedures. It isinterim because it is effective only between editions of the standard. A TIA automatically becomes a proposal of the proponent for thenext edition of the standard; as such, it then is subject to all of the procedures of the standards-making process.

1. Revise 680.42(B) to read as follows:
680.42(B) Bonding.
Bonding by metal-to-metal mounting on a common frame or base shall be permitted.

Exception No. 1: The metal bands or hoops used to secure wooden staves shall not be required to be bonded as required in 680.26.

Exception No. 2: A listed self-contained spa or hot tub that meets all of the following conditions shall not be required to haveequipotential bonding of perimeter surfaces installed as required in 680.26(B)(2):

(1) Is installed in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions on or above grade

(2) The vertical measurement from all permanent perimeter surfaces within 30 horizontal inches (76 cm) of the spa to the toprim of the spa is greater than 28 inches (71 cm).

Informational Note: For further information regarding the grounding and bonding requirements for self-contained spas and hottubs, see ANSI/UL 1563 – 2009,Standard for Electric Spas, Equipment Assemblies, and Associated Equipment.

Issue Date:
March 1, 2011

Effective Date:
March 21, 2011

(Note: For further information on NFPA Codes and Standards, please see
www.nfpa.org/codelist)

Copyright © 2011 All Rights Reserved
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION

__________________
Installation is the Reverse of Removal.
sirsparksalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 05:06 PM   #2
E2 Electrician
 
stickboy1375's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Litchfield, CT
Posts: 5,142
Rewards Points: 2,076
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Only spas and hot tubs, it ends up costing more than the tub itself in most cases, and really serves no purpose. Your state must accept this TIA before you can just stop doing what is required by the NEC.

http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/Abo...1005NFPA70.pdf


Last edited by stickboy1375; 05-09-2013 at 05:09 PM.
stickboy1375 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 10:58 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Indiana (USA)
Posts: 1,318
Rewards Points: 500
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Right, Stickboy, I meant Hot Tub.

Reading the TIA that you linked to, I guess they've determined that, in some cases, the EB could do more harm than good!

Quote:
For an in-ground spa, the perimeter grid adds to the safety by unifying the shell and the surrounding deck to one potential because all are in electrical contact with the earth.

In contrast, the self-contained spa shell is non-conductive, and the internal structure, while bonded together, is electrically isolated from the earth requiring grounding back to earth-neutral. In the event of a ground fault, the presence of a neutral-earth bonded perimeter grid in the deck will lower its impedance, increase fault current, and guarantee a current return path through the victim!

A storable pool, already excluded from the equipotential grid requirement of the NEC, would present the identical aggravated shock hazard if a bonded perimeter grid were installed.
__________________
Installation is the Reverse of Removal.
sirsparksalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 08:18 AM   #4
Master Electrician
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 511
Rewards Points: 284
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


My understanding is that the TIA was instituted as an exception for existing surfaces at the request/screaming of the Hot Tub manufacturers. Basically that EPZ bonding rule made it illegal to install a hot tub on an existing deck or patio due to the lack of the grid.

Mark
__________________
Licensed Master Electrician
Commonwealth of Virginia
busman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 03:58 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Indiana (USA)
Posts: 1,318
Rewards Points: 500
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Quote:
Originally Posted by busman View Post
My understanding is that the TIA was instituted as an exception for existing surfaces at the request/screaming of the Hot Tub manufacturers. Basically that EPZ bonding rule made it illegal to install a hot tub on an existing deck or patio due to the lack of the grid.

Mark
hmm, I don't know, Mark. According to the .pdf that Stickboy linked, my understanding was that EQP Bonding made self contained spas more dangerous due to lessened impedance.

How would this work?

I didn't read the entire report, but I didn't see that which you refer to.
__________________
Installation is the Reverse of Removal.
sirsparksalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 05:06 PM   #6
Master Electrician
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 511
Rewards Points: 284
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Quote:
Originally Posted by sirsparksalot View Post
hmm, I don't know, Mark. According to the .pdf that Stickboy linked, my understanding was that EQP Bonding made self contained spas more dangerous due to lessened impedance.

How would this work?

I didn't read the entire report, but I didn't see that which you refer to.
I'll stand by my post. The submitter was "
Carvin DiGiovanni, Assn. of Pool and Spa Professionals

They did not argue that the EPZ makes it less safe. They argued that since it is astronomically expensive to install the grid for existing surfaces that people were at risk by installing Spas with no inspections, because inspectors were implementing crazy expensive things to meet the code EPZ requirements.

Mark

__________________
Licensed Master Electrician
Commonwealth of Virginia
busman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 05:22 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Indiana (USA)
Posts: 1,318
Rewards Points: 500
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Quote:
Originally Posted by busman View Post
I'll stand by my post. The submitter was "
Carvin DiGiovanni, Assn. of Pool and Spa Professionals

They did not argue that the EPZ makes it less safe. They argued that since it is astronomically expensive to install the grid for existing surfaces that people were at risk by installing Spas with no inspections, because inspectors were implementing crazy expensive things to meet the code EPZ requirements.

