OCPD enclosures can no longer can be mounted flat on the roof under the 2020 NEC

[pv_n00b]

There was a change in the 2020 NEC 240.33 that no longer allows OCPD enclosures to be mounted horizontally under some circumstances.
It was changed from: Enclosures for overcurrent devices shall be mounted in a vertical position unless that is shown to be impracticable.
To: Enclosures for overcurrent devices shall be mounted in a vertical position.
It seems to me that this would apply to AC and DC fused combiners and to string inverters with fused inputs. What's everyone's take on this?

 

[pv_n00b]

Such silence. Does no one have a comment on this?

 

[petersonra]

Does not affect me so don't care.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You are correct that the rule in 240.33 would apply. It may have already been prohibited by the manufacturer's instructions for the combiner enclosure as some enclosure instructions prohibit cover up installations.

 

[pv_n00b]

I see a lot of fused DC and AC combiners laying down on roofs of commercial PV installations, or even small combiners like the SolaDeck on residential roofs. Anyway, seems like no one sees this as an issue. Good to know.

 

[Hv&Lv]

So I have a question..
maybe stupid but here goes..

would this apply to something like a generator breaker say in a generac unit where the breaker is face up?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I see a lot of fused DC and AC combiners laying down on roofs of commercial PV installations, or even small combiners like the SolaDeck on residential roofs. Anyway, seems like no one sees this as an issue. Good to know.

Lots of times it takes awhile for all of the issues to be worked out. It appears that if this is an issue for the solar industry, they should have submitted PIs for the 2023 code.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So I have a question..
maybe stupid but here goes..

would this apply to something like a generator breaker say in a generac unit where the breaker is face up?

It would not apply to a breaker installed in the generator by the generator manufacturer.

 

[jusme123]

It would not apply to a breaker installed in the generator by the generator manufacturer.

Why not, does the hazard change because a manufacture installed it ?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Why not, does the hazard change because a manufacture installed it ?

It changes because the NEC has no authority over how a manufacturer builds the products.

 

[tortuga]

It changes because the NEC has no authority over how a manufacturer builds the products.

Yes a manufacturer is free to make what ever they want and get whom ever they want to 'list' it, but they hate returns, bad reviews and tech support issues.
The AJH's (insurance, OSHA, construction inspector) has final say on whether it will be connected , if they accept the listing, and if it can be used in their jurisdiction.
And the NEC gives some guidance on that decision:
90.7 last sentence, in regards to equipment:

Suitability shall be determined by application of requirements
that are compatible with this Code.

110.3

(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such
as the following shall be evaluated:

Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the
provisions of this Code

If you ever work in product development and listing with ETL or UL they are very concerned about the sections in the NEC called 'construction specifications', also the NEC dictates lots of details like nameplates on motors.
For example see part 7 of article 410.
Installers usually skim over these sections.
Manufacturers dont like any code ambiguity, and like their products to comply with the NEC,

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yes a manufacturer is free to make what ever they want and get whom ever they want to 'list' it, but they hate returns, bad reviews and tech support issues.The manufacturer of listed products builds the product in compliance with the listing standard that applies to that type of equipment.

While often there is alignment between the NEC and the listing standard, that is not always the case. The case of the face up OCPD is one of those issues. There are at least two types of panels that are permitted to have faceup OCPDs by the product standards and tying to resolve that is creating issues with the 2023 code development as there is no alternative method for one of those products that would keep the product usable for its intended function.

The AJH's (insurance, OSHA, construction inspector) has final say on whether it will be connected , if they accept the listing, and if it can be used in their jurisdiction.
And the NEC gives some guidance on that decision:
90.7 last sentence, in regards to equipment:

Read the sentence before the last one as it tells you there is no need to look at the internal construction of a listed product. The last sentence is to make sure that the product is used within its listing. For example, not permitting a luminiare listed for dry locations to be installed in a wet location.

110.3

If you ever work in product development and listing with ETL or UL they are very concerned about the sections in the NEC called 'construction specifications', also the NEC dictates lots of details like nameplates on motors.
For example see part 7 of article 410.
Installers usually skim over these sections.
Manufacturers dont like any code ambiguity, and like their products to comply with the NEC,

I am on a few of the UL STPs...the groups that write the product standards. There are things where we are very careful about the NEC requirements, and others where the NEC does not enter into the process.

As far as Part 7 of Article 410, I expect that and parts like that in other articles to be removed from the 2023 code as the rules in those parts are outside the scope of the code. It is also a code update issue as those parts reflect the requirements of the product standards and when the product standards are changed, that triggers a code change.

 

[RumRunner]

. . . . I am on a few of the UL STPs...the groups that write the product standards. There are things where we are very careful about the NEC requirements, and others where the NEC does not enter into the process.

As far as Part 7 of Article 410, I expect that and parts like that in other articles to be removed from the 2023 code as the rules in those parts are outside the scope of the code. It is also a code update issue as those parts reflect the requirements of the product standards and when the product standards are changed, that triggers a code change.

Based on your drivel, what does NEC have to do about the creation of products that may or may not be suitable for mass usage.
Your statement is a conflation about the role that NEC plays (or none at all) in the product design for sale to users.
There are several agencies like ANSI, ASTM, UL et al and the mandates of the DOE that cover this line of responsibilities.

NEC is simply an installation instruction manual. . .not a guidance on how a product should be designed.
Product design is a broad concept that encompasses a plethora of ideas and generation of those ideas that can lead to creation of state of the art products that are considered safe.

You are overreaching and going beyond the role of the NEC-- that user rely-- on how an equipment should be installed. . . not on how a product should be made.

