2020 Fire Fighter Disco 1 & 2 Family Dwellings 230.85

Status
Not open for further replies.

shortcircuit2

Senior Member
New proposed section 230.85 requires a Emergency Disconnect for service conductors of 1 & 2 family dwellings located readily accessible outside the dwelling.

Know as the "Fire Fighter Disconnected"

Here is the language...

230.85 Emergency Disconnects(s)
For one- and two-family dwelling units, all service conductors shall terminate in disconnecting means having a short-circuit rating equal to or greater than the available fault current, installed in a readily accessible outdoor location. If more than one disconnect is provided, they shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be one of the following:

(1) Service disconnect(s) marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, SERVICE DISCONNECT

(2) Meter disconnect(s) installed per 230.83(#) and marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, METER DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

(3) Other than listed disconnect switch(es) or circuit breaker(s) on the supply side of each service disconnect that are suitable for use as service equipment and marked : EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

Markings shall comply with 110.21(B)
 

Adamjamma

Senior Member
New proposed section 230.85 requires a Emergency Disconnect for service conductors of 1 & 2 family dwellings located readily accessible outside the dwelling.

Know as the "Fire Fighter Disconnected"

Here is the language...

230.85 Emergency Disconnects(s)
For one- and two-family dwelling units, all service conductors shall terminate in disconnecting means having a short-circuit rating equal to or greater than the available fault current, installed in a readily accessible outdoor location. If more than one disconnect is provided, they shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be one of the following:

(1) Service disconnect(s) marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, SERVICE DISCONNECT

(2) Meter disconnect(s) installed per 230.83(#) and marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, METER DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

(3) Other than listed disconnect switch(es) or circuit breaker(s) on the supply side of each service disconnect that are suitable for use as service equipment and marked : EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

Markings shall comply with 110.21(B)
I hope it does not go through or requires put in a box that only firefighters can access...
imagine the burglar scenario... turn off firefighter disconnects for home, no alarm, take time breaking in...
same with murderers or rapists... turn off firefighters disconnect..no video gear to catch me...lol..
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
The PI called for that for all services, but the panel action limited to one and two family dwellings. As a former first responder, I think access to kill the power to commercial is more critical than for one and two family dwellings, especially since some utilities remotely kill the power on a call from the FD where the dwelling units have smart meters
 

packersparky

Senior Member
The PI called for that for all services, but the panel action limited to one and two family dwellings. As a former first responder, I think access to kill the power to commercial is more critical than for one and two family dwellings, especially since some utilities remotely kill the power on a call from the FD where the dwelling units have smart meters
We have smart meters here, but it is my understanding that they do not have contactors in them and they cannot be shut off remotely. At least that is the way it is here. The larger the service the less likely it is that it can be shut off remotely due the the cost of a contactor.
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
We have smart meters here, but it is my understanding that they do not have contactors in them and they cannot be shut off remotely. At least that is the way it is here. The larger the service the less likely it is that it can be shut off remotely due the the cost of a contactor.
Well smart meters can have a internal disco. It may be a option though.
 

Adamjamma

Senior Member
Thought of using a box like utilities use here in UK to limit number of people can access the box but the keys are so common that you still end up with thieves having access to the disconnects to break into the property easier...

is the reasoning simply imply to reduce the problems of the solar backfeeds? Or is it to fully disconnect? Because with the different backfeed methods combined with smart meters and properties like I deal with in Jamaica, can see real problems in the disconnects being in one accessible spot unless we now require the panels to be on an outside wall... disconnects on outside of that wall, panel on inside of that wall...

really watching this stuff as most properties in Jamaica are setup more like trailers than US homes, with the meter on the property line and an underground usually run to building to an inside panel box... though sometimes run overhead.. older homes have meters on building but POCO requiring meters at property lines due to theft and dogs..lol...
 

romex jockey

Senior Member
I use meter/mains when i can.

It's a safer and better job, jmho

consider how 408.3 (2) (2017) factors in


(2) Service Panelboards, Switchboards, and Switchgear. Barri‐
ers shall be placed in all service panelboards, switchboards, and
switchgear such that no uninsulated, ungrounded service
busbar or service terminal is exposed to inadvertent contact by
persons or maintenance equipment while servicing load termi‐
nations.
~RJ~
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
We have smart meters here, but it is my understanding that they do not have contactors in them and they cannot be shut off remotely. At least that is the way it is here. The larger the service the less likely it is that it can be shut off remotely due the the cost of a contactor.
The meters used for dwelling services by both utilities in our area have the contactor and one of them will do a remote disconnect when the FD calls in for a response to a fire. As you get to larger services, you have CT meters and they cannot have a contactor as the actual power does not flow through the meter. That is why, it is my opinion, that an outside disconnect is more important to the first responders on larger services.
 

tortuga

Senior Member
The meters used for dwelling services by both utilities in our area have the contactor and one of them will do a remote disconnect when the FD calls in for a response to a fire. As you get to larger services, you have CT meters and they cannot have a contactor as the actual power does not flow through the meter. That is why, it is my opinion, that an outside disconnect is more important to the first responders on larger services.
How could they fit a 200A contactor UL listed to open 22Kaic under load in a "smart meter"? When I think of the dimensions of an Allen Bradley EH 145 200A AC Contactor we put them in a huge can. Even a non UL listed Chinese contactor rated for 200A would not fit. A proper 200A contactor is surely larger than a residential meter.
I agree most of the smart meter fears are that of "Quacks" but the evidence is says these meters don't often open under full load, perhaps never will. But when they do they seem to explode.
 

Adamjamma

Senior Member
New proposed section 230.85 requires a Emergency Disconnect for service conductors of 1 & 2 family dwellings located readily accessible outside the dwelling.

Know as the "Fire Fighter Disconnected"

Here is the language...

230.85 Emergency Disconnects(s)
For one- and two-family dwelling units, all service conductors shall terminate in disconnecting means having a short-circuit rating equal to or greater than the available fault current, installed in a readily accessible outdoor location. If more than one disconnect is provided, they shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be one of the following:

(1) Service disconnect(s) marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, SERVICE DISCONNECT

(2) Meter disconnect(s) installed per 230.83(#) and marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, METER DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

(3) Other than listed disconnect switch(es) or circuit breaker(s) on the supply side of each service disconnect that are suitable for use as service equipment and marked : EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

Markings shall comply with 110.21(B)
would be great if they would agree that it being in line on service side of main meter does not mean the feed between it and the main panel now needs to be four wire instead of three... but everyone is saying that it needs to be treated as the main entrance for the services...
with the not service equipment or emergency disconnect, can we get one hundred or two hundred or etc rated blade switches in approved outside panels that are capable of being locked in the up position to stop people from just turning it off, but with some sort of fireman’s key on it... or the fireman just use bolt cutters to cut the lock and turn it off? Think that needs to be in code so we can keep the feed as three wire... line neutral line...
 

romex jockey

Senior Member
The meters used for dwelling services by both utilities in our area have the contactor and one of them will do a remote disconnect when the FD calls in for a response to a fire. As you get to larger services, you have CT meters and they cannot have a contactor as the actual power does not flow through the meter. That is why, it is my opinion, that an outside disconnect is more important to the first responders on larger services.
Nothing quite like rolling around on a wet floor, blindly aiming a fire hose at god knows what , while dispatch is waking up the poco....~RJ~
 

romex jockey

Senior Member
I hope it does not go through or requires put in a box that only firefighters can access...
imagine the burglar scenario... turn off firefighter disconnects for home, no alarm, take time breaking in...
same with murderers or rapists... turn off firefighters disconnect..no video gear to catch me...lol..
real disco's are 110.25 compliant (lockable)

only a minority of meters are locked

meter's are easily yanked Adam

~RJ~
 

Adamjamma

Senior Member
I agree but they want a disconnect... I mean, to yank meters in my area in Jamaica takes a wire cutter, cut the flimsy lock, lift panel, and pull meter... think any fire fighter could do that and cut power so only other concern is the Solar or Battery stuff... but, because of criminals, do not really want those areas able to be easily cut or disconnected.

