230.46 Rule Effective 1-1-2023

[shortcircuit2]

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?

 

[kwired]

If all it takes for most of them is to get them listed and/or marked they probably are already available. If they needed to change design to get them listed..... maybe not

 

[electrofelon]

I'm going to fight the temptation to go on a rant About this stupid pointless rule. More meaningless NEC bloat. NEC needs to stay in it's damn lane and stop weaseling into meddling in product standards.

 

[ggunn]

I'm going to fight the temptation to go on a rant About this stupid pointless rule. More meaningless NEC bloat. NEC needs to stay in it's damn lane and stop weaseling into meddling in product standards.

Thanks for not going on a rant.

 

[kwired]

I'm going to fight the temptation to go on a rant About this stupid pointless rule. More meaningless NEC bloat. NEC needs to stay in it's damn lane and stop weaseling into meddling in product standards.

Kind of have a good point there. This is something that you would think is already covered in NEC by 110.3. Let product or listing standards set the rules that go beyond 110.3.

 

[pv_n00b]

Typically things like this are added to the NEC to encourage the industry to go a certain direction. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. It's how we got PV system arc fault protection, DC ground fault fuses, and a few other things. For the most part, it is good for safety.

 

[kwired]

Typically things like this are added to the NEC to encourage the industry to go a certain direction. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. It's how we got PV system arc fault protection, DC ground fault fuses, and a few other things. For the most part, it is good for safety.

IMO it is a way for the one manufacturer that developed a particular product to start selling their product sooner instead of waiting three more years for the next code to come out. If only one manufacturer is making something that CMP determines to put into code, they won't put it in the upcoming code other than with a future starting date - to give others time to develop an equivalent product. Often that date is Jan 1 of the next coming code cycle. But not all that many jurisdictions are adopting the new code that soon. Some maybe six months or a year others several years before the adopt the new code.

I often wonder how we survived without such new products in the past, but when someone comes up with an idea it is a such a difference maker it can't wait until the next code so we put an effective date within the one we are in the process of creating.

 

[jaggedben]

I can no longer resist going on the rant that electrofelon resisted.

I can't quite figure out where this new rule originally came from because it comes from a Correlating Committee note that refers to a first revision I can't find. That is, this language was originally proposed in different sections and ended up in 230.46 in the Second Draft. It may have originated with an input from none other than Mike Holt to move an existing requirement from 314 because it really belonged in 230. All this is to say, while I'm not 100% certain, as far as I can tell...

The original language had nothing to do with "pressure connectors for splices and taps" and was limited to power distribution blocks. The CMP decided to go above and beyond any public input or previously existing requirement and add the requirement for pressure connectors.

There's a reason that the original requirement only applied to power distribution blocks, as Robert Osborne from UL explained in a second revision comment. Power distribution blocks are fixed to the enclosure and thus need to be strong enough to keep the conductor from blowing out of them (due to magnetic forces) in a short circuit situation. But pressure connectors can bounce around with the wires, so "a conductor is not likely to pull out of the connector". Because the connector just moves with the wire.

Nonetheless, the CMP ignored Osborne's informed comment, placed an uncalled-for mandate on UL to do more research and develop a new standard, even though, as member CMP Paul D. Barnhart stated in a comment on his affirmative vote, "Free floating splices have been commonplace on the line side of the service disconnect for decades and the CMP does NOT provide evidence that this longstanding practice has been problematic."

(emphasis added)

The whole thing confirms that the code making process is based more on speculation than evidence or responding to real-world incidents.

 

[jaggedben]

A cursory google search did not reveal any connectors listed to the new requirements. I would suspect that UL has dropped the ball or perhaps couldn't come up with new test requirements that made any sense. Or maybe the manufacturers have just been rolling their eyes and waiting to see who enforces this and which products we want them to get listed.

 

[wwhitney]

Nonetheless, the CMP ignored Osborne's informed comment, placed an uncalled-for mandate on UL to do more research and develop a new standard, even though, as member CMP Paul D. Barnhart stated in a comment on his affirmative vote, "Free floating splices have been commonplace on the line side of the service disconnect for decades and the CMP does NOT provide evidence that this longstanding practice has been problematic."

If there's no such UL standard as referenced in NEC text, and if UL agrees with the bolded text, then can't UL simply amend the relevant standard to say all pressure connectors are "suitable for use on the line side of service equipment"? Effectively mooting the new language.

Of course, that would require UL to take a position.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[shortcircuit2]

UL commented on this in the Winter 2023 IAEI magazine. It states that the connectors are under product category "ZMVV" and the marking would be on the connector, the smallest unit container or an information sheet placed in the smallest unit container with the marking "SR" or "Suitable for use on the line side of service equipment".

I went to UL Product IQ and went into the guide card for ZMVV and found no reference to any connector or the marking. I then looked at UL 486A&B which had nothing on connectors for use on line side of service equipment in the standard.

But there was a CSDS Proposal in UL 486A-468B on October 28 2022 which has langauge related to connectors used on the line side of service equipment.

So it seems as if nothing has been completed in the last 3-years to list a connector for use on the line-side of service equipment, but it may be in development.

 

[electrofelon]

I can no longer resist going on the rant that electrofelon resisted.

I can't quite figure out where this new rule originally came from because it comes from a Correlating Committee note that refers to a first revision I can't find. That is, this language was originally proposed in different sections and ended up in 230.46 in the Second Draft. It may have originated with an input from none other than Mike Holt to move an existing requirement from 314 because it really belonged in 230. All this is to say, while I'm not 100% certain, as far as I can tell...

The original language had nothing to do with "pressure connectors for splices and taps" and was limited to power distribution blocks. The CMP decided to go above and beyond any public input or previously existing requirement and add the requirement for pressure connectors.

