proposed modification to the florida building code€¦ · official form 9b-3.047-2004 comment on...

Official Form 9B-3.047-2004 Comment on Bakers Mod 2984 by Jack O Glenn

Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code Modification #: 2984 Section 553.73, Fla Stat Name: Jack O. Glenn Address: 241 Victory Garden Dr., Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E-mail: [email protected] (Florida Homebuilders Asso. Executive Director) Phone: 850-251-1049 Fax: 850-224-1359 Code: Building-Chapter 35

Section #: Section 3501 (This also should be added to PREFACE)

Text of Modification [additions underlined; deletions stricken]:

NFPA 70-05 08 National Electrical Code 2701.2

The Florida Building Code is complied in seven volumes with the National Electrical Code© adopted by reference. The seven volumes………….The National Electrical Code© is reference standard NFPA 70-2005, 2008 which must be obtained separately.

Comment: While this change may have merit I do not think it is a “Glitch” and should be subject the normal code change process. Fiscal Impact Statement [Provide documentation of the costs and benefits of the proposed modifications to the code for each of the following entities. Cost data should be accompanied by a listing of assumptions and supporting documentations. Explain expected benefits.]:

A. Impact to local entity relative to enforcement of code: The NEC 2008 changes should not have significant impact, same enforcement. B. Impact to building and property owners relative to cost of compliance with

code: The impact on cost of electrical construction would generally be offsetting. C. Impact to industry relative to cost of compliance with code:

It is important to realize that a certain method of electrical construction an installer may be using to wire under the NEC 2005 may increase or decrease the cost by several hundred dollars if used under the NEC 2008.

Rationale [Provide an explanation of why you would like this Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code.]:

The NFPA 70 2008 and NFPA 70A 2008 provides a better degree of safety to life and property.

Please explain how the proposed modification meets the following requirements: 1. Has a reasonable and substantial connection with the health, safety, and

welfare of the general public: The NEC 2008 will be instrumental in reducing fires, lost of lives and property. 2. Strengthens or improves the code, and provides equivalent or better

products, methods, or systems of construction: The NEC 2008 improves and provides better systems of construction. 3. Does not discriminate against materials, products, methods, or systems of

construction of demonstrated capabilities:


The NEC 2008 does not discriminate as stated in question. 4. Does not degrade the effectiveness of the code:

NO.

Section for DCA Only Committee Action: Committee Reason: Commission Action: Commission Reason:


Greater Child Electrical Safety

The 2008 NEC Tamper Resistant Code Requirement:

How did the Code change come about? Approximately 2,400 children receive emergency room treatment every year for injuries caused by inserting objects into electrical receptacles, according to U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) data. This equates to about seven children each day. Injuries range from electric shock to first-, second- and third-degree burns. And, although rare, some cases prove fatal. In response to these statistics, the National Electrical Code® (NEC) has been revised to require that all receptacles—or outlets— in new residential constructions be tamper resistant. Child safety presents a major concern for electrical manufacturers, and tamper-resistant receptacles have long been considered the most reliable means of protection. Although not widely used in homes, tamper-resistant receptacles have been required in pediatric care areas for years. What does the new Code state? The revision, taking effect with the 2008 NEC, says: “406.11 Tamper Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210. 52. all 125-volt. 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper resistant receptacles. Substantiation: 210.52 specifies the areas in dwelling units where receptacles shall be installed. This proposal references those areas.” How will this Code change affect the industry? Upon adoption, the Code will have a profound impact on new construction installations, since all 125-volt. 15- and 20-ampere electrical receptacles in single- and multi-family homes will need to be tamper-resistant. Where do most accidents happen? CPSC data indicate that about 71 percent of electrical incidents occur at home, with adult supervision typically present. What types of objects are commonly inserted into receptacles? Children insert a wide variety of metal objects into receptacles, including paper clips, pens, safety pins, screws and nails, tools, wire, forks, tweezers, hair pins, keys, knives, coins and more. The two most common objects inserted are keys and hairpins—items that children can access easily and that parents don’t often consider dangerous. Even “safe” items can pose electrical hazards. Who is at risk? It’s estimated that 89 percent of injuries occur in children less than six years old, and toddlers make up about half of the victims. Boys carry the greatest risk, regardless of age.


How severe are the injuries? CPSC data indicate that about 94 percent of injuries involve burns. These range in severity, but a significant number of serious and fatal incidents result—and even minor injuries can leave emotional trauma. Pediatric burns can be particularly serious, because the skin is thin and offers little resistance to electric flow or heat. With infants and toddlers, the frequent presence of saliva creates an ideal environment for electric flow, making burns and scars more severe. How do tamper-resistant receptacles work? Tamper-resistant receptacles have built-in shutter systems that prevent foreign objects from touching electrically live components when they’re inserted into the slots. The shutters protect against electrical burns without impairing normal plug insertion, removal or function. Are tamper-resistant receptacles 100 percent tamper-proof? Tamper-resistant receptacles have mechanical shutters that prevent insertion of such single-pronged objects as hairpins, keys, and nails. Data show this to be the most common cause of electrical injuries in young children. The devices don’t protect against two single-pronged items inserted simultaneously—the shutters would interpret that situation as a two-pronged plug, allowing insertion. Determined adults and adolescents could potentially bypass the mechanism with significant effort. However, UL test standards ensure integrity and performance under normal circumstances. Would tamper-resistant receptacles protect against partial plug insertion? Tamper-resistant receptacles function just like standard receptacles in this situation. Plugs that aren’t fully inserted expose portions of the blades that are in contact with the receptacle’s live terminals. Under some conditions, the gap between the plug face and receptacle face may be large enough for small fingers to contact these live blades. Proper ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) protection would prevent current flow to ground, but preventive measures should be taken to keep small children from playing with and inserting appliance plugs. Is it harder to insert or remove a plug from a tamper-resistant receptacle? Recent testing by several device manufacturers found no appreciable difference for insertion and removal forces between tamper-resistant and non-tamper-resistant receptacles. However, bent, damaged, or burred plug blades can make insertion more difficult. To ensure proper function, users should examine and straighten or replace substandard plug blades. Where’s the proof that tamper-resistant receptacles offer greater protection? Hospitals have required tamper-resistant receptacles in pediatric wards for more than 20 years. In addition, European electrical receptacles often incorporate tamper-resistant shutters for intrinsic safety. Tamper-resistant receptacles are:

• UL listed – subjected to intense, documented testing procedures • Permanent – once installed, they offer continuous protection, unlike plastic

outlet caps that can be removed or forgotten


• Reliable – this hard-wired solution eliminates the worry about inserting, losing or breaking the device