Want a criminal to at least have to work at it to break into my property... not simply take a screwdriver, twist the lock and pull stuff ...
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
This would be a real headache in certain parts of the country. There should be some kind of exception for existing services.
 

romex jockey

Senior Member
Not for me Jag.

Look at it this way, a lotto disco prevents live panel work

and i had such high hopes for 408.3(2) , oh well.....

~RJ~
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
I think the intent is commendable but the requirement is unworkable in many instances. How about a meter socket with a built in disconnect for new resi installations?

How could they fit a 200A contactor UL listed to open 22Kaic under load in a "smart meter"? When I think of the dimensions of an Allen Bradley EH 145 200A AC Contactor we put them in a huge can. Even a non UL listed Chinese contactor rated for 200A would not fit. A proper 200A contactor is surely larger than a residential meter.
I agree most of the smart meter fears are that of "Quacks" but the evidence is says these meters don't often open under full load, perhaps never will. But when they do they seem to explode.
I've always said that here was incompetent engineering there. Contactor should be capable of opening the full specified load of the meter, not what some utility thinks the max load will be. True, many resi loads will never see 80A on a 200A service but there are plenty that will come close to 200.



-Hal
 
Last edited:

kwired

Electron manager
If such requirement ends up happening, I'd like to see exception allowing for shunt trip main and remote switch for fire fighters. If they have to cut a lock before operating the switch, so what, they have the ability to do that.

As far as spraying water on who knows what... direct stream is what has electrical continuity issues. To fight a fire direct stream is putting a lot of water in a small area, most of the time they are more likely to have wider mist pattern and not a direct stream, unless shooting the stream a long distance, but then allowing it to break up as it falls on it's target.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
...
As far as spraying water on who knows what... direct stream is what has electrical continuity issues. To fight a fire direct stream is putting a lot of water in a small area, most of the time they are more likely to have wider mist pattern and not a direct stream, unless shooting the stream a long distance, but then allowing it to break up as it falls on it's target.
Testing done by Purdue University for the US Navy a number of years ago, showed that even with seawater and a straight tip nozzle at 100 psi and 125 gmp, the current at the nozzle would be less than 5 mA at ~15' from energized 440 volt equipment. If the nozzle was set to a 30° fog pattern, the current was less than 5 mA at the nozzle ~2' from the energized equipment.
The more serious water hazard for fire fighters is standing or flowing water in the floor or ground that is in contact with a power source.
 

chris1971

Senior Member
New proposed section 230.85 requires a Emergency Disconnect for service conductors of 1 & 2 family dwellings located readily accessible outside the dwelling.

Know as the "Fire Fighter Disconnected"

Here is the language...

230.85 Emergency Disconnects(s)
For one- and two-family dwelling units, all service conductors shall terminate in disconnecting means having a short-circuit rating equal to or greater than the available fault current, installed in a readily accessible outdoor location. If more than one disconnect is provided, they shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be one of the following:

(1) Service disconnect(s) marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, SERVICE DISCONNECT

(2) Meter disconnect(s) installed per 230.83(#) and marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, METER DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

(3) Other than listed disconnect switch(es) or circuit breaker(s) on the supply side of each service disconnect that are suitable for use as service equipment and marked : EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

Markings shall comply with 110.21(B)
Stupid proposal!
 

kwired

Electron manager
Testing done by Purdue University for the US Navy a number of years ago, showed that even with seawater and a straight tip nozzle at 100 psi and 125 gmp, the current at the nozzle would be less than 5 mA at ~15' from energized 440 volt equipment. If the nozzle was set to a 30° fog pattern, the current was less than 5 mA at the nozzle ~2' from the energized equipment.
The more serious water hazard for fire fighters is standing or flowing water in the floor or ground that is in contact with a power source.
Agree, how often is there something on the floor in a dwelling - I suppose extension cords but no permanent wiring.

Around here you sometimes see center pivot irrigation sprinkler shooting right at 7200 volt to ground POCO primary lines or at transformer banks, nothing happens as it is not a direct stream.
 

Adamjamma

Senior Member
Agreed one would want them to 'work' at it Adam, while making it easy for 1st responders is the conundrum

It's how the knox box came to be....

~RJ~
The Knox Box is interesting but still like the idea that Jamaica is toying with... firefighter switch on outside of building but high enough that a pole on the truck is needed for operating it... Based on the UK rules for one... in fact, the wording and signs on it are straight from the BS 7671 codebook...
The current wording is to require the utility switch and a switch next to it for solar if installed in the residence... and the two cannot be more than 4 feet apart... any apartments etc with separate meters still must have their firefighter switches grouped so the fire fighter could stand in one area and switch them all off... but the 6 switch rule from the NEC is being dropped from the firefighters idea because of the want for all the apartments and solar to be grouped in one area only.. no second areas to go to unless the building is over so many feet... or has more than one utility supply to it...

Truly, some parts of this make sense to me and other parts of what the proposed changes for the Electrical Code in Jamaica make no sense... they were saying they want to adopt the NEC and now saying it would cause too much confusion to adopt it..I think the country just wants to stay in the 80s..lol
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Stupid proposal!
I agree for several reasons. Main one being that 99.999% of fires will not be in a brand new home, and if there is a roaring fire, the disconnect is either going to be overlooked, on fire itself, or attached to a structure that is... on fire... Radiated heat would probably preclude you from getting within 20 feet of thing.

Plus, even if the disco is there, noticed, and successfully operated, you still have power attached to the house up at that point.

Short wish list of changes Id like to see would be repealing 210.12 in its entirety, changing the language 200.6 to remark existing and smaller than 4 gauge wire as neutrals, and deleting the requirement to bond coax and telephone to the GES. And leave kitchen island receptacle replacement alone for at least every other code cycle... The rate at which those sections change is ridiculous.
 

readydave8

remember
I hope it does not go through or requires put in a box that only firefighters can access...
imagine the burglar scenario... turn off firefighter disconnects for home, no alarm, take time breaking in...
same with murderers or rapists... turn off firefighters disconnect..no video gear to catch me...lol..
Usually I just pull the meter anyway when B&E'ing
 

K8MHZ

Senior Member
I agree for several reasons. Main one being that 99.999% of fires will not be in a brand new home, and if there is a roaring fire, the disconnect is either going to be overlooked, on fire itself, or attached to a structure that is... on fire... Radiated heat would probably preclude you from getting within 20 feet of thing.
I'm not in favor of the disco rule, either, but not for the above reason. Natural gas shut off valves are right on the house. Mine is about two feet from my electric meter.
 

kwired

Electron manager
I'm not in favor of the disco rule, either, but not for the above reason. Natural gas shut off valves are right on the house. Mine is about two feet from my electric meter.
Gas shut off is a different safety concern for fire fighters. Yes if gas is left on can fuel the fire but it won't suddenly and unexpectedly electrocute a fire fighter.
 

