230.2 690.56 & 705.10

[david]

I am having a tense disagreement with a PV contractor, 230.2, 690.56, 705.10

I am asking for signage at the normal service disconnect location.

(NFPA 70 / 705.10 Directory.
A permanent plaque or directory, denoting all electric power sources on or in the premises, shall be installed at each service equipment location and at locations of all electric power production sources capable of being interconnected.)

In support of that request I also made note of 690.56 and 230.2 for consideration.

The only reference the PV contractor is willing to reference is 690.56 based on 690.3 “other articles”.

His position is this since the Utility company requires signage at the meter location and he must comply with their requirement before the utility will allow inter connection with their utility he has complied with 690.56 since 690.56 does not state that the signage has to be at the normal service disconnecting means.

Hs second very blunt statement is that 705.10 is different than 690.56 and he quotes “wherever the requirements of other articles of this Code and Article 690 differ, the requirements of Article 690 shall apply “ based on 690.3

This is a line side interconnection point at the meter location and (he) is insisting that I am trying to define the PV equipment as service equipment otherwise I have no right to require anything at the existing service disconnecting location, since what he installed is PV equipment and has nothing to do with the existing utility service.

I want signage at the normal service disconnect location in the basement of this dwelling.

I agree that 690.56 does not indicate in its language the location of the signage. I also agree that the utility company requires signage at their meter location. I disagree that because 690.56 does not designate a location that I as the authority or one representing the authorities interest cannot designate where the authority wants the signage.

I see no conflict between 690.56 and 705.10 even though the details are different in both sections in that 705.10 is more specific in designating the location of that signage requirement. Of course his position is 690.3 doesn’t say the sections have to be in conflict it’s just says if the requirements are different.

Thirdly I disagree that when you “tap” the load side of a meter enclosure in this case change out the existing meter to provide one sized to double lug the load side, that you are not touching the existing service.

I do not believe that I am trying to define the PV equipment as a service disconnect because a am asking for signage at the existing service disconnect as if the requirement was based on 230.2 or part IV of article 230.

 

[GoldDigger]

For the most part 690 deals with the DC wiring and 705 deals with the AC wiring. It is hard for a provision of one to conflict with the other.
Where each requires signage, you will often end up with two sets of signage.

 

[david]

For the most part 690 deals with the DC wiring and 705 deals with the AC wiring. It is hard for a provision of one to conflict with the other.
Where each requires signage, you will often end up with two sets of signage.

NFPS 70 -2008
His argument is a building having a PV source that interconnects with a utility (normal) system is required signage by article 690. However article 690 does not state where the signage placement is required to be posted. Therefore once he has satisfied the utilities policy of requiring the signage in the immediate vacuity of there meter location he has satisfied article 690 requirements for signage.

I cannot go to article 230 or article 705 and require anything from those articles that differs in any way from article 690 referencing 690.3 as his bases for his understanding.

His argument is article 705 may require signage, but since it adds a different requirement specifically where the signage has to be located, that differs from article 690 so 690.1 would prohibit that requirement from being enforceable to a PV utility interactive system.

If you mention article 230 just as a point to consider that the normal system disconnecting means usually always has signage when more than one source is involved other than the utility service.
Now you have a huge fight because you in his understanding are trying to define PV system equipment as utility service disconnect.

 

[Smart $]

Point) 690.56 does not say its permanent plaque or directory shall be the only permanent plaque or directory. As GD stated, there may be two or more, and the two to more are specified in 705.10, so there is no conflict with 690.56 via 690.3 because plaques/directories two and up will be a different plaque or directory. :happyyes:

If you are AHJ representative, grow some balls. :lol:

 

[jim dungar]

690.56 requires a plaque or directory showing the "location of the .... disconnecting means".
705.10 requires a plaque or directory showing the "location of all electric power sources"

Two different code sections requiring two different pieces of information. All disconnects have sources, but not all sources have disconnects.

I agree with the others; 690.3 is not applicable.

 

[david]

Point) 690.56 does not say its permanent plaque or directory shall be the only permanent plaque or directory. As GD stated, there may be two or more, and the two to more are specified in 705.10, so there is no conflict with 690.56 via 690.3 because plaques/directories two and up will be a different plaque or directory. :happyyes:

If you are AHJ representative, grow some balls. :lol:

It’s not a matter of that, PV contractors already have a chip on their shoulders, feeling they are experts who specialized in a niche and have the expertise in this field that the electrical inspectors lack.

In part I understand why some of these contractors fill this way, after browsing different solar internet sites. There seem to be a general consensus that there is going to be a confrontation between the PV system installer and the enforcement community.