• Automatic – protection remains, even with plug or cord removal How much will it cost to install tamper-resistant receptacles? NEMA estimates that tamper-resistant receptacles will add less than $50 to the cost of a new home’s electrical system (2000 square foot home). Many parents spend more for a child’s car seat! Can I retrofit an older house with tamper-resistant receptacles? Absolutely. Installation of tamper-resistant receptacles is identical to installation of standard receptacles, and tamper-resistant receptacles are completely interchangeable with standard ones. Could tamper-resistant receptacles be used in correctional facilities? Tamper-resistant receptacles aren’t intended to provide full protection against situations encountered in psychiatric or correctional facilities. How can I identify tamper-resistant receptacles? Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standard 498 requires "Tamper Resistant" or "TR" to be marked "on the device where visible after installations with the cover plate removed," meaning that every tamper-resistant device must display an appropriate marking that’s visible with the wall plate removed. Could tamper-resistant receptacles be used instead of GFCIs? Tamper-resistant receptacles don’t replace GFCIs. A GFCI senses current leakage to ground and shuts off power, preventing electrocution. The NEC requires GFCIs, and they should be used in conjunction with tamper-resistant receptacles. How quickly might states and municipalities adopt the Code? Most states and municipalities could be expected to adopt the 2008 NEC within two years. Historical adoption rates indicate that about 50 percent of the states will adopt the Code in 2008, and that 80 percent will likely adopt by 2009. NEMA has developed its Real Safety campaign to raise awareness of the tamper-resistant Code change and related child safety issues. The campaign educates homeowners and electrical and building professionals, encouraging them to contact electrical associations and local and state legislators to advocate Code adoption. Where can I go to learn more? • For NEMA’s Real Safety campaign resources: www.childoutletsafety.org • For manufacturer research and safety statistics: www.nema.org • For U.S. incident statistics: www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html • For the CPSC data sheet of electrical safety: www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/524.html • For Canadian incident statistics: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/injury-bles/chirpp • For the Consumers Union Report on Outlet Caps:

http://www.consumersunion.org/products/childsafeny698.htm • For the State Farm report on home electrical safety:

http://www.statefarm.com/learning/child_safety/learning_childsafety_elec.asp

Official Form 9B-3.047-2004 Mod 2984 - Tarry Baker 2008 NEC Adoption

Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code Modification #: Section 553.73, Fla Stat Name: Tarry L. Baker Address: 4481 Northwest 3rd Court, Coconut Creek, Florida 33066 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 954-931-2394, 954-765-4500x1411095 Fax: 954-765-4504 Code: Building-Chapter 35

Section #: Section 3501 (This also should be added to PREFACE)

Text of Modification [additions underlined; deletions stricken]:

NFPA 70-05 08 National Electrical Code 2701.2

The Florida Building Code is complied in seven volumes with the National Electrical Code© adopted by reference. The seven volumes………….The National Electrical Code© is reference standard NFPA 70-2005, 2008 which must be obtained separately.

Fiscal Impact Statement [Provide documentation of the costs and benefits of the proposed modifications to the code for each of the following entities. Cost data should be accompanied by a listing of assumptions and supporting documentations. Explain expected benefits.]:

A. Impact to local entity relative to enforcement of code: The NEC 2008 changes should not have significant impact, same enforcement. B. Impact to building and property owners relative to cost of compliance with

code: The impact on cost of electrical construction would generally be offsetting. C. Impact to industry relative to cost of compliance with code:

It is important to realize that a certain method of electrical construction an installer may be using to wire under the NEC 2005 may increase or decrease the cost by several hundred dollars if used under the NEC 2008.




welfare of the general public: The NEC 2008 will be instrumental in reducing fires, lost of lives and property. 2. Strengthens or improves the code, and provides equivalent or better

products, methods, or systems of construction: The NEC 2008 improves and provides better systems of construction. 3. Does not discriminate against materials, products, methods, or systems of

construction of demonstrated capabilities: The NEC 2008 does not discriminate as stated in question.

4. Does not degrade the effectiveness of the code: NO.


Greater Child Electrical Safety The 2008 NEC Tamper Resistant Code Requirement:

How did the Code change come about? Approximately 2,400 children receive emergency room treatment every year for injuries caused by inserting objects into electrical receptacles, according to U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) data. This equates to about seven children each day. Injuries range from electric shock to first-, second- and third-degree burns. And, although rare, some cases prove fatal. In response to these statistics, the National Electrical Code® (NEC) has been revised to require that all receptacles—or outlets— in new residential constructions be tamper resistant. Child safety presents a major concern for electrical manufacturers, and tamper-resistant receptacles have long been considered the most reliable means of protection. Although not widely used in homes, tamper-resistant receptacles have been required in pediatric care areas for years. What does the new Code state? The revision, taking effect with the 2008 NEC, says: “406.11 Tamper Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210. 52. all 125-volt. 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper resistant receptacles. Substantiation: 210.52 specifies the areas in dwelling units where receptacles shall be installed. This proposal references those areas.” How will this Code change affect the industry? Upon adoption, the Code will have a profound impact on new construction installations, since all 125-volt. 15- and 20-ampere electrical receptacles in single- and multi-family homes will need to be tamper-resistant. Where do most accidents happen? CPSC data indicate that about 71 percent of electrical incidents occur at home, with adult supervision typically present. What types of objects are commonly inserted into receptacles? Children insert a wide variety of metal objects into receptacles, including paper clips, pens, safety pins, screws and nails, tools, wire, forks, tweezers, hair pins, keys, knives, coins and more. The two most common objects inserted are keys and hairpins—items that children can access easily and that parents don’t often consider dangerous. Even “safe” items can pose electrical hazards. Who is at risk? It’s estimated that 89 percent of injuries occur in children less than six years old, and toddlers make up about half of the victims. Boys carry the greatest risk, regardless of age. How severe are the injuries? CPSC data indicate that about 94 percent of injuries involve burns. These range in severity, but a significant number of serious and fatal incidents result—and even minor


injuries can leave emotional trauma. Pediatric burns can be particularly serious, because the skin is thin and offers little resistance to electric flow or heat. With infants and toddlers, the frequent presence of saliva creates an ideal environment for electric flow, making burns and scars more severe. How do tamper-resistant receptacles work? Tamper-resistant receptacles have built-in shutter systems that prevent foreign objects from touching electrically live components when they’re inserted into the slots. The shutters protect against electrical burns without impairing normal plug insertion, removal or function. Are tamper-resistant receptacles 100 percent tamper-proof? Tamper-resistant receptacles have mechanical shutters that prevent insertion of such single-pronged objects as hairpins, keys, and nails. Data show this to be the most common cause of electrical injuries in young children. The devices don’t protect against two single-pronged items inserted simultaneously—the shutters would interpret that situation as a two-pronged plug, allowing insertion. Determined adults and adolescents could potentially bypass the mechanism with significant effort. However, UL test standards ensure integrity and performance under normal circumstances. Would tamper-resistant receptacles protect against partial plug insertion? Tamper-resistant receptacles function just like standard receptacles in this situation. Plugs that aren’t fully inserted expose portions of the blades that are in contact with the receptacle’s live terminals. Under some conditions, the gap between the plug face and receptacle face may be large enough for small fingers to contact these live blades. Proper ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) protection would prevent current flow to ground, but preventive measures should be taken to keep small children from playing with and inserting appliance plugs. Is it harder to insert or remove a plug from a tamper-resistant receptacle? Recent testing by several device manufacturers found no appreciable difference for insertion and removal forces between tamper-resistant and non-tamper-resistant receptacles. However, bent, damaged, or burred plug blades can make insertion more difficult. To ensure proper function, users should examine and straighten or replace substandard plug blades. Where’s the proof that tamper-resistant receptacles offer greater protection? Hospitals have required tamper-resistant receptacles in pediatric wards for more than 20 years. In addition, European electrical receptacles often incorporate tamper-resistant shutters for intrinsic safety. Tamper-resistant receptacles are:


outlet caps that can be removed or forgotten • Reliable – this hard-wired solution eliminates the worry about inserting, losing

or breaking the device • Automatic – protection remains, even with plug or cord removal


