I have to agree with you on that one!
It all starts with "if the lineman has complete disregard of....." "Then the child reaches out and touches the 115kV lne that was backfed from the home generator"
Our HV lines, especially the 500kV lines are always within easy reach so we can connect our appliances.
Fuck! people. It is illegal and stupid to shortcut the safety stuff.
Sounds like Ignoramusville. That happens a lot there.
According to Solar Flaire :
Last I saw (quite a while ago), CSA "type approvals" cost in the neighborhood of $10K. It may not have gone up now that UL and CSA are now more-or-less competitors in the same markets because of NAFTA.
[NAFTA meant that UL is more-or-less accepted in place of CSA in Canada, and vice-versa in the US (where the standards are equivalent).]In Ontario, it used to be that you could get a "Hydro Inspector" (power utility) in to do a "unit approval" for $75. Which would stand in place of CSA approval for a single device. Subsequent copies had to be inspected independently. Intended for very low volume items. Ontario's power regulations have changed drastically and with the breakup the inspection agency is "ESA", and that is probably not available anymore.
If such a thing were available in the US, that's probably Igor's least expensive option.
CSA also lists certain engineering testing companies as approvers in place of CSA. NEC probably does as well. Eg: Warnock Hersey. But that's also largely intended for production runs, and it's not cheap.
According to daestrom :
Okay, okay. Sigh ;-)
Being in computer security, there's no such thing as failsafe, it's simply a matter of deciding how failsafe you want it compared to how much you're willing to pay for it.
I'd rather see some silliness, as long as the subject is fresh in your mind when you go to hook up a generator - it's always the preferred attitude over death-ness.
The trick is where the primary line feeding your transformer goes physically open, so you aren't trying to backfeed "the rest of the grid" you are only energizing your own service transformer. If you are the only house on that line there are no foreign loads to drag down and stall your generator, but you're still boosting that 120V and sending 5KV to 35KV back down that string of poles.
(Gee, why is our streetlight out at the highway back on?)
If the line crew is out fixing the downed circuits, they know that the line is off from the feed end, they've already done the Lockout/Tagout and ground bond cable safety procedures. It's dead, they made sure of it.
But if they are too far away from your homestead to hear your little generator chugging away, and they don't use the same level of caution in checking, ground bonding and handling the supposedly dead load-side power line that you are backfeeding...
"Don't worry about that line Charlie, it's dead..."
-->--
According to Solar Flaire :
That's only one wire, and it's grounded anyway. The problem is more along the lines of if you're using a 240V circuit => you're backfeeding the grid's connected hot via the house load from the generator's connected hot. Plus the neutral => you're backfeeding half of the grid feed.
You totally mised the point here.
Get the proper equipment and stop fooling with Linemen's lives.
That too but the neutral is only grounded (bonded) in one spot. It is not grounded everywhere and can and will carry current and can induce voltages in other parts of the circuits. This is why the neutral must be transfered also.
Bullshit. When you get proper training in line maitenance techniques you will agree the whole argument that reappears every two months for the last ten years is bullshit.
and why? All because some amateur thinks he can beat the law and save a few bucks and wants somebody here to back his scheme up so he can feel smarter than the rules.
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
It would seem to me that if your power is off you actually are not connected to "the grid". How much of the distribution sysetm is dead but still connected to your house is often an unknown variable. All of the pros and cons of every conceivable type of situation have been mentioned many times. There are no new arguments for either position.
I think it is just a matter of whether you want to do the correct, legal, and safest thing or not. Some people even stop at stop signs when no other cars are present. Others do not. Neither group is likely to change its habits.
Don Young
Do me a favor, please. Drop the belligerence when I'm On Your Side.
I don't want the amateur to cockamamie the connections and create a potential backfeed in the first place. The OP of this thread (Igor) is a r.c.metalworking regular and will get "great ideas" like using a set of Kirk Key interlocks he got for real cheap (or free) on a home install, but will also abandon the idea when you prove your point as to where the flaws are with them.
(I think that he already conceded on the idea a while back, but the bickering^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h discussion plays on...)