The building Code Officials, the actual “Authority “have little or no exposure to the solar industry. When a disagreement between an electrical official and a solar contractor happens, The building official is slammed by the PV contractor who can make claim to having installed hundreds of these systems in other areas and (jurisdictions). You can call such and such an inspector in this municipality and this other inspector in this other jurisdiction. Your inspector is just flat out wrong.

My report gets written to the building official that the installation is not in compliance giving verse and number and a corrective action then ………..nothing happens. All you can figure is the installer got the officials ear and was persuasive enough that the Building Code Official took no action on the report you passed up the ladder. When you ask about the report you may hear something like I’m still researching that. The Building Code Official looks at you like I would trust your findings on this but these guys are PV installers all they do is solar.

On the other hand the solar systems are relatively a new industry that is just starting to expand in this area.
The systems are new to the enforcement community and there are times when the solar contractors knowledge of these systems exceeds the enforcement community.

You say grow a pair I am one of the few officials that has had a willingness to challenge this installers interpretation and understanding of his application of the NEC sections

 

[david]

690.56 requires a plaque or directory showing the "location of the .... disconnecting means".
705.10 requires a plaque or directory showing the "location of all electric power sources"

Two different code sections requiring two different pieces of information. All disconnects have sources, but not all sources have disconnects.

I agree with the others; 690.3 is not applicable.

I agree that there is no conflict with 705 .10 requiring the location where a plaques or directories are to be placed.

When the building Code official ask me is this requiring something different I have to say that 609.56 requires a plague at no specified location with such and such information and 705.10 specific locations with such and such information. The contractor states 690.3 to the building official and the building official says “do these sections have different requirements?”


“at each service equipment location and at locations of all electric power production sources capable of being interconnected.”

I try and explain they are not in conflict and the contractors says 690.3 only states that they have to be different.

690.56 Identification of Power Sources.
(B) Facilities with Utility Services and PV Systems. Buildings or structures with both utility service and a photovoltaic system shall have a permanent plaque or directory providing the location of the service disconnecting means and the photovoltaic system disconnecting means if not located at the same location

705.10 Directory.
A permanent plaque or directory, denoting all electric power sources on or in the premises, shall be installed at each service equipment location and at locations of all electric power production sources capable of being interconnected.
Exception: Installations with large numbers of power production sources shall be permitted to be designated by groups.

 

[Smart $]

I agree that there is no conflict with 705 .10 requiring the location where a plaques or directories are to be placed.

When the building Code official ask me is this requiring something different I have to say that 609.56 requires a plague at no specified location with such and such information and 705.10 specific locations with such and such information. The contractor states 690.3 to the building official and the building official says “do these sections have different requirements?”


“at each service equipment location and at locations of all electric power production sources capable of being interconnected.”

I try and explain they are not in conflict and the contractors says 690.3 only states that they have to be different.

690.56 Identification of Power Sources.
(B) Facilities with Utility Services and PV Systems. Buildings or structures with both utility service and a photovoltaic system shall have a permanent plaque or directory providing the location of the service disconnecting means and the photovoltaic system disconnecting means if not located at the same location

705.10 Directory.
A permanent plaque or directory, denoting all electric power sources on or in the premises, shall be installed at each service equipment location and at locations of all electric power production sources capable of being interconnected.
Exception: Installations with large numbers of power production sources shall be permitted to be designated by groups.

MAIN POINT

 

[jim dungar]

I try and explain they are not in conflict and the contractors says 690.3 only states that they have to be different.

In my mind the issue is the information is unrelated therefore both are required.

In your present job, all you can do is note the non-compliance with the code.

 

[david]

MAIN POINT
View attachment 13385

I tried that, the PV contractor argument then becomes article 705 is general to all utility interactive sources and article 690 is specific when the utility interactive system is PV. So in other word since the specific requirements for PV systems are covered in article 690, then article 690 PV requirements trump article 705 general requirements then he goes back to 690.3

 

[Smart $]

I tried that, the PV contractor argument then becomes article 705 is general to all utility interactive sources and article 690 is specific when the utility interactive system is PV. So in other word since the specific requirements for PV systems are covered in article 690, then article 690 PV requirements trump article 705 general requirements then he goes back to 690.3

Yes, but Article 690.3 only covers to the PV System. That extends from the PV panels to the PV-side of the PV system disconnect(s).

Article 705 has a broader coverage (in my mind, that means it carries more "weight") in that it covers all interconnected power production systems. The other side of the PV System disconnect is not the PV system any longer. In fact it is considered a service entrance conductor under Article 230... which also is where the line-side connection is permitted.... and that is where Article 705's coverage trumps Article 690's.

