230.46 Listed and identified connectors for line side taps

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

csoc64

Senior Member
Location
northeast
We are starting to get pushback from AHJ's about line side tap connectors - "Pressure connectors and devices for splices and taps installed on service conductors shall be marked “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent."". We typically use Burndys or piercing connectors, but neither is "marked". I am curious what others are using to meet this requriement.
 
ptonsparky

ptonsparky

Tom
Location
NE (9.06 miles @5.9 Degrees from Winged Horses)
Occupation
EC - retired
I used the piercing connectors to split paralleled 4/0 into a pair of side by side panels. Done deal and I had moved on when a factory rep said, 'Oh No, not allowed.' To late, inspector was happy, customer paid, I was gone. That was close to 30 years ago. I'm surprised it took this long for things to catch up.
 
electrofelon

electrofelon

Senior Member
Location
Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
Yes in their infinite wisdom, the NEC made up a new requirement, addressing a "problem" which doesn't even exist, that requires a new product standard that doesn't even exist yet, so now we have no products available for use. The NEC/CMP's just seem to get more and more dysfunctional every year. Here is another thread on the issue:

IPC 240.36

240.36 states " Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps shall be listed. Power distribution blocks installed on service conductors shall be marked “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent. Effective January 1, 2023...
forums.mikeholt.com
 
J

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
See here for my rant on this, in yet another thread:

230.46 Rule Effective 1-1-2023

Pressure connectors and devices installed on service conductors shall be marked "suitable for use on the line side of service equipment" This 2020 NEC rule becomes effective Janurary 1st 2023 Are there any connectors or devices available to meet this 3-year delayed rule?
forums.mikeholt.com
 
P

pv_n00b

Senior Member
Location
CA, USA
Occupation
Professional Electrical Engineer
Yeah, the NFPA loves to create requirements that require products and standards that don't exist to try to stimulate the industry to provide. Just off the top of my head that got us GFDI, disconnects in DC combiners, DC Combiner listing, DC arc fault detectors, etc. It has also failed a few times and they had to remove requirements when no one stepped up to provide.
The people on the CMP I talk to about this happening just point to 90.4 where it says if new products are not available the AHJ may allow the installation to follow the previous code version.
 
electrofelon

electrofelon

Senior Member
Location
Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
pv_n00b said:
Yeah, the NFPA loves to create requirements that require products and standards that don't exist to try to stimulate the industry to provide. Just off the top of my head that got us GFDI, disconnects in DC combiners, DC Combiner listing, DC arc fault detectors, etc. It has also failed a few times and they had to remove requirements when no one stepped up to provide.
The people on the CMP I talk to about this happening just point to 90.4 where it says if new products are not available the AHJ may allow the installation to follow the previous code version.
Click to expand...
Right but they should know damn well that they're going to be plenty of ahj's that won't evoke 90.4, and sure enough we have heard that some are not. They should have wrote 90.4 to say "must" instead of "May", but again this organization is incredibly incompetent.
 
A

analog8484

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Tech
Just curious, does anyone know the decision process to add new NEC or NFPA requirements? Does it require significant documented problems in the field as a criterion?
 
P

pv_n00b

Senior Member
Location
CA, USA
Occupation
Professional Electrical Engineer
electrofelon said:
Right but they should know damn well that they're going to be plenty of ahj's that won't evoke 90.4, and sure enough we have heard that some are not. They should have wrote 90.4 to say "must" instead of "May", but again this organization is incredibly incompetent.
Click to expand...
I point this out and everyone I have talked to on the CMP really does think that 90.4 is an easy thing to use to get around bad code writing. Zero awareness of the difficulties of real-world PV construction and how much trouble some AHJs can be.
 
G

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
pv_n00b said:
I point this out and everyone I have talked to on the CMP really does think that 90.4 is an easy thing to use to get around bad code writing. Zero awareness of the difficulties of real-world PV construction and how much trouble some AHJs can be.
Click to expand...
Some of the AHJs we deal with have invoked 90.4 and will not enforce 230.46 until such products become available, but some have not. The good news (if it is indeed news) is that in many discussions of this at the NABCEP conference this week, what I heard several times was "in a couple of months". The holdup has been UL themselves; they had three years to develop a standard and a testing procedure, but they didn't do it.
 
P

pv_n00b

Senior Member
Location
CA, USA
Occupation
Professional Electrical Engineer
ggunn said:
The holdup has been UL themselves; they had three years to develop a standard and a testing procedure, but they didn't do it.
Click to expand...
Cold molasses and the UL standards-making process move at the same speed. Getting a new standard issued is a 4-5 year process, partially because the CMPs are all staffed with volunteers who do this in their spare time and can't put a solid 40 hours a week into writing a standard.
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
jaggedben said:
I gather that pv_noobs comments about staffing apply to both.
Click to expand...
In both cases, the members who work for manufactures almost always have a full time job with a job description of "codes and standards development" or something like that. In both case the members are volunteers, but the time lag is partly from the policies and procedures for the development of an ANSI standard as set out by ANSI.
In the case of UL Standards, often paid staff create proposals that the TC acts on, just like the public creates PIs for the CMPs to act on.
 
P

pv_n00b

Senior Member
Location
CA, USA
Occupation
Professional Electrical Engineer
don_resqcapt19 said:
In both cases, the members who work for manufactures almost always have a full time job with a job description of "codes and standards development" or something like that. In both case the members are volunteers, but the time lag is partly from the policies and procedures for the development of an ANSI standard as set out by ANSI.
In the case of UL Standards, often paid staff create proposals that the TC acts on, just like the public creates PIs for the CMPs to act on.
Click to expand...
This has not been my experience with UL STPs. The standard is based on input from the STP members, not UL. UL provides some guidance to make sure the wording fits the current style manual and can be implemented. There is typically one UL representative on the STP and a UL-provided administrative support person. The UL representative is not the SPT lead. To say that UL provides a proposed standard that the STP then reviews totally discounts the work that volunteers put into the standards. With a new standard, the STP starts with a blank paper.
While some companies have a staff person whose job is just codes and standards not that many in the PV industry do. At best the typical member gets permission to attend meetings on company time, as long as that is not too much time. Because it's volunteer, meetings are short and not that often. It just takes a lot of time with all those constraints to get to a final standard. After the STP has voted to approve the final standard then it is up to UL to get it published and out to the NRTLs. The NRTLs then have to prepare testing appropriate for the standard. Then manufacturers have to decide to list their products. This all takes years from start to finish. It takes 3 years to get an NEC revision out, why think that getting a new UL standard out would take less time?
 
Last edited:
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
pv_n00b said:
This has not been my experience with UL STPs. The standard is based on input from the STP members, not UL. UL provides some guidance to make sure the wording fits the current style manual and can be implemented. There is typically one UL representative on the STP and a UL-provided administrative support person. The UL representative is not the SPT lead. To say that UL provides a proposed standard that the STP then reviews totally discounts the work that volunteers put into the standards. With a new standard, the STP starts with a blank paper.
While some companies have a staff person whose job is just codes and standards not that many in the PV industry do. At best the typical member gets permission to attend meetings on company time, as long as that is not too much time. Because it's volunteer, meetings are short and not that often. It just takes a lot of time with all those constraints to get to a final standard. After the STP has voted to approve the final standard then it is up to UL to get it published and out to the NRTLs. The NRTLs then have to prepare testing appropriate for the standard. Then manufacturers have to decide to list their products. This all takes years from start to finish. It takes 3 years to get an NEC revision out, why think that getting a new UL standard out would take less time?
Click to expand...
All of the UL technical committees that I am on have had the major changes written by UL staff and then modified by TC member input.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top