There's a reason that the original requirement only applied to power distribution blocks, as Robert Osborne from UL explained in a second revision comment. Power distribution blocks are fixed to the enclosure and thus need to be strong enough to keep the conductor from blowing out of them (due to magnetic forces) in a short circuit situation. But pressure connectors can bounce around with the wires, so "a conductor is not likely to pull out of the connector". Because the connector just moves with the wire.

Nonetheless, the CMP ignored Osborne's informed comment, placed an uncalled-for mandate on UL to do more research and develop a new standard, even though, as member CMP Paul D. Barnhart stated in a comment on his affirmative vote, "Free floating splices have been commonplace on the line side of the service disconnect for decades and the CMP does NOT provide evidence that this longstanding practice has been problematic."

(emphasis added)

The whole thing confirms that the code making process is based more on speculation than evidence or responding to real-world incidents.

UL commented on this in the Winter 2023 IAEI magazine. It states that the connectors are under product category "ZMVV" and the marking would be on the connector, the smallest unit container or an information sheet placed in the smallest unit container with the marking "SR" or "Suitable for use on the line side of service equipment".

I went to UL Product IQ and went into the guide card for ZMVV and found no reference to any connector or the marking. I then looked at UL 486A&B which had nothing on connectors for use on line side of service equipment in the standard.

But there was a CSDS Proposal in UL 486A-468B on October 28 2022 which has langauge related to connectors used on the line side of service equipment.

So it seems as if nothing has been completed in the last 3-years to list a connector for use on the line-side of service equipment, but it may be in development.

Thanks for the great information guys. It just seems to me that this is a product standards issue. A lug or splice connector needs a certain degree of mechanical strength and I assume there is already some test for this? There are of course huge variations in AFC, and saying "line side of service eqiupment needs to be better or have this different listing" just seems incredibly worthless and arbitrary. And of course there is the "have there been any problems?" question.......

 

[hbiss]

Doesn't the POCO provide and install the connectors? At what point does the POCO equipment end and the customer's responsibility begin? At the center of the connector? Does the POCO follow the NEC?

-Hal

 

[jaggedben]

Doesn't the POCO provide and install the connectors?

No.

 

[jaggedben]

At what point does the POCO equipment end and the customer's responsibility begin?

At the service point, well upstream of where we're talking about.

 

[kwired]

Doesn't the POCO provide and install the connectors? At what point does the POCO equipment end and the customer's responsibility begin? At the center of the connector? Does the POCO follow the NEC?

-Hal

If you have a gutter and tap conductors within that gutter to go to 2 to 6 service disconnecting means, it might be on customer side of the service point.

 

[pv_n00b]

IMO it is a way for the one manufacturer that developed a particular product to start selling their product sooner instead of waiting three more years for the next code to come out. If only one manufacturer is making something that CMP determines to put into code, they won't put it in the upcoming code other than with a future starting date - to give others time to develop an equivalent product. Often that date is Jan 1 of the next coming code cycle. But not all that many jurisdictions are adopting the new code that soon. Some maybe six months or a year others several years before the adopt the new code.

I often wonder how we survived without such new products in the past, but when someone comes up with an idea it is a such a difference maker it can't wait until the next code so we put an effective date within the one we are in the process of creating.

Remember the 2014 NEC 705.12(D)(6)? That little jewel was put in by a manufacturer who thought they were going to sell 240V 2P CBs with AFIC for microinverter interconnection. But after it was in the NEC they decided it was too much trouble for the small market and never made the CB. So it just hung out in there until a TIA removed it. Sometimes putting something in the NEC will result in a new product being built, sometimes not. But it's a rough way to do it and is tough for everyone who has to use the NEC if the products never get built or are only built in limited quantities.

 

[raider1]

UL commented on this in the Winter 2023 IAEI magazine. It states that the connectors are under product category "ZMVV" and the marking would be on the connector, the smallest unit container or an information sheet placed in the smallest unit container with the marking "SR" or "Suitable for use on the line side of service equipment".

I went to UL Product IQ and went into the guide card for ZMVV and found no reference to any connector or the marking. I then looked at UL 486A&B which had nothing on connectors for use on line side of service equipment in the standard.

But there was a CSDS Proposal in UL 486A-468B on October 28 2022 which has langauge related to connectors used on the line side of service equipment.

So it seems as if nothing has been completed in the last 3-years to list a connector for use on the line-side of service equipment, but it may be in development.

UL Solutions issued a Certification Requirement Decision (CRD) in 2022 for UL 489A-489B with the requirements for evaluating wire splicing and tap connectors for use on the line side of the service equipment. This CRD then becomes a proposal to UL 489A-489B which is what you saw in the CSDS. So UL Solutions can Certify (List) wire connectors for use on the line side of the service equipment.

As identified in the UL Solutions Question Corner Article in the IAEI Magazine, wire splicing and tap connectors investigated for use on the line side of service equipment are marked on the connector, the smallest unit container or on an information sheet placed in the smallest unit container with one of the following: “SR” or “Suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment,” or equivalent.

I believe that the guide information for ZMVV is undergoing revisions currently to include the information on the marking requirements for wire splicing and tap conductors for use on the line side of the service equipment. I am not sure when the update to the guide information will be complete.

Here is a link to the IAEI UL Solutions Question Corner Article UL Solutions Question Corner

Chris

 

[wwhitney]

UL Solutions issued a Certification Requirement Decision (CRD) in 2022 for UL 489A-489B with the requirements for evaluating wire splicing and tap connectors for use on the line side of the service equipment.

So what are those requirements? What further tests will be done, and what danger does passing those tests protect us from?

Cheers, Wayne