And I am aware of the precautions that the linemen need to make. I normally don't touch anything over 480V, but I've seen the switch tag-outs and the safety ground-out jumpers on the 34.5KV lines in the area when they're adding a new service. We had a vehicle shear off the pole that dropped our neighborhood at 2 AM, and took out three 5KV feeders. I stood there watching them do all the substation lockouts over the radio, and getting clearance to work.
But whenever you develop safety equipment or work procedures that are meant to be "Idiot Proof", Mother Nature rises to the challenge and develops a craftier idiot. There are ways to screw up Just Right and create a backfeed that doesn't stall the generator set or trip out the protection...
And there are always linemen that don't follow every rule in the book to the letter every single time, be it through fatigue (working a week of 20-hour days during an ice storm or other disaster will do that...), inattention, lack of ground-out cables on hand, or just plain apathy since "That never happens."
And that's when the million-to-one potential exists for somebody to touch a "dead" line and ground at the same time and get nailed.
-->--
His least expensive option might be to just use a readily available transfer switch which is already tested and approved, commonly used and quite suitable for the purpose.
According to Solar Flaire :
Er, what? I was agreeing with you.
Interesting points Bruce, got me curious as to what exactly the regulations actually say so I invested some time the other day at the library :).
First, just so everybody is on the same wavelength (5,000,000 meters if I've done the math right) I checked the definition of "Transfer Switch" The closest I could come to a definition in the Canadian Electrical Code is more of a functional description, section 14-612 (pg 88, 2006 edition) -
"Transfer equipment for standby power systems
Transfer equipment for standby power systems shall prevent the inadvertant interconnection of normal and standby sources of supply in any operation of the transfer equipment" Duh.
Rememer the "inadvertant" part for later.
The only other mention I could find in the document to transfer switches was in section 32-208 requiring that transfer switches used to power fire equipment has to be, along with some location & labelling requirements, "approved for fire pump service"
Thats all there is in the CEC.
Onwards to the NEC, where apparently a larger budget allows for far more verbose descriptions & More Capital Letters-
First, we get a real defintion for a transfer switch or "Switch, Transfer" as the book in article 100-1 ( pg. 108 2005 ed.) prefers-
"An automatic or nonautomatic device for transferring one or more load conductor connections from one power source to another" Duh.
Additionaly, the NEC goes into far more detail on when/where/what/why for requirements, the real meat & potatoes of which is in chapter seven "Special Conditions" where we are variously informed & entertained with the requirements for "Emergency Systems" (Article
700, pg. 563), "Legally Required Systems" (701, pg. 567), and, most applicable to us, "Optional Standby Systems" (702, pg. 570). Obviously I'm not going to sit here & type in 8 or 9 pages of text. Hell, I won't even type in "eight" or "nine". I will however, provide some selected highlights-Article 700- "Emergency Sytems" covers installations legally required by municiple, state, federal, other codes or by goverment agencies & are automatic in operation (apart from heath care institutions covered in article 517). It applies to stuff like emergency lighting, fire systems, required ventilation, pretty much anything & everything that relates to public safety.
Pertinant to our thread Paragraph 700.3 states that "All equipment shall be approved for use on emergency systems" The rest of the section applies to things like testing, maintenance, specific wiring requirements, genny maintenance etc. which, Thank God, is outside the scope of this discussion.
Article 701- "Legally Required Systems" is again for, obviously, Legally Required Systems. but not "Emergency Systems" as coverd by article 700. As opposed to things in 700 such as "Fire", 701 applies to things such as "Sewage".
Again, pertinant info (to us)- of interest is paragraph 701.7 "Transfer Equipment" that requires automatic operation & to be "approved by the authority having juristiction". The following pages cover pretty much the same ground as 700 does.
Article 702- "Optional Standby Systems" is where we start hitting both portable & permanent installations used in places such farms, homes, industrial/commercial sites etc. where loss of power "could cause disscomfort, serious interruptions of the process, damage to the product or process, or the like". I'm guessing Iggy's ice box fits in there somewheres.