How much will it cost to install tamper-resistant receptacles? NEMA estimates that tamper-resistant receptacles will add less than $50 to the cost of a new home’s electrical system (2000 square foot home). Many parents spend more for a child’s car seat! Can I retrofit an older house with tamper-resistant receptacles? Absolutely. Installation of tamper-resistant receptacles is identical to installation of standard receptacles, and tamper-resistant receptacles are completely interchangeable with standard ones. Could tamper-resistant receptacles be used in correctional facilities? Tamper-resistant receptacles aren’t intended to provide full protection against situations encountered in psychiatric or correctional facilities. How can I identify tamper-resistant receptacles? Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standard 498 requires "Tamper Resistant" or "TR" to be marked "on the device where visible after installations with the cover plate removed," meaning that every tamper-resistant device must display an appropriate marking that’s visible with the wall plate removed. Could tamper-resistant receptacles be used instead of GFCIs? Tamper-resistant receptacles don’t replace GFCIs. A GFCI senses current leakage to ground and shuts off power, preventing electrocution. The NEC requires GFCIs, and they should be used in conjunction with tamper-resistant receptacles. How quickly might states and municipalities adopt the Code? Most states and municipalities could be expected to adopt the 2008 NEC within two years. Historical adoption rates indicate that about 50 percent of the states will adopt the Code in 2008, and that 80 percent will likely adopt by 2009. NEMA has developed its Real Safety campaign to raise awareness of the tamper-resistant Code change and related child safety issues. The campaign educates homeowners and electrical and building professionals, encouraging them to contact electrical associations and local and state legislators to advocate Code adoption. Where can I go to learn more? • For NEMA’s Real Safety campaign resources: www.childoutletsafety.org • For manufacturer research and safety statistics: www.nema.org • For U.S. incident statistics: www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html • For the CPSC data sheet of electrical safety: www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/524.html • For Canadian incident statistics: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/injury-bles/chirpp • For the Consumers Union Report on Outlet Caps:




Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code Modification #: 2985 Section 553.73, Fla Stat Name: Jack O. Glenn Address: 241 Victory Garden Dr., Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E-mail: [email protected] (Florida Homebuilders Asso. Executive Director) Phone: 850-251-1049 Fax: 850-224-1359 Code: Florida Building Code-Residential Chapter 43, Reference Standards Section #: NFPA Text of Modification [additions underlined; deletions stricken]: NFPA 70-05 08 National Electrical Code (NEC) NFPA 70A-05 08 National Electrical Code (NEC) for One-and Two-Family Dwellings The Code is complied in one volume with the National Electrical Code© adopted by reference. The one volume………….The National Electrical Code© is reference standard NFPA 70-2005, 2008 and NFPA 70A-2005, 2008which must be obtained separately.

Comment: While this change may have merit I do not think it is a “Glitch” and should be subject the normal code change process. Fiscal Impact Statement [Provide documentation of the costs and benefits of the proposed modifications to the code for each of the following entities. Cost data should be accompanied by a listing of assumptions and supporting documentations. Explain expected benefits.]: A. Impact to local entity relative to enforcement of code: The NFPA 70 2008 and NFPA 70A 2008 Changes, should not have significant impact, same enforcement B. Impact to building and property owners relative to cost of compliance with

code: The impact on cost of electrical construction would generally be offsetting.

C. Impact to industry relative to cost of compliance with code: It is important to realize that a certain method of electrical construction an installer may be using to wire under the NFPA 70 2005 and NFPA 70A 2005 may increase or decrease the cost by several hundred dollars if used under the NFPA 70 2008 and NFPA 70A 2008.




welfare of the general public: The NFPA 70 2008 and NFPA 70A 2008 will be instrumental in reducing fires, lost of lives and property.

2. Strengthens or improves the code, and provides equivalent or better products, methods, or systems of construction: The NFPA 70 2008 and NFPA 70A 2008 improves and provides better systems of construction.

3. Does not discriminate against materials, products, methods, or systems of


construction of demonstrated capabilities: The NFPA 70 2008 and NFPA 70A 2008 does not discriminate as stated in question.





How did the Code change come about? Approximately 2,400 children receive emergency room treatment every year for injuries caused by inserting objects into electrical receptacles, according to U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) data. This equates to about seven children each day. Injuries range from electric shock to first-, second- and third-degree burns. And, although rare, some cases prove fatal. In response to these statistics, the National Electrical Code® (NEC) has been revised to require that all receptacles—or outlets— in new residential constructions be tamper resistant. Child safety presents a major concern for electrical manufacturers, and tamper-resistant receptacles have long been considered the most reliable means of protection. Although not widely used in homes, tamper-resistant receptacles have been required in pediatric care areas for years. What does the new Code state? The revision, taking effect with the 2008 NEC, says: “406.11 Tamper Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210. 52. all 125-volt. 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper resistant receptacles. Substantiation: 210.52 specifies the areas in dwelling units where receptacles shall be installed. This proposal references those areas.” How will this Code change affect the industry? Upon adoption, the Code will have a profound impact on new construction installations, since all 125-volt. 15- and 20-ampere electrical receptacles in single- and multi-family homes will need to be tamper-resistant. Where do most accidents happen? CPSC data indicate that about 71 percent of electrical incidents occur at home, with adult supervision typically present. What types of objects are commonly inserted into receptacles? Children insert a wide variety of metal objects into receptacles, including paper clips, pens, safety pins, screws and nails, tools, wire, forks, tweezers, hair pins, keys, knives, coins and more. The two most common objects inserted are keys and hairpins—items that children can access easily and that parents don’t often consider dangerous. Even “safe” items can pose electrical hazards. Who is at risk? It’s estimated that 89 percent of injuries occur in children less than six years old, and toddlers make up about half of the victims. Boys carry the greatest risk, regardless of age. How severe are the injuries?