Adamjamma

Senior Member
I would think that the fire department would want it that way, and would have the training to turn the gas off then turn the power off... they do get a load of training, after all.
 

Wire-Smith

Senior Member
most of the fire departments i know about have telescoping hot sticks to pull cutouts. i like the outdoor disconnect but i don't care for the reasoning
 

kwired

Electron manager
most of the fire departments i know about have telescoping hot sticks to pull cutouts. i like the outdoor disconnect but i don't care for the reasoning
I don't know I like the idea of them operating open style medium voltage components unless they get some fairly extensive medium voltage training like POCO employees do. Sure it looks easy, but in abnormal conditions do they understand the possible hazards that may be out of ordinary? Do they train them to ground out the disconnected portion of circuit like POCO's typically would do? Do they know for certain if there is a possible two way feed involved in what they are attempting to disconnect, or at least how to tell if there is? POCO's are pretty good as a general rule on getting someone dispatched in short time in such incidents.

I remember a vehicle accident in nearby town, I kind of witnessed most of the incident where this car crashed into a small substation that supplied the entire town. I wasn't real close to the scene but could see most of what was going on. Police officer was first emergency responder on the scene. He was smart enough to not let anyone near the substation until POCO said it was safe to approach. Fire fighters and EMT's showed up before POCO but could do nothing until POCO said it was safe. These were volunteer firefighters and EMT's, I wouldn't want to have any of them attempt to open the 34.5 kV lines supplying that substation, let those trained to handle that sort of thing do it, no sense in risking someone else besides the occupant of the vehicle. (he apparently had some sort of "medical emergency" is why his vehicle went off the road and crashed into the substation is about the only information I ever heard on why this incident happened)
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
most of the fire departments i know about have telescoping hot sticks to pull cutouts. i like the outdoor disconnect but i don't care for the reasoning
The utilities around here do not permit that. The only ones that can do that are their employees. Very few fire personal have the knowledge and training required to pull the cutouts.
 

Wire-Smith

Senior Member
The utilities around here do not permit that. The only ones that can do that are their employees. Very few fire personal have the knowledge and training required to pull the cutouts.

lol, different folks different strokes. i've done it just working for an electrical contractor, no smart meter though so poco never knew, had to ask neighbor if they were okay with power out for a little while though, luckily neighbors got a long with each other.

a simple single phase cutout for a small service does not require much training.

i'm not in a very bureaucratic area though either, i've heard a lot of things about pocos in other areas that i just have to laugh at comparing to how things are done around here.

i'm not even a residential guy and i have a pile of meter tags the linemen give me, no i didn't ask and don't really care if i have them or not. a commercial service i was messing with once, the meter guy just told me i could throw the meter back in when i was done.

i remember helping somebody on the side and the lineman called the guy i was helping and just told him he could cut the overhead service conductors if he wanted to and he would come out when we were done to put a tag on.
 
Last edited:

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
lol, different folks different strokes. i've done it just working for an electrical contractor, no smart meter though so poco never knew, had to ask neighbor if they were okay with power out for a little while though, luckily neighbors got a long with each other.
....
One of the utilities here, will have a contractor arrested if they do that.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
i've heard many places are supposed to be like that. by any chance have you actually heard of someone being arrested for that, that wasn't connected to copper theft?
I was personally threatened with arrest via phone when I wanted to open cutouts at a plant I was working on so I could repair a broken cutout on the load side of the utility cutout.
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
I was personally threatened with arrest via phone when I wanted to open cutouts at a plant I was working on so I could repair a broken cutout on the load side of the utility cutout.
What would they charge you with though? What statute does it specifically violate?
 

Wire-Smith

Senior Member
Just seems hard to prove/enforce in your case. I mean a break in is different then he said / she said.

yep, so long as neighbors don't mind. if there was smart metering i would just call POCO for permission or for them to do it. if you get busted, be honest with the judge, you had no ill intentions, if the judge is also a moron then yeah you'll get in trouble but you probably get in trouble for other dumb stuff in that area too so your probably used to it. vote for officials that don't make dumb laws. life goes on. wash, rinse, repeat.
 

jimport

Senior Member
After just retiring from a career fire department after 28 years i can say that the lack of an external disconnect never stopped operations until the power was secured before water was applied. I am all for safety, especially for first responders, but this seems like an unnecessary requirement for many of the reasons Don and others have already started.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Will this effect service changes as well? To me, its more of a money making thing like every other stuff they try to enforce.
Before the code started adding specific "replacement" rules, I would have said that there is no question that the new emergency disconnect rule would apply to service changed. Not that they have been adding these replacement rules, I am not longer sure that the current code rules apply to any repair or replacement work.
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
Before the code started adding specific "replacement" rules, I would have said that there is no question that the new emergency disconnect rule would apply to service changed. Not that they have been adding these replacement rules, I am not longer sure that the current code rules apply to any repair or replacement work.
Probably to stop people from using the grandfather excuse.
 

romex jockey

Senior Member
or that 'maintenance' grey area excuse.....nobody can stuff a resi panel like those guys:roll:....i guess at least they'll have the means to shut it down......assuming they're smart enough to use it.....:p~RJ~
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
Below is a result of the CMP 10 efforts for those interested

230.85
Emergency Disconnects.

For one- and two-family dwelling units, all service conductors shall terminate in disconnecting means having a short-circuit current rating equal to or greater than the available fault current, installed in a readily accessible outdoor location. If more than one disconnect is provided, they shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be one of the following:
  1. Service disconnects marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, SERVICE DISCONNECT
  2. Meter disconnects installed per 230.82(3) and marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, METER DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT
  3. Other listed disconnect switches or circuit breakers on the supply side of each service disconnect that are suitable for use as service equipment and marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

Markings shall comply with 110.21(B).

 

kwired

Electron manager
Below is a result of the CMP 10 efforts for those interested

230.85
Emergency Disconnects.

For one- and two-family dwelling units, all service conductors shall terminate in disconnecting means having a short-circuit current rating equal to or greater than the available fault current, installed in a readily accessible outdoor location. If more than one disconnect is provided, they shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be one of the following:
  1. Service disconnects marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, SERVICE DISCONNECT
  2. Meter disconnects installed per 230.82(3) and marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, METER DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT
  3. Other listed disconnect switches or circuit breakers on the supply side of each service disconnect that are suitable for use as service equipment and marked as follows: EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

Markings shall comply with 110.21(B).

And reasoning for this is??

Why just one and two family dwellings??
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
And reasoning for this is??

Why just one and two family dwellings??
Well here was the panel statements:

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

"This Public Comment is being submitted by a Correlating Committee Task Group that was created as a result of Correlating Committee Note No. 65. Members of the Task Group included Larry Ayer (Co-Chair), James Dollard, David Hittinger, Vince Saporita (Co-Chair), and David Williams. The Correlating Committee directed the Task Group to review the term “Emergency disconnect switches” and correlate it with the terminology used in FR-8642 (new Section 230.85), FR 7770 (Section 445.18(A)), and FR 8942 (Section 706.15).

The term “emergency disconnect switches” is changed to “emergency disconnects” in new 230.82(10) to correlate with the term in new 230.85.

The term “emergency disconnect(s)” is changed to “emergency disconnects”, “switch(es)” is changed to “switches”, and “breaker(s)” is changed to “breakers” in 230.85 to agree with the NEC Style Manual.

