Plan checker strategy: DIN rail

B

brycenesbitt

Senior Member
Location
United States
I have a plan checker who has approved our project except that they want a listing showing that the Eaton FAZ series breakers we selected are compatible with the EK012-012 enclosure that's part of the assembly. The issue is NOT the top level listing, the issue is the component listing between the breaker and the DIN rail enclosure.

The enclosure vendor wrote:
This email is to confirm that our EK012 series enclosure part number 542-512 is UL listed under UL file number E254144.
These standards for this type of enclosure do not limit what specific electrical products can be installed in the enclosure.
Any UL approved DIN rail mount breaker, like the Eaton FAZ series or similar breakers, can be installed in this enclosure without any issues.
Click to expand...

But the plan checker is not satisfied. The EK panel board is listed under BGUZ.E254144 by Guenther Spelsberg GmbH + Co. KG.

---
The plan checker wants a document from Eaton saying that this breaker is compatible with this enclosure.
And they want specific written proof in UL50, IEC 61439, or IEC 62208 document (highlighted in yellow)
that breakers can be interchanged between different vendor enclosures.

The written plan check correction is:
Electrical 1 PC2:
Circuit breakers must be listed for the specific panelboard they go into, as
confirmed by the manufacturer. Please provide documentation showing the Altech [EK012]
enclosure is listed for different installations. [CEC 110.3(B)]
Click to expand...
The panel board shape is willing to say Eaton is OK. But the plan checker will not consider their input.
The checker (and his boss and his boss) wants Eaton to say that the Eaton product can go into the Guenther Spelsberg enclosure..
I have not been able to get Eaton to agree to write a letter to that effect.

The AHJ refuses to call the vendors, or check product IQ.


Thoughts on strategy?
Nobody is claiming an electrical problem. Everything else checks out. It's just a paperwork issue. 508 is not involved that's not the issue. The issue is component listing between the breaker and the DIN rail enclosure.
 
Last edited:
hmspe said:
Look up the definition of panelboard. I don't think you have one. Those breakers are wire in and out so they do not use a panelboardle.
I would quote the definition of panelboard, point out that the breakers are listed for installation on DIN rail, and ask the reviewer how "panelboard" is relevant.
Click to expand...
I've spent weeks on this, and just came from an in person meeting.

They can't get out of their mind that Eaton breakers put on Siemens bus stabs are too loose and get hot and fail.
They want a specific listing that says the specific box is compatible with the specific breakers. The problem is the question is crazy so it's hard to answer.

I brought them a physical sample of the wire in wire out breakers.
And a physical sample of box bearing the UL stamp for the US and the control number.
And demonstrated that the two don't interact electrically. As you know it's a plastic clip affair.
They whined because the listing for the box says "Low voltage", then refused to budge on needing Eaton to enumerate the compatible "boxes" that the breaker can go into. We called Eaton and the box vendor during the meeting, but that was not enough.

BGUZ.E254144 lists UL50, but their eyes were glazing over by the time I brought up UL50.
 
brycenesbitt said:
The issue is component listing between the breaker and the DIN rail enclosure.
Click to expand...
Isn't the DIN rail a mounting device built to a simple standard? Why would anyone ask for a listing between a generic DIN rail and a circuit breaker? Generic DIN rail + Breaker with DIN mounting mechanism = good. You're dealing with some dopey people.
 
brycenesbitt said:
The question is how I make them feel like they won also.
Click to expand...
Not sure I would know how to do that. I'm more about logic and definitions than about people skills. : - )

[Capitalized = Defined NEC Term in Article 100]
If it were me, I would try to point out that there is no requirement within in the NEC that a Device be listed in conjunction with an Enclosure. You can put an arbitrary Device within an arbitrary Enclosure. There are some rules that do apply, for example if you are putting your DIN rail inside a Cabinet, then the arrangement will have comply with the wire-bending space requirements in 312.6. Or if you are using a 100% rated circuit breaker, the circuit breaker will specify minimum Enclosure dimensions to ensure adequate heat dissipation.

As another example, when you buy a load center, what you are getting is a Panelboard plus a Cabinet. The Cabinet has been sized to comply with 312.6, and the Panelboard has been preinstalled in the Cabinet. But the Cabinet (outer metal box plus cover) is not part of the Panelboard. You could take the Panelboard (the inner guts) out of the supplied Cabinet and mount it inside a Cabinet of your choosing.

As the code citation in the correction you posted is 110.3(B), you could also try providing the instructions for the FAZ breakers (presumably FAZ-NA if they are providing branch circuit protection), the instructions for the enclosure, and the listing information and asserting that your proposed use complies with all of that documentation. I.e. the FAZ breakers do not have any instructions of the form "use only with enclosures XYZ."

FWIW, if you provide that documentation and the plan checkers still want to say "110.3(B)" the burden should be on them to point out the conflict within that documentation. Which they won't find.

OTW, if you really upset them, they could always pull out 110.2 and say "we will not Approve any DIN rail mounted circuit breakers." Which would be quite unreasonable but nothing in the NEC prevents that. I tried a PI on 110.2 (IIRC) that basically said that a listed product used in accordance with its listing shall be approved by the AHJ, but the CMP rejected it.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Maybe Eaton could assert that using the breaker in that box does not violate the listing of the breaker, rather than saying that it is listed for that box. It's a yes or no question for them. "Does the use of your breaker in his box violate the listing of your breaker?" I agree that we are not in "panelboard" land.
 
wwhitney said:
FWIW, if you provide that documentation and the plan checkers still want to say "110.3(B)" the burden should be on them to point out the conflict within that documentation. Which they won't find.
Click to expand...
They have been clear: they will not lift a finger to search for documentation.
I have to provide all documentation, with appropriate sections highlighted.

Highlighting a big blank empty space on a document that nobody has written does not count.
 
infinity said:
Isn't the DIN rail a mounting device built to a simple standard? Why would anyone ask for a listing between a generic DIN rail and a circuit breaker? Generic DIN rail + Breaker with DIN mounting mechanism = good. You're dealing with some dopey people.
Click to expand...
Yes, DIN rail is an international standard, and it is only a mounting interface. With the exception of grounding terminal blocks and mounting fasteners to ground it to the backplate, no product interacts with the DIN rail electrically; it's purely a mechanical interface. Any DIN rail product is compatible with any manufacturer's DIN rail.
 
So I took the physical sample (in the picture in post #10 to the AHJ).
I showed them how there was no busbar, no interaction between the case and the breaker. Mind you this is for plans I submitted back in November that supposedly had 5 day express processing.


I can't tell if the plan checker even understood. I do know he said "we cannot and will not evaluate physical samples in this office". Then
"we need the listing showing that these parts are compatible".

@wwhitney wrote above "Basically you are dealing with idiots and can't win."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top