IPC 240.36

[electrofelon]

Wonderful. A brother designer with another company called me a little ago after he talked with an inspector. The inspector said to him, "I guess you guys won't be doing any more line side PV connections in my territory for a while."

I don't really see this issue at all specific to PV line side connections. Perhaps he could ask this AHJ if this means that 230.40 exception #2 ( used extensively in a great majority of commercial services) is now effectively eliminated? What about the other choices I listed in post #13 for splitting a set of service conductors in multiple?

 

[electrofelon]

So does a panelboard that comes with main lugs have to have those lugs listed as suitable for use on the line side of the service if used that way? OR a CT cabinet mounting bae? In other words I think with this topic most of us are thinking of making "taps" on existing services, but I guess anything now that has a lug, whether it is factory mounted on equipment needs this classification?

Does anyone want to take a stab at this? Does all service equipment now need to be supplied with terminals that meet the new non-existent mythical standard ?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So does a panelboard that comes with main lugs have to have those lugs listed as suitable for use on the line side of the service if used that way? OR a CT cabinet mounting bae? In other words I think with this topic most of us are thinking of making "taps" on existing services, but I guess anything now that has a lug, whether it is factory mounted on equipment needs this classification?

Those lugs are not used for splices or taps and not covered by the language in 230.46. However they would have the same issues as splices and taps under fault conditions. You would have to look to the product listing standard to find out what testing is required for those lugs.

 

[electrofelon]

Those lugs are not used for splices or taps and not covered by the language in 230.46. However they would have the same issues as splices and taps under fault conditions. You would have to look to the product listing standard to find out what testing is required for those lugs.

Not sure I agree with your assessment. Let's look at the language again:

Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps shall be listed.

Would not any pressure connector on the service conductors fall under that?

 

[ggunn]

90.4 last paragraph seems like a no brainier to me in this situation, and I certainly would regard any AHJ that doesn't allow past practice to continue in the meantime to be taking a hostile position.

Unfortunately, that language says "may permit" instead of "shall permit". As most of us are all too well aware, inspectors taking hostile positions, also unfortunately, are not uncommon occurrences.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Not sure I agree with your assessment. Let's look at the language again:

Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps shall be listed.

Would not any pressure connector on the service conductors fall under that?

Because the connection of the conductors to supply the panel are not splices or taps..they are simply terminations.

 

[wwhitney]

Because the connection of the conductors to supply the panel are not splices or taps..they are simply terminations.

There's a parsing ambiguity in the language. You seem to be reading it as:

"(Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices) for splices and taps"

Whereas electrofelon seems to be reading it as:

"Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and (devices for splices and taps)"

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ggunn]

There's a parsing ambiguity in the language. You seem to be reading it as:

"(Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices) for splices and taps"

Whereas electrofelon seems to be reading it as:

"Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and (devices for splices and taps)"

Cheers, Wayne

Ambiguity in the NEC? Say it ain't so!

 

[electrofelon]

There's a parsing ambiguity in the language. You seem to be reading it as:

"(Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices) for splices and taps"

Whereas electrofelon seems to be reading it as:

"Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and (devices for splices and taps)"

Cheers, Wayne

Yeah, looks to me like a list, with "devices for splices and taps" being one item in the list.

I see no reason why the lugs on a main breaker wouldn't be covered by that language.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yeah, looks to me like a list, with "devices for splices and taps" being one item in the list.

I see no reason why the lugs on a main breaker wouldn't be covered by that language.

I see the words "for spices and taps" as a prepositional phase that modifies the subject of "pressure connectors and devices".
An online sentence diagramming app sees it the same way

 

[jim dungar]

Those lugs are not used for splices or taps and not covered by the language in 230.46. However they would have the same issues as splices and taps under fault conditions. You would have to look to the product listing standard to find out what testing is required for those lugs.

I agree.
Any factory supplied termination point will have been tested along with the panelboard bussing in order to get a Service Entrance label, unlike stand alone devices.

 

[wwhitney]

I see the words "for spices and taps" as a prepositional phase that modifies the subject of "pressure connectors and devices".

FWIW, my first reading corresponded with electrofelon's. I will say that for your reading, it would be more common to write "Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and other devices . . .".

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

FWIW, my first reading corresponded with electrofelon's. I will say that for your reading, it would be more common to write "Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and other devices . . .".

Cheers, Wayne

It appears that you are commenting on this sentence from 230.46

...Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps shall be listed. ...

That only requires that the pressure connectors and devices for splices and taps be listed and does not require them to be marked as suitable for use on the line side of service equipment. That is not any issue as those devices are listed devices.