CPSC data indicate that about 94 percent of injuries involve burns. These range in severity, but a significant number of serious and fatal incidents result—and even minor injuries can leave emotional trauma. Pediatric burns can be particularly serious, because the skin is thin and offers little resistance to electric flow or heat. With infants and toddlers, the frequent presence of saliva creates an ideal environment for electric flow, making burns and scars more severe. How do tamper-resistant receptacles work? Tamper-resistant receptacles have built-in shutter systems that prevent foreign objects from touching electrically live components when they’re inserted into the slots. The shutters protect against electrical burns without impairing normal plug insertion, removal or function. Are tamper-resistant receptacles 100 percent tamper-proof? Tamper-resistant receptacles have mechanical shutters that prevent insertion of such single-pronged objects as hairpins, keys, and nails. Data show this to be the most common cause of electrical injuries in young children. The devices don’t protect against two single-pronged items inserted simultaneously—the shutters would interpret that situation as a two-pronged plug, allowing insertion. Determined adults and adolescents could potentially bypass the mechanism with significant effort. However, UL test standards ensure integrity and performance under normal circumstances. Would tamper-resistant receptacles protect against partial plug insertion? Tamper-resistant receptacles function just like standard receptacles in this situation. Plugs that aren’t fully inserted expose portions of the blades that are in contact with the receptacle’s live terminals. Under some conditions, the gap between the plug face and receptacle face may be large enough for small fingers to contact these live blades. Proper ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) protection would prevent current flow to ground, but preventive measures should be taken to keep small children from playing with and inserting appliance plugs. Is it harder to insert or remove a plug from a tamper-resistant receptacle? Recent testing by several device manufacturers found no appreciable difference for insertion and removal forces between tamper-resistant and non-tamper-resistant receptacles. However, bent, damaged, or burred plug blades can make insertion more difficult. To ensure proper function, users should examine and straighten or replace substandard plug blades. Where’s the proof that tamper-resistant receptacles offer greater protection? Hospitals have required tamper-resistant receptacles in pediatric wards for more than 20 years. In addition, European electrical receptacles often incorporate tamper-resistant shutters for intrinsic safety. Tamper-resistant receptacles are:





How much will it cost to install tamper-resistant receptacles? NEMA estimates that tamper-resistant receptacles will add less than $50 to the cost of a new home’s electrical system (2000 square foot home). Many parents spend more for a child’s car seat! Can I retrofit an older house with tamper-resistant receptacles? Absolutely. Installation of tamper-resistant receptacles is identical to installation of standard receptacles, and tamper-resistant receptacles are completely interchangeable with standard ones. Could tamper-resistant receptacles be used in correctional facilities? Tamper-resistant receptacles aren’t intended to provide full protection against situations encountered in psychiatric or correctional facilities. How can I identify tamper-resistant receptacles? Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standard 498 requires "Tamper Resistant" or "TR" to be marked "on the device where visible after installations with the cover plate removed," meaning that every tamper-resistant device must display an appropriate marking that’s visible with the wall plate removed. Could tamper-resistant receptacles be used instead of GFCIs? Tamper-resistant receptacles don’t replace GFCIs. A GFCI senses current leakage to ground and shuts off power, preventing electrocution. The NEC requires GFCIs, and they should be used in conjunction with tamper-resistant receptacles. How quickly might states and municipalities adopt the Code? Most states and municipalities could be expected to adopt the 2008 NEC within two years. Historical adoption rates indicate that about 50 percent of the states will adopt the Code in 2008, and that 80 percent will likely adopt by 2009. NEMA has developed its Real Safety campaign to raise awareness of the tamper-resistant Code change and related child safety issues. The campaign educates homeowners and electrical and building professionals, encouraging them to contact electrical associations and local and state legislators to advocate Code adoption. Where can I go to learn more? • For NEMA’s Real Safety campaign resources: www.childoutletsafety.org • For manufacturer research and safety statistics: www.nema.org • For U.S. incident statistics: www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html • For the CPSC data sheet of electrical safety: www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/524.html • For Canadian incident statistics: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/injury-bles/chirpp • For the Consumers Union Report on Outlet Caps:



Official Form 9B-3.047-2004 Mod 2985 - Terry Baker 2008 NEC Adoption

Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code Modification #: Section 553.73, Fla Stat Name: Tarry L. Baker Address: 4481 Northwest 3rd Court, Coconut Creek, Florida 33066 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 954-931-2394, 954-765-4500x1411095 Fax: 954-765-4504 Code: Florida Building Code-Residential Chapter 43, Reference Standards Section #: NFPA Text of Modification [additions underlined; deletions stricken]: NFPA 70-05 08 National Electrical Code (NEC) NFPA 70A-05 08 National Electrical Code (NEC) for One-and Two-Family Dwellings The Code is complied in one volume with the National Electrical Code© adopted by reference. The one volume………….The National Electrical Code© is reference standard NFPA 70-2005, 2008 and NFPA 70A-2005, 2008which must be obtained separately.

Fiscal Impact Statement [Provide documentation of the costs and benefits of the proposed modifications to the code for each of the following entities. Cost data should be accompanied by a listing of assumptions and supporting documentations. Explain expected benefits.]: A. Impact to local entity relative to enforcement of code: The NFPA 70 2008 and NFPA 70A 2008 Changes, should not have significant impact, same enforcement B. Impact to building and property owners relative to cost of compliance with

code: The impact on cost of electrical construction would generally be offsetting.

C. Impact to industry relative to cost of compliance with code: It is important to realize that a certain method of electrical construction an installer may be using to wire under the NFPA 70 2005 and NFPA 70A 2005 may increase or decrease the cost by several hundred dollars if used under the NFPA 70 2008 and NFPA 70A 2008.




welfare of the general public: The NFPA 70 2008 and NFPA 70A 2008 will be instrumental in reducing fires, lost of lives and property.

2. Strengthens or improves the code, and provides equivalent or better products, methods, or systems of construction: The NFPA 70 2008 and NFPA 70A 2008 improves and provides better systems of construction.

3. Does not discriminate against materials, products, methods, or systems of construction of demonstrated capabilities: The NFPA 70 2008 and NFPA 70A 2008 does not discriminate as stated in question.




How did the Code change come about? Approximately 2,400 children receive emergency room treatment every year for injuries caused by inserting objects into electrical receptacles, according to U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) data. This equates to about seven children each day. Injuries range from electric shock to first-, second- and third-degree burns. And, although rare, some cases prove fatal. In response to these statistics, the National Electrical Code® (NEC) has been revised to require that all receptacles—or outlets— in new residential constructions be tamper resistant. Child safety presents a major concern for electrical manufacturers, and tamper-resistant receptacles have long been considered the most reliable means of protection. Although not widely used in homes, tamper-resistant receptacles have been required in pediatric care areas for years. What does the new Code state? The revision, taking effect with the 2008 NEC, says: “406.11 Tamper Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210. 52. all 125-volt. 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper resistant receptacles. Substantiation: 210.52 specifies the areas in dwelling units where receptacles shall be installed. This proposal references those areas.” How will this Code change affect the industry? Upon adoption, the Code will have a profound impact on new construction installations, since all 125-volt. 15- and 20-ampere electrical receptacles in single- and multi-family homes will need to be tamper-resistant. Where do most accidents happen? CPSC data indicate that about 71 percent of electrical incidents occur at home, with adult supervision typically present. What types of objects are commonly inserted into receptacles? Children insert a wide variety of metal objects into receptacles, including paper clips, pens, safety pins, screws and nails, tools, wire, forks, tweezers, hair pins, keys, knives, coins and more. The two most common objects inserted are keys and hairpins—items that children can access easily and that parents don’t often consider dangerous. Even “safe” items can pose electrical hazards. Who is at risk? It’s estimated that 89 percent of injuries occur in children less than six years old, and toddlers make up about half of the victims. Boys carry the greatest risk, regardless of age. How severe are the injuries? CPSC data indicate that about 94 percent of injuries involve burns. These range in severity, but a significant number of serious and fatal incidents result—and even minor injuries can leave emotional trauma. Pediatric burns can be particularly serious, because the skin is thin and offers little resistance to electric flow or heat. With infants