For FR 8874, the term “Emergency stop switch” is used correctly in title of 445.18 and therefore no changes are necessary.

For FR 7846 (Section 445.18(D)), the term “First Responder Shutdown” is changed to “Emergency Shutdown” for correlation with these other changes.

For FR 8942 (Section 706.15), the ESS disconnecting means, or its remote control, must be grouped with the emergency disconnects required in new 230.85, for the safety of first responders. Unless the ESS switch or its remote control is in close proximity when first responders try to de-energize the service of the dwelling unit by utilizing the outdoor emergency disconnects required by new 230.85, they will expect that the entire dwelling unit is totally de-energized. If the ESS switch, or its remote control, is not in close proximity, the first responders may not know that the dwelling unit is still energized. The revised requirement will help the first responders recognize that there is an additional disconnecting means that is necessary to totally de-energize the dwelling unit. The term “ESS disconnecting means” is used correctly in 706.15."

Also, keep in mind the original PC was submitted by someone representing the manufacturer who is also the Co-Chair but that's all I see so far. The old days where we have more information are long gone. Some say we get more detail these days but sadly I disagree as the old style yielding more in my humble opinion. Now I know that doesn't tell you anything but again I am not on that CMP so it's all I got.

Here is the info to look up from the FD Meeting:

Committee Statement
Committee Statement: This revision recognizes the need for an outdoor disconnect for first responders. These requirements are practical, feasible and provide installers with multiple options. Today, first responders and utility personnel do not have a way to safely remove power from a structure unless there is a means to disconnect the electric utility supply that is located outside of said structure in a readily accessible location.
Response Message:FR-8462-NFPA 70-2018

Public Input No. 2740-NFPA 70-2017 [Section No. 230.82]
Public Input No. 1169-NFPA 70-2017 [Section No. 230.70(A)]
Public Input No. 3001-NFPA 70-2017 [New Section after 230.82]
Public Input No. 2677-NFPA 70-2017 [New Section after 230.8
 
Last edited:

peter d

Senior Member


Also, keep in mind the original PC was submitted by someone representing the manufacturer who is also the Co-Chair but that's all I see so far.
Gee, there's a surprise. :roll: And you wonder why some of us have such extreme skepticism of the code making process these days. :happyno:
 

kwired

Electron manager
Well here was the panel statements:

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

"This Public Comment is being submitted by a Correlating Committee Task Group that was created as a result of Correlating Committee Note No. 65. Members of the Task Group included Larry Ayer (Co-Chair), James Dollard, David Hittinger, Vince Saporita (Co-Chair), and David Williams. The Correlating Committee directed the Task Group to review the term “Emergency disconnect switches” and correlate it with the terminology used in FR-8642 (new Section 230.85), FR 7770 (Section 445.18(A)), and FR 8942 (Section 706.15).

The term “emergency disconnect switches” is changed to “emergency disconnects” in new 230.82(10) to correlate with the term in new 230.85.

The term “emergency disconnect(s)” is changed to “emergency disconnects”, “switch(es)” is changed to “switches”, and “breaker(s)” is changed to “breakers” in 230.85 to agree with the NEC Style Manual.

For FR 8874, the term “Emergency stop switch” is used correctly in title of 445.18 and therefore no changes are necessary.

For FR 7846 (Section 445.18(D)), the term “First Responder Shutdown” is changed to “Emergency Shutdown” for correlation with these other changes.

For FR 8942 (Section 706.15), the ESS disconnecting means, or its remote control, must be grouped with the emergency disconnects required in new 230.85, for the safety of first responders. Unless the ESS switch or its remote control is in close proximity when first responders try to de-energize the service of the dwelling unit by utilizing the outdoor emergency disconnects required by new 230.85, they will expect that the entire dwelling unit is totally de-energized. If the ESS switch, or its remote control, is not in close proximity, the first responders may not know that the dwelling unit is still energized. The revised requirement will help the first responders recognize that there is an additional disconnecting means that is necessary to totally de-energize the dwelling unit. The term “ESS disconnecting means” is used correctly in 706.15."

Also, keep in mind the original PC was submitted by someone representing the manufacturer who is also the Co-Chair but that's all I see so far. The old days where we have more information are long gone. Some say we get more detail these days but sadly I disagree as the old style yielding more in my humble opinion. Now I know that doesn't tell you anything but again I am not on that CMP so it's all I got.

Here is the info to look up from the FD Meeting:

Committee Statement
Committee Statement: This revision recognizes the need for an outdoor disconnect for first responders. These requirements are practical, feasible and provide installers with multiple options. Today, first responders and utility personnel do not have a way to safely remove power from a structure unless there is a means to disconnect the electric utility supply that is located outside of said structure in a readily accessible location.
Response Message:FR-8462-NFPA 70-2018

Public Input No. 2740-NFPA 70-2017 [Section No. 230.82]
Public Input No. 1169-NFPA 70-2017 [Section No. 230.70(A)]
Public Input No. 3001-NFPA 70-2017 [New Section after 230.82]
Public Input No. 2677-NFPA 70-2017 [New Section after 230.8
IMO having said "emergency disconnect" for first responders is somewhat pointless if the general rule for placement is nothing more than in a readily accessible location, outdoors. If going to have such rule it needs to be in specific location that emergency responders will know where to find it. As worded there is a wide open range of places said disconnect might be found, that has only been narrowed down to "readily accessible" and "outdoors". As time goes by it may not even be all that readily accessible when time comes to need to use it. What if a bush gets planted and grows enough that it makes it difficult to find? Stating that a disconnect or at least a remote operating device be within a certain area such as within a certain distance adjacent to main entrance - at least gives first responders a location to know where they should find what they are looking for.

In past most of these single and two family dwellings were disconnected by first responders by pulling a meter. Only occasionally might you run into CT metering and that idea won't work.

On top of all that, there is no guarantee said switch will always interrupt all voltage in the facility, one really needs to test for voltage to be certain, then there could be automatic standby power that kicks in...

I'm still failing to see the need for such a rule especially it only is for one and two family dwellings.
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
You manipulating post again?..lol...why not twist more of my posts as usual. Read the statement again as clearly reading comprehension is not your strong point my friend. My response was to Peter D's remarks.

If you don't think folks who give of their time to be apart of the process "don't care" then you are clearly not educated on the process and assume alot. Easy to sit in the background on a forum and second judge members actions....i would expect as much here.

I just tried to bring you insight from the process and you all twist it as usual. Yes, manufacturers have influence but they make up a small count in the room. Learn the process first before you label folks. Yeah, folks giving their time away from families is not caring....nice one.
 

romex jockey

Senior Member
And there lays the issue. If people cared, then the outcome of the whole process would benefit everyone.
sadly, they only validate change through the lense of corporate profit.

who are these people? well my best quess is, they're the very same manufacturer that debuted the RSS in the '17....not the passage's one/two family ref

690.12 N(C) Initiation Device. The initiation device(s) shall initiate
the rapid shutdown function of the PV system. The device “off”
position shall indicate that the rapid shutdown function has
been initiated for all PV systems connected to that device. For
one-family and two-family dwellings
, an initiation device(s)
shall be located at a readily accessible location outside the
building.
Of further note would be, the switch in question w/o PV would require shunt trip or relay to work , not exactly cost effective considering amlost every meter manfacturer offers meter/main combo's w/lotto

Another good idea flushed out the bowels of shill CMP's :rant:

~RJ~
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
You manipulating post again?..lol...why not twist more of my posts as usual. Read the statement again as clearly reading comprehension is not your strong point my friend. My response was to Peter D's remarks.

