interlockit kits

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stew

Senior Member
Location
federal way,washington
does anyone from the State of Washington know wheter the L& I inspectors are still rejecting the intelockit kits for generators? They were rejuscting them due to the fact that they were not approved for use by the manufacturers of the panels.
 
If it's listed for that use, there should be no problem being approved. What brand and/or type are you referring to?
 
I guess I wasnt clear on this. It is The Interlockit brand of kit that us Ul "tested" for use on type 67 panelboards by an independant Lab. However the code verbage nowadays requires that you only use a device that is approved for use by the panelboard manufacturer. These kits meet the spirit of the code and are in my opinion a good product to use on oloder panels where you cant get a kit directly from the manufaturer such as Challenger,Westinghouse or the like. Nearly all the current panelboards from Siemens,Square D,Cutler Hammer etc either have a kit or a new door that can be used. I like this type of install because it gives the customer the choice as to which circuits they want to use up to the limits of thier Gen set..Unfortunatly I think most of the L&I guys are rejecting Interlockits. Other jurisdictions dont seem to care and are as far as I am concerned mor practical in the enforcement of this code area. I know the code is the code but when you have a device like this that works perfectly to do the job intended by the code re interlocking etc then I just dont see the problem. I was just wondering is anyone around here knew what the inspectors are buyinh nowadays.
 
stew said:
I guess I wasnt clear on this. It is The Interlockit brand of kit that us Ul "tested" for use on type 67 panelboards by an independant Lab. However the code verbage nowadays requires that you only use a device that is approved for use by the panelboard manufacturer. These kits meet the spirit of the code and are in my opinion a good product to use on oloder panels where you cant get a kit directly from the manufaturer such as Challenger,Westinghouse or the like. Nearly all the current panelboards from Siemens,Square D,Cutler Hammer etc either have a kit or a new door that can be used. I like this type of install because it gives the customer the choice as to which circuits they want to use up to the limits of thier Gen set..Unfortunatly I think most of the L&I guys are rejecting Interlockits. Other jurisdictions dont seem to care and are as far as I am concerned mor practical in the enforcement of this code area. I know the code is the code but when you have a device like this that works perfectly to do the job intended by the code re interlocking etc then I just dont see the problem. I was just wondering is anyone around here knew what the inspectors are buyinh nowadays.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for this interlock?
I would love to see it.
 
My understanding is that the code requires the use of a device that is listed for use as "transfer equipment". While the interlock provides the functionality of "transfer equipment", it is not listed as such.
 
qcroanoke said:
Thanks, but I knew about this site. I was hoping to find one that wasn't $149.95. :eek:(
Where ya been NHfire? haven't see you in a while.
Click to expand...

Yep not cheap but the best 'fit' for the old challengers.

oh you know just working my butt off, and it's getting old!:happyyes:
 
Here is one excerpt from the OSHA page:

Consequently, the Agency no longer accepts product certifications made by Wyle on or after this effective date....
Click to expand...

Anything listed by Wyle before Sept. 2011 is still valid. They lost their right to test/list anything after that.
 
I know I'm going to catch a lot of heat for this but here goes. The way I see it the interlock kits from Interlockkit.com are UL tested with the panels they show on their site but not UL listed with these panels as has been previously mentioned. I truly believe these devices are a safe way to allow those homeowners who have portable generators (who do not want to spend big $$$) to safely attach emergency power to their houses. Without these devices HO's across affected areas will be shutting their main breakers off (hopefully) and back-feeding through their AC disconnects. Certainly not a safe way but one that is more widely used than most of us can imagine. So, having said that I would like to propose that those inspectors who want to follow the letter of the NEC to the most finite degree to allow the use of these devices as long as they're properly installed. You can fail these inspections all you want but it will only lead to more unsafe, underhanded and un-inspected installations. My choice is to take the safe way.
 
goldstar said:
I know I'm going to catch a lot of heat for this but here goes. The way I see it the interlock kits from Interlockkit.com are UL tested with the panels they show on their site but not UL listed with these panels as has been previously mentioned. I truly believe these devices are a safe way to allow those homeowners who have portable generators (who do not want to spend big $$$) to safely attach emergency power to their houses. Without these devices HO's across affected areas will be shutting their main breakers off (hopefully) and back-feeding through their AC disconnects. Certainly not a safe way but one that is more widely used than most of us can imagine. So, having said that I would like to propose that those inspectors who want to follow the letter of the NEC to the most finite degree to allow the use of these devices as long as they're properly installed. You can fail these inspections all you want but it will only lead to more unsafe, underhanded and un-inspected installations. My choice is to take the safe way.
Click to expand...