For our puposes the information of interest is located in paragraphs
702.4 "Equipment Approval"- "All equipment shall be approved for the intended use" and 702.6- (Wait For It-) "Transfer Equipment". I'm going to argravate my repetitive stress injury here & type in the whole damn thing :(."Transfer equipment shall be suitable for the intended use and designed and installed as to prevent the inadvertant (ed.- theres that word again) interconnection of normal and alternative sources of supply in any operation of the transfer equipment. Transfer equipment and electric power production systems installed to permit operation in parallel with the normal source (ed- i.e. UPSs) shall meet the requirements of Article 705. Transfer euipment located on the load side of branch circuit protection, shall be permitted to contain supplementary overcurrent protection having an interuppted rating sufficient for the available fault current that the generator can deliver. The supplementary overcurrent protection devices shall be part of the listed transfer equipment. Transfer equipment shall be required for all standby systems subject to the provisions of this article and for which an electric
-utility supply is either the normal or standby source.
Exception: Temporary connection of a portable generator without transfer equipment shall be permitted where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation and where the normal supply is physically isolated by a lockable disconnect means or by disconnection of normal supply conductors."
All donations for Howard's Right Arm Medical Relief Fund are gratefully accepted.
So, where does all this leave us? As for "type acceptance", its not mentioned anywheres. To me the term "Type Accepted" applies to a specific design or form factor. Nowheres have I found any mention of approved or required designs for the actual switching mechanism. I personally have dealt with, both in Canada & the U.S., units designed around manually operated & motor driven knife switches, spring loaded contacts, breakers with mechanical interlocks, ganged breakers, breakers with the "Kirk" locks and bizzare mechanical monstrosities too evilly complicated to discuss here. These were all commercialy built and/or installed, no home handyman hacked up higgledy piggledy anywheres.
As for "Approval" itself, in Canada things appear to be pretty (perhaps too much) straightforward, per CEC 32.208 "Approval" is only required for units suppling fire pumps. Doesn't say by whom but I'm guessing its up to the various local fire codes/inspectors to address it. Same in the NEC , "Approval", and again it comes from the entity legally responsible for approval of the equipment the transfer switch is feeding per NEC 700.3, & 701.4.
We'll leave Articles 700 & 701 here as they don't apply to the situation we're disscussing, namely Iggy's icebox. No goverment agency in their right mind would ever wan't to take responsibility for that :\\.
702.4 leaves in a bit of of a limbo situation, "All equipment shall be approved for the intended use" begs the question "By Who". And does it apply to the setup as a whole or to it's constituant components? Consider- I'm aware of transfer setups used for homes (In Canada) that consist of two main disconnect breakers, one on the main panel & one on a seperated box next to the main panel (for the genset) that have a sliding bar mounted between them so that it is impossible for both breaker handles to be in the "On" postion at the same time. This was deemed acceptable by the utility inspector. ( In fact I've seen the same idea on commercial units albeit both breakers are in the same panel) Both breakers were either UL or CSA approved, both installed in acceptable boxes. Does the bar itself need approval from the un-named, possibly un-maned agency?? Inquiring Minds Want To Know. Until they find out it appears that the bar is kosher.Yes, its possible to deliberately bugger the thing up & get both breakers on at once,
But Not (theres that word again) Inadvertantly.
I honestly don't see the difference between this and the Kirk (or similar) lock setup I described in my original post. Yes you can defeat them if you want too,
But Not Inadvertantly.
Now, ask anybody who knows me & they'll tell you I'm an Idiot. Actually, I'm a pretty darned good one. Hell, I've put in long hard years deliberately honing my idiocy to a Dull Edge :).
I'll be damned If I could figure a way to *inadvertantly* defeat the systems using the keyed locks.
Nor is there any mention, apart from the temporary connection mentioned in702.6, of a requirement for trained personnel to operate the transfer equipent. I think that any good lawyer (oxymoron?) could make the point that, given tha the lack of a definition of "qualified personnel" the guy who did the setup is the guy who is qualifed to operate it. I can see where you may have nightmares over this, & I personaly don't blame you, but there it is :(.