and toddlers, the frequent presence of saliva creates an ideal environment for electric flow, making burns and scars more severe. How do tamper-resistant receptacles work? Tamper-resistant receptacles have built-in shutter systems that prevent foreign objects from touching electrically live components when they’re inserted into the slots. The shutters protect against electrical burns without impairing normal plug insertion, removal or function. Are tamper-resistant receptacles 100 percent tamper-proof? Tamper-resistant receptacles have mechanical shutters that prevent insertion of such single-pronged objects as hairpins, keys, and nails. Data show this to be the most common cause of electrical injuries in young children. The devices don’t protect against two single-pronged items inserted simultaneously—the shutters would interpret that situation as a two-pronged plug, allowing insertion. Determined adults and adolescents could potentially bypass the mechanism with significant effort. However, UL test standards ensure integrity and performance under normal circumstances. Would tamper-resistant receptacles protect against partial plug insertion? Tamper-resistant receptacles function just like standard receptacles in this situation. Plugs that aren’t fully inserted expose portions of the blades that are in contact with the receptacle’s live terminals. Under some conditions, the gap between the plug face and receptacle face may be large enough for small fingers to contact these live blades. Proper ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) protection would prevent current flow to ground, but preventive measures should be taken to keep small children from playing with and inserting appliance plugs. Is it harder to insert or remove a plug from a tamper-resistant receptacle? Recent testing by several device manufacturers found no appreciable difference for insertion and removal forces between tamper-resistant and non-tamper-resistant receptacles. However, bent, damaged, or burred plug blades can make insertion more difficult. To ensure proper function, users should examine and straighten or replace substandard plug blades. Where’s the proof that tamper-resistant receptacles offer greater protection? Hospitals have required tamper-resistant receptacles in pediatric wards for more than 20 years. In addition, European electrical receptacles often incorporate tamper-resistant shutters for intrinsic safety. Tamper-resistant receptacles are:




How much will it cost to install tamper-resistant receptacles? NEMA estimates that tamper-resistant receptacles will add less than $50 to the cost of a new home’s electrical system (2000 square foot home). Many parents spend more for a


child’s car seat! Can I retrofit an older house with tamper-resistant receptacles? Absolutely. Installation of tamper-resistant receptacles is identical to installation of standard receptacles, and tamper-resistant receptacles are completely interchangeable with standard ones. Could tamper-resistant receptacles be used in correctional facilities? Tamper-resistant receptacles aren’t intended to provide full protection against situations encountered in psychiatric or correctional facilities. How can I identify tamper-resistant receptacles? Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standard 498 requires "Tamper Resistant" or "TR" to be marked "on the device where visible after installations with the cover plate removed," meaning that every tamper-resistant device must display an appropriate marking that’s visible with the wall plate removed. Could tamper-resistant receptacles be used instead of GFCIs? Tamper-resistant receptacles don’t replace GFCIs. A GFCI senses current leakage to ground and shuts off power, preventing electrocution. The NEC requires GFCIs, and they should be used in conjunction with tamper-resistant receptacles. How quickly might states and municipalities adopt the Code? Most states and municipalities could be expected to adopt the 2008 NEC within two years. Historical adoption rates indicate that about 50 percent of the states will adopt the Code in 2008, and that 80 percent will likely adopt by 2009. NEMA has developed its Real Safety campaign to raise awareness of the tamper-resistant Code change and related child safety issues. The campaign educates homeowners and electrical and building professionals, encouraging them to contact electrical associations and local and state legislators to advocate Code adoption. Where can I go to learn more? • For NEMA’s Real Safety campaign resources: www.childoutletsafety.org • For manufacturer research and safety statistics: www.nema.org • For U.S. incident statistics: www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html • For the CPSC data sheet of electrical safety: www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/524.html • For Canadian incident statistics: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/injury-bles/chirpp • For the Consumers Union Report on Outlet Caps:



Official Form 9B-3.047-2004 Mod 3014 - Florida DCA Staff - S Pool Bonding

Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code Modification #: Section 553.73, Fla Stat Name: Betty Stevens Address: 2055 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 850-922-6864 Fax: 850-414-8436 Code: Building Section #: 2705 Text of Modification [additions underlined; deletions stricken]: Section 2705 Equipotential Bonding is added to read as follows: Section 2705 Equipotential Bonding 2705.1 NFPA 70 - 05: National Electric Code, Article 680 (Swimming Pools, Fountains, and Similar Installation), Section 680.26, Equipotential Bonding is amended to read as follows: 680.26 Equipotential Bonding. (A) Performance. The equipotential bonding required by this section shall be installed to reduce eliminate voltage gradients in the pool area as prescribed. FPN: The 8 AWG or larger solid copper bonding conductor shall not be required to be extended or attached to any remote panelboard, service equipment, or any electrode. (B) Bonded Parts. The parts specified in 680.26(B)(1) through (B)(57) shall be bonded together using solid copper conductors, insulated covered, or bare, not smaller than 8 AWG or with rigid metal conduit of brass or other identified corrosion-resistant metal. Connections to bonded parts shall be made in accordance with 250.8. An 8 AWG or larger solid copper bonding conductor provided to reduce voltage gradients in the pool area shall not be required to be extended or attached to remote panelboards, service equipment, or electrodes. (1) Conductive Pool Shells. Bonding to conductive pool shells shall be provided as specified in 680.26(B)(1)(a) or (B)(1)(b). Poured concrete, pneumatically applied or sprayed concrete, and concrete block with painted or plastered coatings shall all be considered conductive materials due to water permeability and porosity. Vinyl liners and fiberglass composite shells shall be considered to be non-conductive materials. (a). Structural Reinforcing Steel. Unencapsulated structural reinforcing steel shall be bonded together by steel tie wires or the equivalent. Where structural reinforcing steel is encapsulated in a nonconductive compound,