If you don't think folks who give of their time to be apart of the process "don't care" then you are clearly not educated on the process and assume alot. Easy to sit in the background on a forum and second judge members actions....i would expect as much here.

I just tried to bring you insight from the process and you all twist it as usual. Yes, manufacturers have influence but they make up a small count in the room. Learn the process first before you label folks. Yeah, folks giving their time away from families is not caring....nice one.
I know it was Peter D's remark that you were quoting.

Yahhh, PC representing a manufacturer and then replied that you do not care. I care because for me this yet again raises a red flag for me. It then gets accepted into the code, another red flag and a pattern which I keep seeing. Even in the ROPs manufacturer and UL reps get consideration instead of a full blown reject regardless of what is submitted. Its like the none members are unsure of what is submitted, but have been conditioned to believe that if its a manufacturer or NRTL it must be legit.
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
sadly, they only validate change through the lense of corporate profit.

who are these people? well my best quess is, they're the very same manufacturer that debuted the RSS in the '17....not the passage's one/two family ref



Of further note would be, the switch in question w/o PV would require shunt trip or relay to work , not exactly cost effective considering amlost every meter manfacturer offers meter/main combo's w/lotto

Another good idea flushed out the bowels of shill CMP's :rant:

~RJ~

Wishful thinking, feel goods, compartmentalized code making, and honestly people who do not understand real world practice.
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
I know it was Peter D's remark that you were quoting.

Yahhh, PC representing a manufacturer and then replied that you do not care. I care because for me this yet again raises a red flag for me. It then gets accepted into the code, another red flag and a pattern which I keep seeing. Even in the ROPs manufacturer and UL reps get consideration instead of a full blown reject regardless of what is submitted. Its like the none members are unsure of what is submitted, but have been conditioned to believe that if its a manufacturer or NRTL it must be legit.
Obviously Not or you would have gotten the "I dont care" as being directed to Peter d's opinion to which I still don't care. Clearly a moment for some folks to seize attention to which again I don't really give a hoot. However, it will be the last time I provide any insight from a CMP perspective.

Also clearly folks like to backseat comment rather than get involved and rely on "Others" to get things done..Classic
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
Obviously Not or you would have gotten the "I dont care" as being directed to Peter d's opinion to which I still don't care. Clearly a moment for some folks to seize attention to which again I don't really give a hoot. However, it will be the last time I provide any insight from a CMP perspective.

Also clearly folks like to backseat comment rather than get involved and rely on "Others" to get things done..Classic
Ok, perhaps I misheard. But you have to realize I am not happy with some of these code requirements that to be blunt have nothing to do with actual safety.


You can stay, I like the updates.

My opinions are based on my own research- not relying on others- but remember that I can't make it into the these meetings. Ideally they need to be recorded and posted. Can you do this Master The NEC?
 

Adamjamma

Senior Member
OK, I understand the fact this seems to be another case of making something that will be hard to comply with but... are there any low voltage ways to make a remote system for a cutoff that would meet these requirements? For instance, placing a relay in the cutoffs that when the switch gets flipped tells all electric supplies to shut down... if the fire department flips the switch using the proper key, then all electric supplies are then told by the relays to shut down.
but using hard wired cat 5 or bell cable so it is easy to embed in walls and keep from harm... maybe using a bell junction type of connection point to lead to the different panels, or generators, or electric panels, then causing the main breakers to turn off... kind of like the Schneider interlock in Europe that simply plugs onto the side of a Schneider main breaker.

Of Course, the other idea would be to require all houses to have an external lockable rotary switch capable of the 225 or 400 amps... lol... that has all the inputs possible for the home through it, and has a position of OFF as well... One I saw was only 50 amps but, the center off, poco left, solar right, is a possible way of stopping the power.. except it does not remotely stop the power at the various panels. Thus, live power is still available on the roofs.

Most of you are way more experienced than me, so I am sure you guys could come up with the way to fix this, then get MR Holt to take it to the boards to get into code.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Obviously Not or you would have gotten the "I dont care" as being directed to Peter d's opinion to which I still don't care. Clearly a moment for some folks to seize attention to which again I don't really give a hoot. However, it will be the last time I provide any insight from a CMP perspective.
You've provided all the insight we could ever need. The NEC is now forced use of particular products to line the manufacturer's pockets. Manufacturers only exist to make profit and satisfy shareholders and nothing more.
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
You've provided all the insight we could ever need. The NEC is now forced use of particular products to line the manufacturer's pockets. Manufacturers only exist to make profit and satisfy shareholders and nothing more.
Welcome to Capitalism genius. If not for manufacturers you would still rubbing two sticks together to obtain fire. You clearly don't understand the "actual" makeup of a CMP but alas I would expect as much...:happysad:
 

peter d

Senior Member
Welcome to Capitalism genius. If not for manufacturers you would still rubbing two sticks together to obtain fire. You clearly don't understand the "actual" makeup of a CMP but alas I would expect as much...:happysad:
Manufacturers influencing CMP's to require the use of their own products by force and decree is not capitalism, that's pure corruption. As for CMP's, I understand them just fine and including manufacturers on them is one of the worst decisions the NEC ever made.
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
Manufacturers influencing CMP's to require the use of their own products by force and decree is not capitalism, that's pure corruption. As for CMP's, I understand them just fine and including manufacturers on them is one of the worst decisions the NEC ever made.
Clearly you don't otherwise you would know how stupid your statement was...LOL
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
Then why are manufacturers submitting code proposals that will benefit their bottom line? Not so stupid after all.
Actually is quite stupid actually.

1) No one knows the products like the manufactures. I am 100% sure you do not know them nearly as well.
2) In this case, it was from a former employee who is now an independent consultant and very knowledgeable.
3) He was not the only one to submit it, it was also submitted in the PI stage by the IAEI as well as other in the fire services. Once it made it to the PC Stage it was tagged to his submittal.
4) Having someone submitted versus achieving a consensus and ultimately a 2/3 vote means that way more than the 2-3 manufactures on the committee has to agree with the intent of the proposed change. So your "theory" is that the entire CMP panel is corrupt and that is simply STUPID.

If the panel listens to all things presented and feels it is a minimum safety standard change then they make the call. However, there is still voting by the CMP's that take place until Jan 11, 2019, and then lastly the NITMAM stage that can receive negative comments on changes that take place in the second draft, which is what we are voting on as we speak. If you did not like the proposed public input then where was your Public Comment against such a change?....Why is your involvement other than yapping away on a forum about how you disagree with something. The classic approach to those who do not want to be involved but have a comment on everything.

There are some of you that do get involved and make a difference and there are some that just yap their trap. To substantiate your position in well expressed public inputs and public comments and your yapping will have some credit, sit back and whine and complain when you have no credit. I can tell you with 100% certainty that in some cases things do get into the NEC by influence as I have witnessed it personally but it does not speak for the entire committee. What happens is (1) or (2) people with long-standing influence taint the committee because some on committees follow like blind sheep due to the respected nature of the person speaking. Yes, it is getting worse as more "sales" type technical folks get on the panels but to label them all as you all do....shameful and wrong.