Now, niether I, Iggy, or anybody else here is out to murder linemen. Hopefully we've moved pass the days when farmers would hook up thier gensets to the main panel with an old pair of jumper cables. Unfortunately we *are* seeing homeowners hooking up by plugging double ended extension cords into wall outlets, these are the fools you should really be worried about :(. Nothing but education is going to fix this . However, it would appear that what Iggy is trying to accomplish, & should be applauded for, is a safe system that meets his particular requirements. From what I've been able to discover what I think he intends appears to be, arguably. legal and apparently safe.
Now, if I've missed something in either the CEC or NEC, or theres other pertinant (to this situation) regulations I'm unaware of I'd love to hear about them as I think we can all satand to be better educated on this subject.
Regards,
Howard.
Or they might walk across the street, overtired and the boom will fall on the neighbour's nailgun and fire a framing nail through the lineman's heart and kill him too.
I have to agree with you, whatever it was now...LOL.. The best one was everybody is sick of the "is it OK to bypass safety if I do it this way ot that way?" question. Have a good one!
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
Good post and nicely done!
One section forgotten (I can't rememeber the section and I don't have my code book handy) is the quality of the workmanship claus. The inspector can reject it if he doesn't think it appropriate.
The other item is "qualified". I believe you would have to have somebody deem you qualified to apply this one.
I wonder where "drunk wife" comes into play here?
"Howard Eisenhauer" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
That's true. But the other poster is talking about blatently ignoring the code requirements and claims to be an electrical engineering type.
So, in his situation, he is dancing on the edge of 'reckless disregard for human life'. He knows the risks, he knows it's against the code, he knows it could put someone else in jeopardy, yet he's talking about willfully doing it anyway. He may 'get away with it' several times and even be lulled into a false sense of safety. But if there is an accident, he can't claim, "I didn't know any better."
Now, if he was just some amateur Joe, with a 'suicide cord' and didn't know any better, then that would not necessarily be 'reckless disregard'. But that ain't what the other poster said.
daestrom
And yet, linemen do get electrocuted while working on lines. One can sit smugly back and say, "It's because they didn't follow procedures." But they are still dead.
In
FEMA seems to think there is a risk to 'unwary utility lineman'
Just about every utility in the country will tell you that an improperly connected generator can be an electrocution risk for their linemen. Yet some arm-chair wannabe's still think it's 'bullshit' because they took a Saturday afternoon course on wiring at a big box store and bought a book.
I don't know which is worse, the one's that don't know any better and are just trying to avoid paying a professional, or the 'experts' that 'know better' and 'would never leave the mains breaker shut'. They know there's a risk, but talk themselves into believing, "It could never happen. I won't make that mistake. Besides, linemen are supposed to be properly trained." Tell it to the widows and children...
Do a web search, ask your utility, go to a professional lineman's forum and ask them what they think of the idea. Ask *them* if the whole idea of a backfeeding generator killing someone is 'Bullshit'.
daestrom
I think a lot of AHJ could have some fun with, "...prevent the inadvertant interconnection...in any operation of the transfer equipment."
One could take the position that "any operation" could include using two keys simultaneously. And that's the crux of the whole argument. A real transfer switch can't be put into two different positions at the same time.
Sort of like NEMA reversable motor controllers. Not only is there an electrical interlock to prevent both contactors being picked up at the same time, there is a mechanical bar that will not let one side pull in if the other side is somehow jammed in.
While keylocks are familiar to many of us, and certainly the AHJ, they may seem foreign to some homeowners. Someone's wife, who called the neighbor in the middle of the night, may decide that in order to turn that second lock, she needs to go get the key from the safe. No problem, she trots upstairs with a torch, gets the second key and hands it over to the 'helpful neighbor'. Who promptly 'interconnects' the normal and alternative sources of supply. Inadvertantly.
"Qualified" personnel understand that the key-lock is meant to ensure only one lock can be operated at a time. But someone 'unqualified' may just assume the other key is kept in a 'safe place' and just needs to go retrieve it. OOPS.
A simple slide-bar or other mechanical interlock is more 'foolproof' then keylocks. Keylocks are more for when the two switches/breakers are too far apart for a simple mechanical interlock.
daestrom
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.