2020 Fire Fighter Disco 1 & 2 Family Dwellings 230.85

Status
Not open for further replies.

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
Location
New England
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
Location
Tennessee
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
Location
Wisconsin
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
Location
New England
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
Location
Illinois
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
Location
Illinois
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
Location
Illinois
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
Location
New England
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

Batteries Not Included
Location
United States
Occupation
*
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
Location
NE Nebraska
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.
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
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