However, you all have a long history of "twisting" folks words to meet your agenda so that's all good.....but clearly you do not know the CMP Panels and what it takes to get something in the NEC. If the manufacturers representative on the committee is well respected then YES they have influence BUT each person votes for their respective representation. for example, I represent AL and CU on different committees so when I ultimately vote it is at the will of the association and not for myself personally. My and other CMP's real role is to listen to the inputs and comments and determine their plausibility to safety and we listen to the various experts in the given field that are advocating for the change. And trust me I respect their knowledge way more than I would yours and I am sure that is mutual.
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
Actually is quite stupid actually.

1) No one knows the products like the manufactures. I am 100% sure you do not know them nearly as well.
Of course, and if you can articulate a supposed problem, code additions provide a solution.

2) In this case, it was from a former employee who is now an independent consultant and very knowledgeable.
3) He was not the only one to submit it, it was also submitted in the PI stage by the IAEI as well as other in the fire services. Once it made it to the PC Stage it was tagged to his submittal.
Experienced inviduals like Don R are saying otherwise.

4) Having someone submitted versus achieving a consensus and ultimately a 2/3 vote means that way more than the 2-3 manufactures on the committee has to agree with the intent of the proposed change. So your "theory" is that the entire CMP panel is corrupt and that is simply STUPID.
History has shown any democratic system can be subverted, concurred, swayed, bought out, gerrymandered, fall to social climate induced turn over or to be blunt simply consisting of folks who are not independent thinkers relying on others who they perceive as more knowledgeable.

If the panel listens to all things presented and feels it is a minimum safety standard change then they make the call. However, there is still voting by the CMP's that take place until Jan 11, 2019, and then lastly the NITMAM stage that can receive negative comments on changes that take place in the second draft, which is what we are voting on as we speak. If you did not like the proposed public input then where was your Public Comment against such a change?....Why is your involvement other than yapping away on a forum about how you disagree with something. The classic approach to those who do not want to be involved but have a comment on everything.
Sometimes, you need a counter movement where like minds can collect and share their ideas unhindered. There is also the journalism aspect to any democracy. Any matter of public interest or that which impacts the public, can be brought forth to their attention.

There are some of you that do get involved and make a difference and there are some that just yap their trap. To substantiate your position in well expressed public inputs and public comments and your yapping will have some credit, sit back and whine and complain when you have no credit. I can tell you with 100% certainty that in some cases things do get into the NEC by influence as I have witnessed it personally but it does not speak for the entire committee. What happens is (1) or (2) people with long-standing influence taint the committee because some on committees follow like blind sheep due to the respected nature of the person speaking. Yes, it is getting worse as more "sales" type technical folks get on the panels but to label them all as you all do....shameful and wrong.
Even if you bared witness to the full breadth and scope of external bias, that to me would be more then enough. Because if it is not stopped now, it will progressively get worse. The mechanism is already there- its already moving on the tracks- it just now needs momentum. All else is in place- meaning the majority of the scheme has already been completed.

However, you all have a long history of "twisting" folks words to meet your agenda so that's all good.....but clearly you do not know the CMP Panels and what it takes to get something in the NEC. If the manufacturers representative on the committee is well respected then YES they have influence BUT each person votes for their respective representation. for example, I represent AL and CU on different committees so when I ultimately vote it is at the will of the association and not for myself personally. My and other CMP's real role is to listen to the inputs and comments and determine their plausibility to safety and we listen to the various experts in the given field that are advocating for the change. And trust me I respect their knowledge way more than I would yours and I am sure that is mutual.
I respect you- and I think you are there for good reasons. I do not doubt what you see- but remember its only what you see or rather what the world is meant to see. I have a saying in that regard: "everything has already been decided, but we play court only because law requires us too. Nowhere does law say we can not write the script and direct the show before hand"
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
IMO having said "emergency disconnect" for first responders is somewhat pointless if the general rule for placement is nothing more than in a readily accessible location, outdoors. If going to have such rule it needs to be in specific location that emergency responders will know where to find it. As worded there is a wide open range of places said disconnect might be found, that has only been narrowed down to "readily accessible" and "outdoors". As time goes by it may not even be all that readily accessible when time comes to need to use it. What if a bush gets planted and grows enough that it makes it difficult to find? Stating that a disconnect or at least a remote operating device be within a certain area such as within a certain distance adjacent to main entrance - at least gives first responders a location to know where they should find what they are looking for.

In past most of these single and two family dwellings were disconnected by first responders by pulling a meter. Only occasionally might you run into CT metering and that idea won't work.
Most first responders now understand that is not something they should be doing.[/quote]

On top of all that, there is no guarantee said switch will always interrupt all voltage in the facility, one really needs to test for voltage to be certain, then there could be automatic standby power that kicks in...

I'm still failing to see the need for such a rule especially it only is for one and two family dwellings.
As a former first responder, it would be much more important to me to be able to disconnect a commercial structure than a one or two family dwelling unit. The risk is much great in structures that are not dwelling units.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
OK, I understand the fact this seems to be another case of making something that will be hard to comply with but... are there any low voltage ways to make a remote system for a cutoff that would meet these requirements? For instance, placing a relay in the cutoffs that when the switch gets flipped tells all electric supplies to shut down... if the fire department flips the switch using the proper key, then all electric supplies are then told by the relays to shut down.
but using hard wired cat 5 or bell cable so it is easy to embed in walls and keep from harm... maybe using a bell junction type of connection point to lead to the different panels, or generators, or electric panels, then causing the main breakers to turn off... kind of like the Schneider interlock in Europe that simply plugs onto the side of a Schneider main breaker.
....
As currently written the rule does not permit any type of remote disconnect, one of the reasons it that the rule is intended to remove all power inside of the building. A remotely operated disconnect that is inside the building does not do that.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Actually is quite stupid actually.

1) No one knows the products like the manufactures. I am 100% sure you do not know them nearly as well.
2) In this case, it was from a former employee who is now an independent consultant and very knowledgeable.
3) He was not the only one to submit it, it was also submitted in the PI stage by the IAEI as well as other in the fire services. Once it made it to the PC Stage it was tagged to his submittal.
4) Having someone submitted versus achieving a consensus and ultimately a 2/3 vote means that way more than the 2-3 manufactures on the committee has to agree with the intent of the proposed change. So your "theory" is that the entire CMP panel is corrupt and that is simply STUPID.

If the panel listens to all things presented and feels it is a minimum safety standard change then they make the call. However, there is still voting by the CMP's that take place until Jan 11, 2019, and then lastly the NITMAM stage that can receive negative comments on changes that take place in the second draft, which is what we are voting on as we speak. If you did not like the proposed public input then where was your Public Comment against such a change?....Why is your involvement other than yapping away on a forum about how you disagree with something. The classic approach to those who do not want to be involved but have a comment on everything.

There are some of you that do get involved and make a difference and there are some that just yap their trap. To substantiate your position in well expressed public inputs and public comments and your yapping will have some credit, sit back and whine and complain when you have no credit. I can tell you with 100% certainty that in some cases things do get into the NEC by influence as I have witnessed it personally but it does not speak for the entire committee. What happens is (1) or (2) people with long-standing influence taint the committee because some on committees follow like blind sheep due to the respected nature of the person speaking. Yes, it is getting worse as more "sales" type technical folks get on the panels but to label them all as you all do....shameful and wrong.

