IPC 240.36

[msi99]

240.36 states " Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps shall be listed. Power distribution blocks installed on service conductors shall be marked “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent. Effective January 1, 2023, pressure connectors and devices for splices and taps installed on service conductors shall be marked “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent.

Based on this there are AHJs that are rejecting the use of IPCs. Per manufacturers, there are no connectors out there that are complying with 240.26 yet. This makes me believe that until the manufacturers adopt this code, there would be a stop to supply-side connections for residential?

 

[wwhitney]

Based on this there are AHJs that are rejecting the use of IPCs.

A reasonable AHJ would continue to allow the use of currently available products as per the last paragraph of 90.4.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ggunn]

240.36 states " Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps shall be listed. Power distribution blocks installed on service conductors shall be marked “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent. Effective January 1, 2023, pressure connectors and devices for splices and taps installed on service conductors shall be marked “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent.

In the 2020 NEC that language is in 230.46. Typo? There is no 240.36.

 

[msi99]

Apologies, yes it's 230.46

 

[ggunn]

230.46 states " Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps shall be listed. Power distribution blocks installed on service conductors shall be marked “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent. Effective January 1, 2023, pressure connectors and devices for splices and taps installed on service conductors shall be marked “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent.

What does it take for a component to be so marked? Is it simply testing and listing or would IPCs and Polaris blocks need to be redesigned?

 

[wwhitney]

What does it take for a component to be so marked? Is it simply testing and listing or would IPCs and Polaris blocks need to be redesigned?

At this point, UL hasn't even developed a standard for the marking, to my knowledge.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[msi99]

Yes, That's right UL does not have a standard for the marking, and all manufacturers were not given enough time to come up with a design.
I would think just the listing and testing would suffice but the AHJ ( north Texas ) after Jan 1st, 2023 is looking for a physical mark which is not even in the market.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yes, That's right UL does not have a standard for the marking, and all manufacturers were not given enough time to come up with a design.
I would think just the listing and testing would suffice but the AHJ ( north Texas ) after Jan 1st, 2023 is looking for a physical mark which is not even in the market.

They can't come up with a design for the connectors until there is an actual listing standard to design to...it is not just a marking on the product. It is the design and testing of the product to make sure the connection does not separate under short circuit conditions. This will be different testing than what is required for load side connections as on the line side of the service equipment there is no expectation that the fault will be cleared in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[ggunn]

Yes, That's right UL does not have a standard for the marking, and all manufacturers were not given enough time to come up with a design.
I would think just the listing and testing would suffice but the AHJ ( north Texas ) after Jan 1st, 2023 is looking for a physical mark which is not even in the market.

Hey, at least it isn't CPS (San Antonio).

 

[msi99]

To the best of my knowledge, CPS has never allowed IPCs. They allow only tap box POI as supply side.

 

[ggunn]

To the best of my knowledge, CPS has never allowed IPCs. They allow only tap box POI as supply side.

Yes, I know. I have designed many PV systems for installation in San Antonio. CPS has some quirky rules.

 

[electrofelon]

At this point, UL hasn't even developed a standard for the marking, to my knowledge.

Cheers, Wayne

Preaching to the choir here no doubt, but how on earth is there a product requirement in the NEC where there is not even a standard to list it to??? Something seems broken.

 

[electrofelon]

. This makes me believe that until the manufacturers adopt this code, there would be a stop to supply-side connections for residential?

I think that is a leap. Consider that 230.40 exception #2 installs are very common and the same thing as a "supply side connection". While that rule may complicate the specifics of how a set of service entrance conductors are split into more sets, there are no doubt many compliant ways such as CT cabinet mounting bases, class 320 meter sockets, bussed gutters, etc.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Preaching to the choir here no doubt, but how on earth is there a product requirement in the NEC where there is not even a standard to list it to??? Something seems broken.

Sometimes the listing standards drive changes in the code and sometimes the code drives changes in the listing standards.

The listing standards are developed using the same consensus standard development process as is used for code changes. Sometimes there is not enough support among the members of a Standards Technical Panel to create new requirements. When a Code Making Panel sees a need for new requirements the sometimes put in a code rule that will require the product standard to be changed.

The extra duty outside cover was another example of the code requiring a product that there was no standard for.

The whole issue of occupancy sensors using the EGC as a current carrying conductor was also an issue between the CMP and an STP...the STP refused to change the product standard to prohibit the electronic switches from using the EGC as a current carrying conductor until the CMP added the rule in 404.2(B) requiring a neutral at switch locations.

There is a lot of interaction between the NEC and the standard writing organizations. Almost all of the product standards that interact with the NEC are UL Standards.

With the move to add 5" and 6" EMT to the code, the code making panel was told that the product standard would not be changed to permit those sizes until after the code added language to permit those sizes. One of the CMP members abstained from voting on the change to add the larger sizes with this comment:
"I would be in favor of this change if a product standard existed. This can be assessed during the Public Comment stage."
There were no public comments on the change as the STP started working on revising the product standard based on the First Revision change in the code.