The last sentence is what I am commenting on, and that is the only place it requires pressure connectors and devices to be marked for use on the line side of the service equipment. It remains my position that such marking is only required where the items covered by the last sentence are used for "splices and taps"

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.

 

[wwhitney]

The same logic applies to the last sentence.

"(Pressure connectors and devices) for splices and taps" vs "Pressure connectors and (devices for splices and taps)"

Is a pressure connector a device? Yes. So then the first interpretation is a redundant phrasing; it could just say "Devices for splice and taps" and have the same meaning. Which is why the more usual phrasing for that interpretation is "Pressure connectors and other devices for splices and taps"

Therefore, the absence of the word "other" brings me to the second interpretation. Note that this distinction depends on pressure connectors being devices. If the sentence were "pressure connectors and welded connectors" I would agree that "for splices and taps" is modifying both nouns.

Note also that because this distinction depends on the semantics and not just the grammar, a sentence diagramming app is not going to be able to make the distinction.

Of course, a less ambiguous wording for the second interpretation is "Devices for splices and taps and pressure connectors."

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ggunn]

The same logic applies to the last sentence.

"(Pressure connectors and devices) for splices and taps" vs "Pressure connectors and (devices for splices and taps)"

Is a pressure connector a device? Yes. So then the first interpretation is a redundant phrasing; it could just say "Devices for splice and taps" and have the same meaning. Which is why the more usual phrasing for that interpretation is "Pressure connectors and other devices for splices and taps"

Therefore, the absence of the word "other" brings me to the second interpretation. Note that this distinction depends on pressure connectors being devices. If the sentence were "pressure connectors and welded connectors" I would agree that "for splices and taps" is modifying both nouns.

Note also that because this distinction depends on the semantics and not just the grammar, a sentence diagramming app is not going to be able to make the distinction.

Of course, a less ambiguous wording for the second interpretation is "Devices for splices and taps and pressure connectors."

Cheers, Wayne

Nevertheless, the interpretation the aforementioned inspector has made is that IPCs and Polaris blocks for supply side PV interconnections are not allowed unless and until they are marked and listed as specified in the code.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The same logic applies to the last sentence.

"(Pressure connectors and devices) for splices and taps" vs "Pressure connectors and (devices for splices and taps)"

Is a pressure connector a device? Yes. So then the first interpretation is a redundant phrasing; it could just say "Devices for splice and taps" and have the same meaning. Which is why the more usual phrasing for that interpretation is "Pressure connectors and other devices for splices and taps"

Therefore, the absence of the word "other" brings me to the second interpretation. Note that this distinction depends on pressure connectors being devices. If the sentence were "pressure connectors and welded connectors" I would agree that "for splices and taps" is modifying both nouns.

Note also that because this distinction depends on the semantics and not just the grammar, a sentence diagramming app is not going to be able to make the distinction.

Of course, a less ambiguous wording for the second interpretation is "Devices for splices and taps and pressure connectors."

Cheers, Wayne

Looking forward to your PI as I don't see any issue.

It is very clear to me that "for splices and taps" specifies the function of pressure connectors and devices that need to be marked for use on the line side of the service. If the pressure connectors or devices don't have the function of splicing or tapping, the marking is not required.

It is my opinion that every sentence used in the code needs to be diagrammed, by a language professor, so that the CMP members actually understand what the language they are accepting really means. This should happen between the first and second drafts so incorrect language could be corrected.

 

[ggunn]

It is my opinion that every sentence used in the code needs to be diagrammed by a language professor...

Or a lawyer.

 

[wwhitney]

Nevertheless, the interpretation the aforementioned inspector has made is that IPCs and Polaris blocks for supply side PV interconnections are not allowed unless and until they are marked and listed as specified in the code.

I don't think anyone is saying that 230.46 doesn't prohibit what you describe. The recent debate is whether 230.46 applies to "pressure connectors" that are not used "for splices and taps." Electrofelon said yes; Don said no; and I said "yes, because pressure connectors are devices, so the only reason to add them to the wording is to expand the meaning beyond "devices for splices and taps."

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

It is my opinion that every sentence used in the code needs to be diagrammed, by a language professor, so that the CMP members actually understand what the language they are accepting really means.

I certainly agree. Here we have an example where you and I have diagrammed the sentence differently, so we know at least that the language is ambiguous.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[electrofelon]

Okay also, do we have a definition of what a splice and a tap is in the context of this section? Seems like they need to rigorously define this as well. Are service conductors "spliced" at a CT cabinet or a bussed gutter? If I used a bussed gutter to split up a set of service conductors, have I made a splice or a tap? I bet many people's answer would change on whether it was existing and just covering a 230.40 exception #2 install, versus something that was being installed for say a PV system.