 

[david]

Yes, but Article 690.3 only covers to the PV System. That extends from the PV panels to the PV-side of the PV system disconnect(s).

Article 705 has a broader coverage (in my mind, that means it carries more "weight") in that it covers all interconnected power production systems. The other side of the PV System disconnect is not the PV system any longer. In fact it is considered a service entrance conductor under Article 230... which also is where the line-side connection is permitted.... and that is where Article 705's coverage trumps Article 690's.

He has presented one last argument when dealing with 690 specific requirements in regards to article 705. In support to his argument he states that 690.3 directs us to article 705 but in very limited application in that 690.3 Other Articles insisting that if article 750.10 was intended to be applied to article 690 applications than 750.10 would have been noted in 690.3 reference to article 705
His position is 705 only applies to article 690 when the PV system in operating in parallel with the primary source and only to the extent article 705 is referenced in 690.3 specifically

“Article 690 shall apply and, if the system is operated in parallel with a primary source(s) of electricity, the requirements in 705.14, 705.16, 705.32, and 705.143 shall apply. “

 

[jaggedben]

I actually think to a certain extent the contractor's arguments make sense. Mind you I generally don't object to labeling requirements if they are in the code; the guy being argumentative about providing people with information doesn't gain my sympathy. But it would be better if 690.56 referenced 705.10 instead of having its own wording. I dislike redundancy in the code and tend to think that the articles on specific equipment should refer to the more general requirements in other articles as appropriate. For example I've thought that as much as possible requirements dealing with AC circuitry should be removed from 690 or modified to refer to appropriate parts of 705 (or 702!).

It would also help deal with these kind of logic puzzles.

 

[Smart $]

He has presented one last argument when dealing with 690 specific requirements in regards to article 705. In support to his argument he states that 690.3 directs us to article 705 but in very limited application in that 690.3 Other Articles insisting that if article 750.10 was intended to be applied to article 690 applications than 750.10 would have been noted in 690.3 reference to article 705
His position is 705 only applies to article 690 when the PV system in operating in parallel with the primary source and only to the extent article 705 is referenced in 690.3 specifically

“Article 690 shall apply and, if the system is operated in parallel with a primary source(s) of electricity, the requirements in 705.14, 705.16, 705.32, and 705.143 shall apply. “

And 705.3 says...

"Interconnected electric power production sources shall comply with this article and also with the applicable requirements of the articles in Table 705.3", in which Article 690 is listed.

Complying with both is not different or in conflict.

 

[Smart $]

...

Complying with both is not different or in conflict.

705.10 doesn't tell you to do something different than 690.56... it tells you to do something in addition to 690.56.

 

[david]

Thank you, for your insight and your knowledgeable comments on these sections of the code. As an electrical inspector I will continue to work with different contractors all with their different prospective.

And I will continue to try and be direct and as informative as I can be when my understanding of certain section of the code is not embraced by a contractor, and also at times the building code official who is not required to be knowledgeable in the technical areas in which he has the responsibility to enforce and administer the code.

The PV contractor will move on to his next installation for the most part un-challenged by the enforcement community. I have been in the electrical field since 1981 when I left the military as a fire direction specialist at Fort Sill Oklahoma. A lot of the electrical inspectors have no experience as electricians and a lot of the Building Code officials have no experience at all in construction, yet they are given and taking on the responsibility of a construction code.

I had the opportunity to ask the PV contractor why he was trenching in on an issue like signage that would be informative and serve as a flag to someone else. He said I know my Job and I know my installations are code compliant and safe and I will not be pushed around by some inspector.

Sorry about the 705 (750) mistakes, you try doing this with your eight year old sitting on your lap thinking she might be getting a puppy tomorrow.

 

[jaggedben]

705.10 doesn't tell you to do something different than 690.56... it tells you to do something in addition to 690.56.

The problem with 'different' is that it basically opens up the argument that the entire rest of the code does not apply. Everything else in the code that doesn't say the same thing as something in 690 is a 'different' requirement, right? :ashamed1: Now I can see where some of these PV contractors get the hairbrained idea that nothing in the code applies to them if it's outside of 690.

 

[Smart $]

...Now I can see where some of these PV contractors get the hairbrained idea...

And as sad as it is, that is the proper terminology. :happyyes:

 

[GoldDigger]

And as sad as it is, that is the proper terminology. :happyyes:

Although some would say harebrained instead.
Digression: Harebrained as in having no more sense than a hare (~rabbit).
Around the time the expression first appeared the word "hare" was spelled "hair" in Scotland, leaving some confusion about the possibility of a person having just more hair where his brain should be.

 

[Smart $]

Although some would say harebrained instead.
...

That works, too.