Well, I for one totally agree, there's nothing wrong with a properly installed mechanical interlock for portable generators.
 
I like it. Simple to use and safe. I just put a separate panel in next to my panel but I like this system better.
 
You know that saying "Desparate times call for desparate measures" ? Well, people without electric power will do just about anything to prevent losing food in their refers. On two separate occasions just today I saw where someone had an extension cored run across a busy street to power their neighbor's refrigerator. AND, I'm not talking about some back woods, country road where one or two cars pass by every two hours. These were main thoroughfares and $5.00 HD cords. I figure two or three hours of solid pounding by passing cars and the cord will become freyed, spark and burn up. Wouldn't you think they'd at least find some make-shift way of protecting the cord ??? People just don't understand how dangerous electricity is.
 
goldstar said:
I know I'm going to catch a lot of heat for this but here goes. The way I see it the interlock kits from Interlockkit.com are UL tested with the panels they show on their site but not UL listed with these panels as has been previously mentioned. I truly believe these devices are a safe way to allow those homeowners who have portable generators (who do not want to spend big $$$) to safely attach emergency power to their houses. Without these devices HO's across affected areas will be shutting their main breakers off (hopefully) and back-feeding through their AC disconnects. Certainly not a safe way but one that is more widely used than most of us can imagine. So, having said that I would like to propose that those inspectors who want to follow the letter of the NEC to the most finite degree to allow the use of these devices as long as they're properly installed. You can fail these inspections all you want but it will only lead to more unsafe, underhanded and un-inspected installations. My choice is to take the safe way.
Click to expand...

If it's not listed or approved for use because the panel manufacturer hasn't given the okay, then technically it should not be used. My subjective opinion is that this actually makes things safer, but it's spreading the message that we can ignore the code where it is convenient.

I was in a similar situation a couple years ago when I was inspecting a job. The Contractor pulled in some bundles of control wire and had some extra #12 or #14 wire so he reidentified them as green. I had to make him remove the tape and label as spare or snip them off.

I think that it comes down to whether we follow the intent of the code or simply follow as prescribed. Usually it?s not an option.
 
lakee911 said:
If it's not listed or approved for use because the panel manufacturer hasn't given the okay, then technically it should not be used. My subjective opinion is that this actually makes things safer, but it's spreading the message that we can ignore the code where it is convenient.
Click to expand...
I here you. Come on out to NJ and observe some of the hair-brained hook-ups that HO's have in the wake of destruction left by Hurricane Sandy. I would much rather have someone operate safely, even if it's not to the letter of the NEC than to have them back-feed through the AC disconnect where they could possibly forget to turn off the main breaker and injure a worker on a pole. Am I violating the letter of the Code by installing these devices ? Yes ! Am I making things more safe than not ? Yes ! What should be done is that manufacturers should either make their own simple interlock kits that are UL approved or approve the use of the ones Interlock Kit.com produces. The problem ? The cost of getting them through UL

I was in a similar situation a couple years ago when I was inspecting a job. The Contractor pulled in some bundles of control wire and had some extra #12 or #14 wire so he reidentified them as green. I had to make him remove the tape and label as spare or snip them off.
Click to expand...
I agree, you should have made him remove the tape. The only time I re-identify smaller wires is in the case of an AC or well pump feed where the white is used as a phase conductor. I color the white with a magic marker just so I don't forget and land it on the neutral bar.
I think that it comes down to whether we follow the intent of the code or simply follow as prescribed. Usually it?s not an option.
Click to expand...
I think you're right in most cases where doing so would present a great danger. But some inspectors are getting their shorts in a knot over this and I think they're 100% wrong.

Just my 2 cents worth,. Not trying to start an argument
 
goldstar said:
What should be done is that manufacturers should either make their own simple interlock kits that are UL approved or approve the use of the ones Interlock Kit.com produces. The problem ? The cost of getting them through UL
Click to expand...

I think that reason is more of the fact that these changes are not authorized by the manufacturer. Allowing it would let third party companies make money off of the afore mentioned manufacturer. Very few companies would allow that.

The manufacturer needs to have their own kit, and I think that some of them actually do. I feel like there is a legitimate QO product for this...
 
lakee911 said:
I think that reason is more of the fact that these changes are not authorized by the manufacturer. Allowing it would let third party companies make money off of the afore mentioned manufacturer. Very few companies would allow that.

The manufacturer needs to have their own kit, and I think that some of them actually do. I feel like there is a legitimate QO product for this...
Click to expand...

Square D does make kits for theirs. QO and HOM. Installed a couple of them. Worked great.
Found 1 for my daughter's ITE panel but they are $149.50 apiece.Not sure if it is listed though.......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top