 

[electrofelon]

Sometimes the listing standards drive changes in the code and sometimes the code drives changes in the listing standards.

The listing standards are developed using the same consensus standard development process as is used for code changes. Sometimes there is not enough support among the members of a Standards Technical Panel to create new requirements. When a Code Making Panel sees a need for new requirements the sometimes put in a code rule that will require the product standard to be changed.

The extra duty outside cover was another example of the code requiring a product that there was no standard for.

The whole issue of occupancy sensors using the EGC as a current carrying conductor was also an issue between the CMP and an STP...the STP refused to change the product standard to prohibit the electronic switches from using the EGC as a current carrying conductor until the CMP added the rule in 404.2(B) requiring a neutral at switch locations.

There is a lot of interaction between the NEC and the standard writing organizations. Almost all of the product standards that interact with the NEC are UL Standards.

With the move to add 5" and 6" EMT to the code, the code making panel was told that the product standard would not be changed to permit those sizes until after the code added language to permit those sizes. One of the CMP members abstained from voting on the change to add the larger sizes with this comment:
"I would be in favor of this change if a product standard existed. This can be assessed during the Public Comment stage."
There were no public comments on the change as the STP started working on revising the product standard based on the First Revision change in the code.

Thanks for the info Don. Ill put aside going on a rant about the NEC requiring yet more stuff with no substantiation of a problem, and a ridiculous overly broad reasoning of "things being on service conductors needing some special treatment because there is the possibility of high AFC, but also the possibility that the AFC is not that high and in fact many non service conductors could easily have higher AFC than other service conductors, but just for the heck of it we should require something because we need more bloat, just like the box fill change allowance of 1/4 conductor for each one over 4." So avoiding that rant and just sticking to the issue of the NEC forcing product standards, isnt there a way these two organizations could communicate, coordinate, and plan like adults and not leave use electricians stuck with a legal requirement with no product available?

 

[ggunn]

Thanks for the info Don. Ill put aside going on a rant about the NEC requiring yet more stuff with no substantiation of a problem, and a ridiculous overly broad reasoning of "things being on service conductors needing some special treatment because there is the possibility of high AFC, but also the possibility that the AFC is not that high and in fact many non service conductors could easily have higher AFC than other service conductors, but just for the heck of it we should require something because we need more bloat, just like the box fill change allowance of 1/4 conductor for each one over 4." So avoiding that rant and just sticking to the issue of the NEC forcing product standards, isnt there a way these two organizations could communicate, coordinate, and plan like adults and not leave use electricians stuck with a legal requirement with no product available?

I'm sure glad you didn't go on that rant.

 

[electrofelon]

I'm sure glad you didn't go on that rant.

You are very welcome! I always keep my rants to myself!

 

[retirede]

Sometimes the listing standards drive changes in the code and sometimes the code drives changes in the listing standards.

The listing standards are developed using the same consensus standard development process as is used for code changes. Sometimes there is not enough support among the members of a Standards Technical Panel to create new requirements. When a Code Making Panel sees a need for new requirements the sometimes put in a code rule that will require the product standard to be changed.

The extra duty outside cover was another example of the code requiring a product that there was no standard for.

The whole issue of occupancy sensors using the EGC as a current carrying conductor was also an issue between the CMP and an STP...the STP refused to change the product standard to prohibit the electronic switches from using the EGC as a current carrying conductor until the CMP added the rule in 404.2(B) requiring a neutral at switch locations.

There is a lot of interaction between the NEC and the standard writing organizations. Almost all of the product standards that interact with the NEC are UL Standards.

With the move to add 5" and 6" EMT to the code, the code making panel was told that the product standard would not be changed to permit those sizes until after the code added language to permit those sizes. One of the CMP members abstained from voting on the change to add the larger sizes with this comment:
"I would be in favor of this change if a product standard existed. This can be assessed during the Public Comment stage."
There were no public comments on the change as the STP started working on revising the product standard based on the First Revision change in the code.

IMO, those two examples are of a different nature than what this thread is about. Requiring a neutral on switch legs and allowing new trade sizes of EMT did not suddenly cause a common, existing practice to be incapable of being carried out without violating the new rule.

 

[electrofelon]

IMO, those two examples are of a different nature than what this thread is about. Requiring a neutral on switch legs and allowing new trade sizes of EMT did not suddenly cause a common, existing practice to be incapable of being carried out without violating the new rule.

Right, bottom line is that putting in some arbitrary date for making a product electricians need and use all the time to become obsolete without coordinating or being sure the new stuff is figured out is completely unacceptable. The NFPA should be ashamed of this crap.

 

[jaggedben]

Preaching to the choir here no doubt, but how on earth is there a product requirement in the NEC where there is not even a standard to list it to??? Something seems broken.

I know you saw this already, but here it is again for anyone who didn't.

230.46 Rule Effective 1-1-2023

Pressure connectors and devices installed on service conductors shall be marked "suitable for use on the line side of service equipment" This 2020 NEC rule becomes effective Janurary 1st 2023 Are there any connectors or devices available to meet this 3-year delayed rule?

forums.mikeholt.com