1. In addition, there's a conflict of signal words for NEC 110.21(B) Field-Applied Hazard Markings."Where caution, warning, or danger signs or labels are required by this Code, the labels shall meet the following requirements ..." In other words, one signal word is DANGER and the other signal word is WARNING. Simply, DANGER *will* result in ... and WARNING *could* result in ...
2. Specifically, in NEC 2020 690.31(D)(2) the signal word of WARNING" was *removed* and does not now appear to conflict? In California, 2017 NEC/2019 CEC 690.31(G)(3) still has the WARNING signal word. By the way, NEC 392.18(H) refers to 110.21(B). BTW, more information ANSI Z535 is found here: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/nema/ansiz5352011r2017-1668874 All the best, Martin Herzfeld, Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) Certified Master Trainer ™ for Photovoltaics (PV) Installation Professional #IREC 10037 Contract Training Provider (CTP) Adjunct Professor, Energy - Since 2016 California Solar & Electrical Contractor License #00833782 C46, C10, D56, D31, C-7 - Since 2004 Solar, Electrical, Trenching, Pole Installation & Maintenance, Instrumentation Contract Solar (PV) Technical Inspector - 3rd Party Inspections Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Certified PV Installer #17, OSHA 30 OSHA-Authorized Construction Trainer #32-0105338 CompTIA Certified Technical Classroom Trainer (CTT+) #T3NSZCNBBKB4QTQG * Professional Member, International Association of Electrical Inspectors #7035507 - Since 2006 * Accredited and Registered North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) Continuing Education (CE) Training Provider On Thu, Sep 3, 2020, 5:53 AM Rebekah Hren <rebekah.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is interesting, since the definition of high voltage was changed to > >1000V a few code cycles ago and it is somewhat consistently applied > throughout the NEC at that voltage (except for workspace clearances...er). > It seems this 392.18 label requirement could cause confusion and should be > changed to apply to >1000V circuits. However, the definition of high > voltage only applies with Article 490 , Equipment >1000V so the Article 392 > Cable Tray folks can do what they want in terms of where they require high > voltage labeling. I haven't done any research on the history of this > labeling requirement. > > > Corey maybe you would be willing to make a public input to change where > the label is required to >1000V circuits, thus there would be no > conflict with 690 since PV DC circuits in or on buildings cannot be >1000V. > Due Sept 10! > > 490.2 Definition. > > The definition in this section shall apply only within this article. > High Voltage. > > A potential difference of more than 1000 volts, nominal. > > Thanks for bringing this up Corey! > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:36 AM Ray <r...@solarray.com> wrote: > >> This is interesting, because we were considering cable trays, too. My >> guess is that both requirements would apply. Picky, but I don't see that >> 690 exempts the requirements of 392. One is for PV, one is for over 600 v. >> Some code iteration in the future might have combined language for PV over >> 600 v " Danger - High Voltage Photovoltaic Source - Keep Away" and of >> course that's so verbose that the average Joe is just going to stick his >> paws in there anyway..... >> >> Ray Walters >> Remote Solar >> 303 505-8760 >> >> On 9/2/20 7:54 PM, Corey Shalanski wrote: >> >> Wrenches, >> >> I am curious about the marking requirements for cable trays containing PV >> source/output circuits rated over 600 volts, installed on a building: >> >> >> NEC 392.18(H) requires a permanent, legible warning notice carrying the >> wording “DANGER — HIGH VOLTAGE — KEEP AWAY” at least once every 10 ft. >> >> NEC 690.31(G)(3) requires a label or marking with the wording "WARNING: >> PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SOURCE" at least once every 10 ft. >> >> Does the 690.31 label take precedence? Are there any situations where >> both labels would be required (or recommended)? >> >> -- >> Corey Shalanski >> Jah Light Solar >> Portland, Jamaica >> >> _______________________________________________ >> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance >> >> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org >> >> Change listserver email address & >> settings:http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org >> >> List-Archive: >> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org >> >> List rules & etiquette:www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm >> >> Check out or update participant bios:www.members.re-wrenches.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance >> >> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org >> >> Change listserver email address & settings: >> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org >> >> List-Archive: >> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org >> >> List rules & etiquette: >> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm >> >> Check out or update participant bios: >> www.members.re-wrenches.org >> >> _______________________________________________ > List sponsored by Redwood Alliance > > List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org > > Change listserver email address & settings: > http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org > > List-Archive: > http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org > > List rules & etiquette: > www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm > > Check out or update participant bios: > www.members.re-wrenches.org > >
_______________________________________________ List sponsored by Redwood Alliance List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Change listserver email address & settings: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List rules & etiquette: www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm Check out or update participant bios: www.members.re-wrenches.org