a copper conductor grid shall be installed in accordance with 680.26(B)(1)(b). (b). Copper Conductor Grid. A copper conductor grid shall be provided and shall comply with (b)(1) through (b)(4): (1) Be constructed of minimum 8 AWG bare solid copper conductors bonded to each other at all points of crossing. (2) Conform to the contour of the pool and the pool deck. (3) Be arranged in a 300 mm (12 in.) by 300 mm (12 in.) network of conductors in a uniformly spaced perpendicular grid pattern with a tolerance of 100 mm (4 in.). (4) Be secured within or under the pool no more than 150 mm (6 in.) from the outer contour of the pool shell. (2) Perimeter Surfaces. The perimeter surface shall extends for 1 m (3 ft) horizontally beyond the inside walls of the pool and shall includes unpaved surfaces as well as poured concrete and other types of paving. Bonding to perimeter surfaces shall be provided as specified in 680.26(B)(2)(a) or (2)(b), and shall be attached to the pool reinforcing steel or copper conductor grid at a minimum of four (4) points uniformly spaced around the perimeter of the pool. For non-conductive pool shells, bonding at four points shall not be required. (C) Equipotential Bonding Grid. The parts specified in 680.26(B) shall be connected to an equipotential bonding grid with a solid copper conductor, insulated, covered, or bare, not smaller than 8 AWG or rigid metal conduit of brass or other identified corrosion-resistant metal conduit. Connection shall be made by exothermic welding or by listed pressure connector or clamps that are labeled as being suitable for the purpose and are of stainless steel, brass, copper, or copper alloy. The equipotential common bonding grid shall extend under paved walking surfaces for 1 m (3 ft) horizontally beyond the inside walls of the pool and shall be permitted to be any of the following: (1)(a) Structural Reinforcing Steel. Structural reinforcing steel of a concrete pool where the reinforcing rods are bonded together by the usual steel tie wires or the equivalent shall be bonded In accordance with 680.26 (B)(1)(a). (2) Bolted or Welded Metal Pools. The wall of a bolted or welded metal pool. (3) (b) Alternate Means. Where structural reinforcing steel is not available or is encapsulated in a nonconductive compound, a copper conductor(s) shall be utilized where the following requirements are met: (1) At least one minimum 8 AWG bare solid copper conductor shall be


provided. (2) The conductor(s) shall follow the contour of the perimeter surface. (3) Only listed splices shall be permitted. (4) The required conductor shall be 450 to 600 mm (18 to 24 in.) from the inside walls of the pool. (5) The required conductor shall be secured within or under the perimeter surface 100 to 150 mm (4 to 6 in.) below the subgrade. This system shall be permitted to be constructed as specified in (a) through (c): a. Materials and Connections. The grid shall be constructed of minimum 8 AWG bare solid copper conductors. Conductors shall be bonded to each other at all points of crossing. Connection shall be made as required by 680.26(D). b. Grid Structure. The equipotential bonding grid shall cover the contour of the pool and the pool deck extending 1 m (3 ft) horizontally from the inside walls of the pool. The equipotential bonding grid shall be arranged in a 300 mm (12 in) by 300 mm (12 in) network of conductors in a uniformly spaced perpendicular grid pattern with tolerance of 100 mm (4 in). c. Securing. The below-grade grid shall be secured within or under the pool and deck media. (D) Connections. Where structural reinforcing steel or the walls of bolted or welded metal pool structures are used as an equipotential bonding grid for nonelectrical parts, the connections shall be made in accordance with 250.8. (13) Metallic Structural Components. All metallic parts of the pool structure, including reinforcing metal of the pool shell, coping stones, and deck, shall be bonded. The usual steel tie wires shall be considered suitable for bonding the reinforcing steel together, and welding or special clamping shall not be required. These tie wires shall be made tight. If reinforcing steel is affectively insulated by an encapsulating nonconductive compound at the time of manufacture and installation, it shall not be required to be bonded. Where reinforcing steel of the pool shell or the reinforcing steel of coping stones and deck is encapsulated with a nonconductive compound or another conductive material is not available, provisions shall be made for an alternative means to eliminate voltage gradients that would otherwise be provided by an encapsulated, bonding reinforcing steel. not addressed in 680.26(B)(1)(a), shall be bonded. Where reinforcing steel is encapsulated with a nonconductive compound, the reinforcing steel shall not be required to be bonded. (24) Underwater Lighting. All metal forming shells and mounting brackets of no-niche luminaires (fixtures) shall be bonded unless a. Exception: Listed low-voltage lighting systems with nonmetallic forming shells shall not requireing bonding is used. (35) Metal Fittings. All metal fittings within or attached to the pool structure shall be bonded. Isolated parts that are not over 100 mm (4 in.) in any dimension and do not penetrate into the pool structure more than 25 mm (1


in.) shall not require bonding. (46) Electrical Equipment. Metal parts of electrical equipment associated with the pool water circulating system, including pump motors and metal parts of equipment associated with pool covers, including electric motors, shall be bonded. Accessible metal parts of listed equipment incorporating an approved system of double insulation and providing a means for grounding internal nonaccessible, non-current-carrying metal parts shall not be bonded by a direct connection to the equipotential bonding grid. The means for grounding internal nonaccessible, non-current-carrying metal parts shall be an equipment grounding conductor run with the power-supply conductors in the case of motors supplied with a flexible cord, or a grounding terminal in the case of motors intended for permanent connection. Where a double-insulated water-pump motor is installed under the provisions of this rule, a solid 8 AWG copper conductor that is of sufficient length to make a bonding connection to a replacement motor shall be extended from the bonding grid to an accessible point in the motor vicinity. Where there is no connection between the swimming pool bonding grid and the equipment grounding conductor of the motor circuit. Exception: Metal parts of listed equipment incorporating an approved system of double insulation shall not be bonded. (a) Double-Insulated Water Pump Motors. Where a double-insulated water-pump motor is installed under the provisions of this rule, a solid 8 AWG copper conductor that is of sufficient length to make a bonding connection to a replacement motor shall be extended from the bonding grid to an accessible point in the motor vicinity of the pool pump motor. Where there is no connection between the swimming pool bonding grid and the equipment grounding system for the premises, this bonding conductor shall be connected to the equipment grounding conductor of the motor circuit. (bE) Pool Water Heaters. For pool water heaters rated at more than 50 amperes and having specific instructions regarding bonding and grounding, only those parts designated to be bonded shall be bonded and only those parts designated to be grounded shall be grounded. (57) Metal Wiring Methods and Equipment. Metal-sheathed cables and raceways, metal piping, and all fixed metal parts that are within the following distances of the pool, except those separated from the pool by a permanent barrier, shall be bonded. (1) Within 1.5 m (5 ft) horizontally of the inside walls of the pool (2) Within 3.7 m (12 ft) measured vertically above the maximum water level of the pool, or any observation stands, towers, or platforms, or any diving structures. Exception No. 1: Those separated from the pool by a permanent barrier shall not be required to be bonded. Exception No. 2: (1) Within Those greater than 1.5 m (5 ft) horizontally of


the inside walls of the pool shall not be required to be bonded. Exception No. 3: (2) Within Those greater than 3.7 m (12 ft) measured vertically above the maximum water level of the pool, or as measured vertically above any observation stands, towers, or platforms, or any diving structures shall not be required to be bonded. (C) Pool Water. An intentional bond of a minimum conductive surface area of 5806 mm 2 (9 in 2 ) shall be installed in contact with the pool water. This bond shall be permitted to consist of parts that are required to be bonded in 680.26(B). Fiscal Impact Statement [Provide documentation of the costs and benefits of the proposed modifications to the code for each of the following entities. Cost data should be accompanied by a list of assumptions and supporting documentation. Explain expected benefits.]: A. Impact to local entity relative to enforcement of code: Revised per SB2836 2007 B. Impact to building and property owners relative to cost of compliance

with code: Revised per SB2836 2007 C. Impact to industry relative to cost of compliance with code: Revised per SB2836 2007 Rationale [Provide an explanation of why you would like this Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code.]: Revised per SB2836 2007 Please explain how the proposed modification meets the following requirements: 1. Has a reasonable and substantial connection with the health, safety,

and welfare of the general public: Improves the code. 2. Strengthens or improves the code, and provides equivalent or better

products, methods, or systems of construction: Improves the code. 3. Does not discriminate against materials, products, methods, or

systems of construction of demonstrated capabilities:


The proposed code change does not discriminate against materials, products, methods, or systems of construction of demonstrated capabilities. 4. Does not degrade the effectiveness of the code: Improves the code.