However, you all have a long history of "twisting" folks words to meet your agenda so that's all good.....but clearly you do not know the CMP Panels and what it takes to get something in the NEC. If the manufacturers representative on the committee is well respected then YES they have influence BUT each person votes for their respective representation. for example, I represent AL and CU on different committees so when I ultimately vote it is at the will of the association and not for myself personally. My and other CMP's real role is to listen to the inputs and comments and determine their plausibility to safety and we listen to the various experts in the given field that are advocating for the change. And trust me I respect their knowledge way more than I would yours and I am sure that is mutual.
That's a great speech Paul but the bottom line is that nobody who represents a for-profit corporation should be on the code making panels. Money is a great corrupter of people's intentions no matter how rosy a picture you try to paint.
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
That's a great speech Paul but the bottom line is that nobody who represents a for-profit corporation should be on the code making panels. Money is a great corrupter of people's intentions no matter how rosy a picture you try to paint.
Again shows your ignorance in the process. I for example represent the Aluminum Association and Copper Development on CMP 5 and 17. If you don't have industry experts (and I could careless if you think I am or not) then you would have worse issues in the NEC. But then again this crap gets old......get on a panel and fix it fella since you have all the answers..LOL...I egarly await your fine work.
 

Adamjamma

Senior Member
As currently written the rule does not permit any type of remote disconnect, one of the reasons it that the rule is intended to remove all power inside of the building. A remotely operated disconnect that is inside the building does not do that.
well, one fear I have about the disconnects is the problem of theives or vandals, which is very common on homes...but also note a section of the proposed code.. this will not be service equipment rated... so, if ot is not service equipment it cannot be between the meter and the main breaker... but instead must have the main breaker installed ahead of it. So, you are talking a high amp variation of a three way switch loop, meter to main breaker, main breaker to firefighter disconnect, firefighter disconnect to breaker panel for #poco, and then somehow running the solar or wind or water power through another firefighter disconnect located in same area...

All of this done to make it easy for the firefighters to disconnect power at one spot, in theory, which also aids the thieves and vandals, but adds costs to the homeowner or builder, and, in reality, if one thinks about it, unless relays are used, low voltage ones for safety reasons, ie: 12 to 24 volts DC... you still have the probability of live wires in the structure or on the roof of the structure, especially when you have people such as myself who can and do modify grid tied gear such as microinverters to run off grid...

The use of low voltage relays means yes, there is still low voltages, 12 to 24 volts, present for the responders, but hopefully they will be trained in how to fully safe a solar system when working around it on a roof...IE, disconnect the quick connects at teh panel groups or switch off the various combiner boxes... as they move around them. Given the heights involved in my own area to get to the roofs, I am sure that mainly first responders would be the ones up on the roofs rather than thieves as the roof hight in my area averages 30 feet above ground...

Also, in my own area, breaker panels are normally on an inside wall, not an outside wall, in a hallway, due to the single thickness walls. Double walls like used in USA and UK are not normal..only cavities in walls here are those left by not filling the blocks with cement.

So, I would want to see remote switching allowed to shut down the various panels, especially with the no more than six disconnect rule as some of the homes I have dealt with have four breaker panels, each with its own generator or solar interlocks, plus a main panel, plus all the inverters etc... a big trick here is to use a few panels on microinverters specifically for the water pumps to bring the water from underground tanks to roof tanks , tricked to run in daytime from aan ac circuit running from another part of the systems in the house, or to run it directly from DC if a dc water pump was found from the suppliers... Since this is a dedicated system of only two to three panels, sometimes one panel even, and no actual breaker boxes run by some of the people, how to disconnect this without running a remote disconnect is one of the things I need to figure out as I see this way more than some people would think... I am in a country where people have to keep at least a weeks water on site, and where the local water company only supplying water to your neighborhood once per week or twice per week is considered a good water service..lol..
 

peter d

Senior Member
Again shows your ignorance in the process. I for example represent the Aluminum Association and Copper Development on CMP 5 and 17. If you don't have industry experts (and I could careless if you think I am or not) then you would have worse issues in the NEC. But then again this crap gets old......get on a panel and fix it fella since you have all the answers..LOL...I egarly await your fine work.
The industry should respond to the NEC rules with products, not the other way around. That's why anyone in the industry should be forbidden. The tail doesn't wag the dog. You can't see this or admit it because your paycheck comes from the industry and you sure aren't going to bite the hand that feeds you. :happyno:
 

Strathead

Senior Member
Late coming to this one, but one thing that has barely been mentioned but seems to me the most important part of this discussion. Standby power. This code would not turn power off at my house. From what I have read it also will not disconnect power from many solar homes.
 

Strathead

Senior Member
Welcome to Capitalism genius. If not for manufacturers you would still rubbing two sticks together to obtain fire. You clearly don't understand the "actual" makeup of a CMP but alas I would expect as much...:happysad:
A code of this magnitude should not be directed from a capitalistic manufacturer or installer. It should be a reaction to a requirement from the fire fighting agencies it is allegedly attempting to protect.
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Keeping in mind it s National Code, whenever folks discuss a service disconnect outside the house I think of some of our northern States.
 

packersparky

Senior Member
You all kill me....for those who say the NEC is overstepping ask yourself why California is now requiring all new one and two-family homes to have PV Solar Panels installed. Now guess that was manufacturers also or your legislators at work.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-becomes-first-state-require-solar-panels-new-homes-n872531
Apples and oranges. That law was passed by elected officials. There is recourse if those officials pass something their constituents do not like.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Apples and oranges. That law was passed by elected officials. There is recourse if those officials pass something their constituents do not like.
Exactly. Besides, it's just a distraction from the real issue which is undue manufacturer influence on the CMP. Even if you take the most optimistic view, one can't help but ask why manufacturers need to be part of the code making process. They make products, not code rules. They can make their products to conform to rules and standards. It's not that hard. That's why I say it's corrupt through and through.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Late coming to this one, but one thing that has barely been mentioned but seems to me the most important part of this discussion. Standby power. This code would not turn power off at my house. From what I have read it also will not disconnect power from many solar homes.
If the solar has a utility interactive inverter, the disconnection of the utility power will cause the inverter to shut down. A generator is another issue, but the code does require an external method to stop the prime mover for the generator. I expect that we will see a signage requirement at the emergency disconnect that would specific the location of any additional power sources in the future.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
A code of this magnitude should not be directed from a capitalistic manufacturer or installer. It should be a reaction to a requirement from the fire fighting agencies it is allegedly attempting to protect.
There were four PIs suggesting this rule. One from a retired industry person, one from an electrical contractor, one from a fire fighter associated with the International Association of Firefighters (the largest firefighter union) and one from the safety director of a large IBEW local. As Paul has pointed out, it take a 2/3s majority vote to accept a code change and no single interest group is permitted to have more than 1/3 of the total panel members on the CMP.

In many areas this already a common practice because of the local AHJs interpretation of the requirement that the service disconnect be nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. They, like myself, read the word "nearest" to mean exactly that...you enter the inside of the building and run directly into or directly up or down into the service equipment.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Exactly. Besides, it's just a distraction from the real issue which is undue manufacturer influence on the CMP. Even if you take the most optimistic view, one can't help but ask why manufacturers need to be part of the code making process. They make products, not code rules. They can make their products to conform to rules and standards. It's not that hard. That's why I say it's corrupt through and through.
While there are rules in the code that I don't like, there is ZERO basis to even suggest corruption. You are way off base here.
 

peter d

Senior Member
While there are rules in the code that I don't like, there is ZERO basis to even suggest corruption. You are way off base here.
Your world view is far more rosy and optimistic than mine. I stand by what I said - money and profit motivation corrupt even the best of intentions and desires and that includes the code making process. Look at how easily politicians are bought off and you're going to tell me that the code making process is somehow immune from corruption? Are you serious? :slaphead: I'd say you're the one who is off base.
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
While there are rules in the code that I don't like, there is ZERO basis to even suggest corruption. You are way off base here.