Just follow the manufacturers recommended installation guide. . . and get your tools to install it.
Design engineers do those things for a living and they possess formal education and credentials to enable them to do such things . . . electricians slug around their much-needed tool pouch.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Based on your drivel, what does NEC have to do about the creation of products that may or may not be suitable for mass usage.
Your statement is a conflation about the role that NEC plays (or none at all) in the product design for sale to users.
There are several agencies like ANSI, ASTM, UL et al and the mandates of the DOE that cover this line of responsibilities.

NEC is simply an installation instruction manual. . .not a guidance on how a product should be designed.
Product design is a broad concept that encompasses a plethora of ideas and generation of those ideas that can lead to creation of state of the art products that are considered safe.

You are overreaching and going beyond the role of the NEC-- that user rely-- on how an equipment should be installed. . . not on how a product should be made.

Just follow the manufacturers recommended installation guide. . . and get your tools to install it.
Design engineers do those things for a living and they possess formal education and credentials to enable them to do such things . . . electricians slug around their much-needed tool pouch.

I have no idea of what your are talking about as my post said the product design and construction rules do not belong in the code. Maybe you need to go back and read what my comment actually said.

You mentioned Part VII of Article 410, which is information that belongs in the product standards and I said, it is likely that Part VII will not appear in the 2023 code for that very reason.

That being said, there is interaction between the product standards with the standards driving changes in the code in some cases, and the code driving changes in the product standards in other cases.
For example the change in 230.62(C) in the 2020 code that requires line side barriers on the live parts of all types of service equipment is driving product standard changes for products that can be used as service equipment, but did not require the line side barriers in previous codes.

As far as just following the manufacturers instructions, that is fine as long as there is no conflict between those instructions and the code, but where the code requires something like GFCI protection and the product instructions say do not connect to a GFCI protected circuit, the code rule must be complied with. A manufacturer's instruction cannot be used to permit something that the code prohibits.

 

[RumRunner]

As stated: "I am on a few of the UL STPs. . .the groups that write the products standard. "
Those are your words.

Since you consider yourself as someone with influence--by way of contrived statements, you should instead be a model for tradesmen (electricians) to put themselves where they belong and be proud of the career they've pursued.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

As stated: "I am on a few of the UL STPs. . .the groups that write the products standard. "
Those are your words.

Since you consider yourself as someone with influence--by way of contrived statements, you should instead be a model for tradesmen (electricians) to put themselves where they belong and be proud of the career they've pursued.

No...the STPs are groups that write consensus standards just like the way the code making panels write the code, and just like the code making panels, the STPs are required to have people from various parts of the electrical industry, and and just like the code panels, no more than 1/3 of a panel can be from any one group. One of the groups that are on both code making panels and STPs are people who represent the AHJs.

As far as your last sentence, once again, I have no idea of what you are trying to say, and makes ZERO sense to me.

 

[RumRunner]

You keep saying that my words don't make sense. Maybe in your thinking you believe it is. I can't help it if your comprehension is limited.

In every endeavor that we choose, there is a niche for us to become useful contribution to society in a most honorable way. It doesn't matter what kind of calling we get involved in --each one of of us has a role to play.

A ditch digger, a grave digger or a trash collector are just as important as you and me. The thing that needs to be considered is-- be the best that you can be.

Strive to be the best electrician or be the best engineer. . . respect would be at hand and quit being one that you are not.

 

[tortuga]

NEC have to do about the creation of products that may or may not be suitable for mass usage.

Myspark, historically in the early days of electricity up until the post war era electricians fabricated lots of common items that were installed such as boxes, cabinets, busbar, motors, generators, transformers and lighting fixtures.
The NEC has contained guidance for electricians and manufacturers to make these items themselvs for many years with out the need for another standard.

You mentioned Part VII of Article 410, which is information that belongs in the product standards and I said, it is likely that Part VII will not appear in the 2023 code for that very reason.

I see moving construction standards out of the code as a bad move in terms of transparency and law, to buy the UL standards on lighting a local inspection department would have to spend 1000's of dollars,
and besides UL standards are not enforceable.
So manufacturers would be free to move to whatever standard is the lowest cost.

I dont think the authenticity and quality of products can be blanket trusted if they have a 'UL' label.
If the basic construction standards are in the code book electricians can be familiar with product safety and spot counterfeit products.
And there is nothing in the code that requires a 'UL' standard to be used, so if the basics are in the code that eliminates other noncompatible product standards.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You keep saying that my words don't make sense. Maybe in your thinking you believe it is. I can't help it if your comprehension is limited.
...

And I can't help it that you have no idea how to covey your thoughts in writing.

 

[RumRunner]

. . . No...the STPs are groups that write consensus standards just like the way the code making panels write the code, and just like the code making panels,
the STPs are required to have people from various parts of the electrical industry, and and just like the code panels, no more than 1/3 of a panel can be from any one group. One of the groups that are on both code making panels and STPs are people who represent the AHJs.

As far as your last sentence, once again, I have no idea of what you are trying to say, and makes ZERO sense to me.

What consensus standards are you talking about. Consensus is non- existent in the NEC community in terms of various interpretations of some articles. Just look around how electricians, contractors and even AHJs often wrangle on something should be done one way-- and the other says it should be done that way.

That's one reason the NEC is not a FEDERAL LAW.

In fact there are three states in the Union that don't adopt NEC on statewide basis. . . only locally as a municipal ordinance. (on their own choice.)
Just like NO PARKING on drop-off section of a sidewalk.

I don't have to mention those three states and provide details on such banal information. . . .just google it yourself to find out.

BTW:
Know the in-depth usage (consensus standards) and meaning of the phrase to make yourself believable.