Official Form 9B-3.047-2004 Mod 3015 - Florida DCA Staff - Equipotential Pool Bonding

Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code Modification #: Section 553.73, Fla Stat Name: Betty Stevens Address: 2055 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 850-922-6864 Fax: 850-414-8436 Code: Residential Section #: E3304 Text of Modification [additions underlined; deletions stricken]: Section E3304 Equipotential Bonding is added to read as follows: Section E3304 Equipotential Bonding E3304.1 NFPA 70A - 05: National Electric Code, Article 680 (Swimming Pools, Fountains, and Similar Installation), Section 680.26, Equipotential Bonding is amended to read as follows: 680.26 Equipotential Bonding. (A) Performance. The equipotential bonding required by this section shall be installed to reduce eliminate voltage gradients in the pool area as prescribed. FPN: The 8 AWG or larger solid copper bonding conductor shall not be required to be extended or attached to any remote panelboard, service equipment, or any electrode. (B) Bonded Parts. The parts specified in 680.26(B)(1) through (B)(57) shall be bonded together using solid copper conductors, insulated covered, or bare, not smaller than 8 AWG or with rigid metal conduit of brass or other identified corrosion-resistant metal. Connections to bonded parts shall be made in accordance with 250.8. An 8 AWG or larger solid copper bonding conductor provided to reduce voltage gradients in the pool area shall not be required to be extended or attached to remote panelboards, service equipment, or electrodes. (1) Conductive Pool Shells. Bonding to conductive pool shells shall be provided as specified in 680.26(B)(1)(a) or (B)(1)(b). Poured concrete, pneumatically applied or sprayed concrete, and concrete block with painted or plastered coatings shall all be considered conductive materials due to water permeability and porosity. Vinyl liners and fiberglass composite shells shall be considered to be non-conductive materials. (a). Structural Reinforcing Steel. Unencapsulated structural reinforcing steel shall be bonded together by steel tie wires or the equivalent. Where structural reinforcing steel is encapsulated in a nonconductive compound,


a copper conductor grid shall be installed in accordance with 680.26(B)(1)(b). (b). Copper Conductor Grid. A copper conductor grid shall be provided and shall comply with (b)(1) through (b)(4): (1) Be constructed of minimum 8 AWG bare solid copper conductors bonded to each other at all points of crossing. (2) Conform to the contour of the pool and the pool deck. (3) Be arranged in a 300 mm (12 in.) by 300 mm (12 in.) network of conductors in a uniformly spaced perpendicular grid pattern with a tolerance of 100 mm (4 in.). (4) Be secured within or under the pool no more than 150 mm (6 in.) from the outer contour of the pool shell. (2) Perimeter Surfaces. The perimeter surface shall extends for 1 m (3 ft) horizontally beyond the inside walls of the pool and shall includes unpaved surfaces as well as poured concrete and other types of paving. Bonding to perimeter surfaces shall be provided as specified in 680.26(B)(2)(a) or (2)(b), and shall be attached to the pool reinforcing steel or copper conductor grid at a minimum of four (4) points uniformly spaced around the perimeter of the pool. For non-conductive pool shells, bonding at four points shall not be required. (C) Equipotential Bonding Grid. The parts specified in 680.26(B) shall be connected to an equipotential bonding grid with a solid copper conductor, insulated, covered, or bare, not smaller than 8 AWG or rigid metal conduit of brass or other identified corrosion-resistant metal conduit. Connection shall be made by exothermic welding or by listed pressure connector or clamps that are labeled as being suitable for the purpose and are of stainless steel, brass, copper, or copper alloy. The equipotential common bonding grid shall extend under paved walking surfaces for 1 m (3 ft) horizontally beyond the inside walls of the pool and shall be permitted to be any of the following: (1)(a) Structural Reinforcing Steel. Structural reinforcing steel of a concrete pool where the reinforcing rods are bonded together by the usual steel tie wires or the equivalent shall be bonded In accordance with 680.26 (B)(1)(a). (2) Bolted or Welded Metal Pools. The wall of a bolted or welded metal pool. (3) (b) Alternate Means. Where structural reinforcing steel is not available or is encapsulated in a nonconductive compound, a copper conductor(s) shall be utilized where the following requirements are met: (1) At least one minimum 8 AWG bare solid copper conductor shall be


provided. (2) The conductor(s) shall follow the contour of the perimeter surface. (3) Only listed splices shall be permitted. (4) The required conductor shall be 450 to 600 mm (18 to 24 in.) from the inside walls of the pool. (5) The required conductor shall be secured within or under the perimeter surface 100 to 150 mm (4 to 6 in.) below the subgrade. This system shall be permitted to be constructed as specified in (a) through (c): a. Materials and Connections. The grid shall be constructed of minimum 8 AWG bare solid copper conductors. Conductors shall be bonded to each other at all points of crossing. Connection shall be made as required by 680.26(D). b. Grid Structure. The equipotential bonding grid shall cover the contour of the pool and the pool deck extending 1 m (3 ft) horizontally from the inside walls of the pool. The equipotential bonding grid shall be arranged in a 300 mm (12 in) by 300 mm (12 in) network of conductors in a uniformly spaced perpendicular grid pattern with tolerance of 100 mm (4 in). c. Securing. The below-grade grid shall be secured within or under the pool and deck media. (D) Connections. Where structural reinforcing steel or the walls of bolted or welded metal pool structures are used as an equipotential bonding grid for nonelectrical parts, the connections shall be made in accordance with 250.8. (13) Metallic Structural Components. All metallic parts of the pool structure, including reinforcing metal of the pool shell, coping stones, and deck, shall be bonded. The usual steel tie wires shall be considered suitable for bonding the reinforcing steel together, and welding or special clamping shall not be required. These tie wires shall be made tight. If reinforcing steel is affectively insulated by an encapsulating nonconductive compound at the time of manufacture and installation, it shall not be required to be bonded. Where reinforcing steel of the pool shell or the reinforcing steel of coping stones and deck is encapsulated with a nonconductive compound or another conductive material is not available, provisions shall be made for an alternative means to eliminate voltage gradients that would otherwise be provided by an encapsulated, bonding reinforcing steel. not addressed in 680.26(B)(1)(a), shall be bonded. Where reinforcing steel is encapsulated with a nonconductive compound, the reinforcing steel shall not be required to be bonded. (24) Underwater Lighting. All metal forming shells and mounting brackets of no-niche luminaires (fixtures) shall be bonded unless a. Exception: Listed low-voltage lighting systems with nonmetallic forming shells shall not requireing bonding. (35) Metal Fittings. All metal fittings within or attached to the pool structure shall be bonded. Isolated parts that are not over 100 mm (4 in.) in any dimension and do not penetrate into the pool structure more than 25 mm (1


