2020 Fire Fighter Disco 1 & 2 Family Dwellings 230.85

Status
Not open for further replies.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top