Read the ROPs. Look at the rules themselves vs physics and the real world. Then look at how code rules force more products.

Yes there is nothing out in the open beyond a doubt suggesting corruption, but just on the surface red flags are going up for me and it needs to be taken seriously starting now.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Manufacturers influencing CMP's to require the use of their own products by force and decree is not capitalism, that's pure corruption. As for CMP's, I understand them just fine and including manufacturers on them is one of the worst decisions the NEC ever made.
I don't have a problem with manufacturers being involved, they do know things and do a lot of research. Problem is they also do this for profit, they don't want to put a lot of research into something and have no return from it, this leads to some extent lobbying with as much positive information as possible for selling their perspective and to keep any negatives to a minimum, throw the name of safety in there a lot and it becomes an easier sell to others that aren't invested in the same ways.

Why isn't you or I on these CMP's, might not be that we aren't knowledgeable enough, just aren't in the right position or have the time to dedicate to it. I don't know enough about how it all works, I doubt the members are paid or at least receive any extraordinary pay directly for being a CMP, but they can receive pretty good pay from whoever they do ordinarily work for. I can see them maybe being paid enough to cover most of their direct costs related to being part of the CMP. If I wanted to pay myself extra for being involved in the code making process, I have to work even harder at my regular job to raise the funds.

Most first responders now understand that is not something they should be doing.

As a former first responder, it would be much more important to me to be able to disconnect a commercial structure than a one or two family dwelling unit. The risk is much great in structures that are not dwelling units.[/QUOTE]Which I ask why just one and two family dwellings? The rule does make some sense but then limiting it to just those two applications makes no sense at all.

That's a great speech Paul but the bottom line is that nobody who represents a for-profit corporation should be on the code making panels. Money is a great corrupter of people's intentions no matter how rosy a picture you try to paint.
Every rule you can make has an upside and a downside. If the rule in question benefits you in some way you focus on as much of the upside as possible, regardless of what the downsides may be. Not going to be many exceptions to this, not in today's world.

Again shows your ignorance in the process. I for example represent the Aluminum Association and Copper Development on CMP 5 and 17. If you don't have industry experts (and I could careless if you think I am or not) then you would have worse issues in the NEC. But then again this crap gets old......get on a panel and fix it fella since you have all the answers..LOL...I egarly await your fine work.
Kind of already addressed this above, industry experts are necessary, but at same time can't have too many involved with common benefits from whatever issue is the topic or it becomes too one sided. Too one sided means more focus on the positives and less attention on possible negatives.

A code of this magnitude should not be directed from a capitalistic manufacturer or installer. It should be a reaction to a requirement from the fire fighting agencies it is allegedly attempting to protect.
And there should be more studies done to verify if there is a need, and/or if different training is necessary.

Is under 1000 volts really that much of an issue for first responders that they shouldn't enter a burning building before power is shut down? By the time it is more significant of an issue the building might not be safe to enter, period, and there is nobody going to be successfully rescued at that point anyway.

You all kill me....for those who say the NEC is overstepping ask yourself why California is now requiring all new one and two-family homes to have PV Solar Panels installed. Now guess that was manufacturers also or your legislators at work.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-becomes-first-state-require-solar-panels-new-homes-n872531
Last I knew California law and the NEC were not written by the same people. California even writes their own electrical code, though the bulk of it comes directly from NEC AFAIK.

There were four PIs suggesting this rule. One from a retired industry person, one from an electrical contractor, one from a fire fighter associated with the International Association of Firefighters (the largest firefighter union) and one from the safety director of a large IBEW local. As Paul has pointed out, it take a 2/3s majority vote to accept a code change and no single interest group is permitted to have more than 1/3 of the total panel members on the CMP.

In many areas this already a common practice because of the local AHJs interpretation of the requirement that the service disconnect be nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. They, like myself, read the word "nearest" to mean exactly that...you enter the inside of the building and run directly into or directly up or down into the service equipment.
PI's can come from anybody, those with extra interest and time/money to pursue are the ones that keep it moving through the process or find ways to make it stall.
 

Strathead

Senior Member
While there are rules in the code that I don't like, there is ZERO basis to even suggest corruption. You are way off base here.
I think corruption is too strong of a word, and I don't advocate some sort of overreaction to a minor problem. We have too much of that already. However, the industry's influence on the issues we are talking about is obvious and often costly and the benefit questionable. My biggest pet peeve is arc fault. For example. In this case, if the intent is to protect fire fighters by giving a method of disconnecting power without entering a facility, then I have two comments. First and agreement that limiting it to dwelling units (just like with arc fault) makes me question the motive and as such it would be applicable to ALL facilities. Second, the wording. It should require exactly what its intent is. A means of ensuring all power is removed from the facility prior on the exterior of the building. In one place if also desired. How that is accomplished is purley means and methods and should not be in the code. In this case, meaning that shunt trip should be an option.
 

romex jockey

Senior Member
I think corruption is too strong of a word, and I don't advocate some sort of overreaction to a minor problem.
sure....

how's a capitalist system only sees capitalist remedies sound ?


~RJ~
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Or a solution to a problem that doesn't exist or nobody wants. Capitalists are good at turning that into $$$$.

-Hal
 
Last edited:

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
I'm reminded of the Saw Stop. An inventor invents and patents a product that stops a table saw blade before it cuts the operator. His invention should make him millions if saw manufacturers adopted his technology. But saw manufacturers balked at paying him the per saw licensing fee and weren't convinced that the safety brake system wasn't without major drawbacks or was even needed. Undaunted, the inventor petitions the CPSC to REQUIRE all manufacturers to use his technology. Fortunately that backfired also.

Maybe we need the government to get involved with what goes on within the NEC. Apparently the CPSC is involved with the AFCI debacle also.

CPSC commissioners in favor of the rule point out that the $200 price difference is dwarfed by the financial cost, and pain and harm caused by 30,000 ER visits and more than 4,000 amputations every year. CPSC's analysis puts the annual cost of table saw accidents at around $4 billion.

Susan Young with the industry group the Power Tool Institute claimed at the hearing that some of the commission's research in this area is flawed. She said the proposed rule needs even more study and "lacks essential data from critical studies currently being conducted and continuing throughout 2017."

CPSC Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle said she was also concerned that the rule might force companies to license technology from SawStop, which she said might create a monopoly.


Other commissioners said the rule wouldn't create some kind of unfair monopoly. They said that's not the CSPC's concern anyway — which companies win or lose because of a safety rule.

Sally Greenberg, the executive director of the National Consumers League, agrees. "That isn't their job. Their job is to get safer products to the marketplace," she says.


Meanwhile, Congress has thrown up a roadblock against safer saws.

The House Appropriations Committee approved a bill for the 2018 fiscal year that includes a clause prohibiting the CPSC from acting on table saw safety.
"None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to finalize any rule by the Consumer Product Safety Commission relating to blade-contact injuries on table saws," the rider on the budget bill reads.


The Power Tool Institute has already invested tens of thousands of dollars this year to lobby Congress against the CPSC rule.
Full article here:

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/10/542474093/despite-proven-technology-attempts-to-make-table-saws-safer-drag-on?sc=17&f=1001

-Hal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top