in.) shall not require bonding. (46) Electrical Equipment. Metal parts of electrical equipment associated with the pool water circulating system, including pump motors and metal parts of equipment associated with pool covers, including electric motors, shall be bonded. Accessible metal parts of listed equipment incorporating an approved system of double insulation and providing a means for grounding internal nonaccessible, non-current-carrying metal parts shall not be bonded by a direct connection to the equipotential bonding grid. The means for grounding internal nonaccessible, non-current-carrying metal parts shall be an equipment grounding conductor run with the power-supply conductors in the case of motors supplied with a flexible cord, or a grounding terminal in the case of motors intended for permanent connection. Where a double-insulated water-pump motor is installed under the provisions of this rule, a solid 8 AWG copper conductor that is of sufficient length to make a bonding connection to a replacement motor shall be extended from the bonding grid to an accessible point in the motor vicinity. Where there is no connection between the swimming pool bonding grid and the equipment grounding conductor of the motor circuit. Exception: Metal parts of listed equipment incorporating an approved system of double insulation shall not be bonded. (a) Double-Insulated Water Pump Motors. Where a double-insulated water-pump motor is installed under the provisions of this rule, a solid 8 AWG copper conductor that is of sufficient length to make a bonding connection to a replacement motor shall be extended from the bonding grid to an accessible point in the motor vicinity of the pool pump motor. Where there is no connection between the swimming pool bonding grid and the equipment grounding system for the premises, this bonding conductor shall be connected to the equipment grounding conductor of the motor circuit. (bE) Pool Water Heaters. For pool water heaters rated at more than 50 amperes and having specific instructions regarding bonding and grounding, only those parts designated to be bonded shall be bonded and only those parts designated to be grounded shall be grounded. (57) Metal Wiring Methods and Equipment. Metal-sheathed cables and raceways, metal piping, and all fixed metal parts that are within the following distances of the pool, except those separated from the pool by a permanent barrier, shall be bonded. (1) Within 1.5 m (5 ft) horizontally of the inside walls of the pool (2) Within 3.7 m (12 ft) measured vertically above the maximum water level of the pool, or any observation stands, towers, or platforms, or any diving structures. Exception No. 1: Those separated from the pool by a permanent barrier shall not be required to be bonded. Exception No. 2: (1) Within Those greater than 1.5 m (5 ft) horizontally of


the inside walls of the pool shall not be required to be bonded. Exception No. 3: (2) Within Those greater than 3.7 m (12 ft) measured vertically above the maximum water level of the pool, or as measured vertically above any observation stands, towers, or platforms, or any diving structures shall not be required to be bonded. (C) Pool Water. An intentional bond of a minimum conductive surface area of 5806 mm 2 (9 in 2 ) shall be installed in contact with the pool water. This bond shall be permitted to consist of parts that are required to be bonded in 680.26(B). Fiscal Impact Statement [Provide documentation of the costs and benefits of the proposed modifications to the code for each of the following entities. Cost data should be accompanied by a list of assumptions and supporting documentation. Explain expected benefits.]: A. Impact to local entity relative to enforcement of code: Revised per SB2836 2007. B. Impact to building and property owners relative to cost of compliance

with code: Revised per SB2836 2007. C. Impact to industry relative to cost of compliance with code: Revised per SB2836 2007. Rationale [Provide an explanation of why you would like this Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code.]: Revised per SB2836 2007. Please explain how the proposed modification meets the following requirements: 1. Has a reasonable and substantial connection with the health, safety,

and welfare of the general public: Improves the code. 2. Strengthens or improves the code, and provides equivalent or better

products, methods, or systems of construction: Improves the code. 3. Does not discriminate against materials, products, methods, or

systems of construction of demonstrated capabilities:


The proposed code change does not discriminate against materials, products, methods, or systems of construction of demonstrated capabilities. 4. Does not degrade the effectiveness of the code: Improves the code.


Official Form 9B-3.047-2004 Mod 3224 - Remove involving receptacle types

Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code Modification #: Section 553.73, Fla Stat Name: Joseph D. Belcher Address: 41 Oak Village Boulevard Homosassa, FL 34446 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 353-382-3873 Fax: 352-382-4716 Code: Florida Building Code, Existing Building Section #: Text of Modification [additions underlined; deletions stricken]: 507.1 Material. Existing electrical wiring and equipment undergoing repair shall be allowed to be repaired or replaced with like material in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Florida Building Code, Building. Exceptions:

1. Existing electrical wiring and equipment undergoing repair shall be permitted to be repaired or replaced with like material. 2. For replacement of nongrounding-type receptacles with grounding-type receptacles and for branch circuits that do not have an equipment grounding conductor in the branch circuitry, the grounding conductor of a grounding-type receptacle outlet shall be permitted to be grounded to any electrode conductor, in accordance with Article 250.130 (C) of Chapter 27 of the Florida Building Code, Building. 3. Frames of electric ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted cooking units, clothes dryers, and outlet or junction boxes that are part of t to the grounded circuit conductor in accordance with Article 250.140 of Chapter 27 of the Florida Building Code, Building. Fiscal Impact Statement [Provide documentation of the costs and benefits of the proposed modifications to the code for each of the following entities. Cost data should be accompanied by a list of assumptions and supporting documentation. Explain expected benefits.]: A. Impact to local entity relative to enforcement of code: None, deletes

redundant requirements. B. Impact to building and property owners relative to cost of compliance with

code: None, deletes redundant requirements. C. Impact to industry relative to cost of compliance with code: None, deletes

redundant requirements.


Rationale [Provide an explanation of why you would like this Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code.]: The Exceptions are Florida Specific Amendments which are now covered by the base code. The duplication of the requirements will lead to confusion. Exception 1 is necessary as Chapter 27 essentially adopts NFPA 70. The intent of the code is to allow the repair of electrical wiring and equipment to be done with like material. Without the exception, users may take the charging section to mean all repairs have to comply strictly with NFPA 70. Exception 2 is addressed at Section 507.1.3 and the reference to NFPA 70 is correct as opposed to referring to an article not present in FBCB Chapter 27. Exception 3 is addressed at Section 507.1.5 and the reference to NFPA 70 as opposed to referring to an article not present in FBCB Chapter 27. Please explain how the proposed modification meets the following requirements: 1. Has a reasonable and substantial connection with the health, safety, and

welfare of the general public: The modification has a reasonable and substantial connection with the health, safety, and welfare of the general public by clarifying the requirements for repairs to electrical wiring and equipment which will result in safe repairs at an affordable cost.

2. Strengthens or improves the code, and provides equivalent or better

products, methods, or systems of construction: The modification has a strengthens the code by clarifying the requirements for repairs to electrical wiring and equipment which will result in safe repairs at an affordable cost

3. Does not discriminate against materials, products, methods, or systems of

construction of demonstrated capabilities: 4. Does not degrade the effectiveness of the code: The modification upgrades

the code by clarifying the requirements for repairs to electrical wiring and equipment which will result in safe repairs at an affordable cost

proposed modification to the florida building code€¦ · official form 9b-3.047-2004 comment on...

Documents