Mark
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but how, then, do you interpret the following: "the presence of a neutral-earth bonded perimeter grid in the deck will lower its impedance, increase fault current, and guarantee a current return path through the victim!"
__________________
Installation is the Reverse of Removal.
sirsparksalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 05:45 PM   #8
Member
 
Oso954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Northern Calif.
Posts: 1,731
Rewards Points: 1,342
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Quote:
I didn't read the entire report, ....
That is part of the problem.

If you go back to it, there is a diagram that will help. It is labeled "
Shock Hazard in a Self-Contained Spa with Bonded Perimeter Grid"


Notice that on the left, the say "faulty or no GFI". They also assume a ground fault. Then you couple those with the lessened impedance.

So, under those conditions, it would be more dangerous. But it isn't something to lose sleep over.
Oso954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 05:55 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Indiana (USA)
Posts: 1,318
Rewards Points: 500
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oso954 View Post
"faulty or no GFI".
Yes, along with "... with Bonded Perimeter Grid", so that, to me, is saying that a grid makes it more dangerous in the event of a fault.

Of course, this is with a "self-contained" spa
__________________
Installation is the Reverse of Removal.
sirsparksalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 06:35 PM   #10
Member
 
Oso954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Northern Calif.
Posts: 1,731
Rewards Points: 1,342
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


If you are worried about the increased danger of a self contained spa with a bonding zone, then don't buy the spa. Have an in-ground one built instead.
:-)
Oso954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 06:43 PM   #11
E2 Electrician
 
stickboy1375's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Litchfield, CT
Posts: 5,142
Rewards Points: 2,076
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Its also a ridiculous requirement when installing one on a deck... it just makes no sense, and the fact that they ARE portable, from a cost aspect, to remove and install another EBG is just plain right insane to request.
stickboy1375 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 07:49 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Indiana (USA)
Posts: 1,318
Rewards Points: 500
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oso954 View Post
If you are worried about the increased danger of a self contained spa with a bonding zone, then don't buy the spa. Have an in-ground one built instead.
:-)
I ain't worried about it, I'm just trying to get the lowdown

The issuance of the TIA, and accompanying investigative reports, simply peaked my desire to understand EB.

Please note that I do not understand this requirement, so hence, my thread.

It seems that most regard it as an attempt to save cost, and indeed, I did read about the consequences of the requirement as it pertained to unpermitted, and rogue work.

So, is it a general consensus that EB doesn't need to be installed in self-contained, portable, or above ground spas/hot tubs?
__________________
Installation is the Reverse of Removal.
sirsparksalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 07:51 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Indiana (USA)
Posts: 1,318
Rewards Points: 500
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Quote:
Originally Posted by stickboy1375 View Post
Its also a ridiculous requirement when installing one on a deck... it just makes no sense, and the fact that they ARE portable, from a cost aspect, to remove and install another EBG is just plain right insane to request.
What about on a deck that has perimeter metal, say within 5', or with metal handrails, or whatever?
__________________
Installation is the Reverse of Removal.
sirsparksalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 07:52 PM   #14
E2 Electrician
 
stickboy1375's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Litchfield, CT
Posts: 5,142
Rewards Points: 2,076
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Quote:
Originally Posted by sirsparksalot View Post
I ain't worried about it, I'm just trying to get the lowdown

The issuance of the TIA, and accompanying investigative reports, simply peaked my desire to understand EB.

Please note that I do not understand this requirement, so hence, my thread.

It seems that most regard it as an attempt to save cost, and indeed, I did read about the consequences of the requirement as it pertained to unpermitted, and rogue work.

So, is it a general consensus that EB doesn't need to be installed in self-contained, portable, or above ground spas/hot tubs?
Only if your state accepts the TIA in its amendments.
stickboy1375 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 07:59 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Indiana (USA)
Posts: 1,318
Rewards Points: 500
Default

Code Change for Equipotential Bonding??


Quote:
Originally Posted by stickboy1375 View Post
Only if your state accepts the TIA in its amendments.
I've heard this said before

__________________
Installation is the Reverse of Removal.
sirsparksalot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sirsparksalot For This Useful Post:
stickboy1375 (05-10-2013)
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
error code 45 Turtle learner HVAC 2 01-10-2011 05:09 PM
code details for boxes kama Electrical 6 01-30-2009 11:25 AM
Which bonding method proper??? Nestor Electrical 2 09-15-2006 07:18 AM
International building code and permits rforsha Building & Construction 4 08-28-2006 07:35 PM
1950's Roof Framing Strength KempLN Building & Construction 21 06-17-2006 11:06 AM




Top of Page | View New Posts

Copyright © 2003-2014 Escalate Media. All Rights Reserved.