I forget and I know this question popped up after last years hurricane/snowstorm in the east. One breaker interlock company lost it's UL listing. Which one was it? Did they ever get it back? Anyone know?

Does it matter?

That is .... just look for the UL lable. If it has one, it's listed. Period. No lable, no listing. It's that simple.

The interlock that is sold on the internet is listed by Wyle labs, another NRTL.

I have been in a discussion with an inspector about these interlocks on another BB and he is saying there is no legal way to connect a portable generator to a house anyway.

Also your typical Briggs generator is not listed at all.

OTOH this inspector has no problem converting well pumps and furnace blowers to cord and plug "in an emergency" citing 590.

OK, I had a backfed 2 pole 30 amp Sq D QO in my panel. 10/4 rubber cord, 4 pole twistlock (20 amp) to match generator. I used a LOTO that fit the 200 amp main with a ty-wrap.

Legal? Compliant?

It ran for 15 of the 18 days I was without POCO power.

Why is the gentlemans opinion that there are no legal installs? What's wrong with the interlock kit, a compliant inlet and cord connecting the gen on the exterior.

His main complaint with the interlock is the generator is set up as an SDS so you have a parallel neutral with it and the panel being bonded. He also points out all new "listed" generators have GFCI outputs that force the SDS setup. The MBJ would trip it.
Of course if you look at just about all of the Home Depot type generators, they are not listed. (no GFCI)
It gets pretty silly after that.
The strange thing is he has no problem with putting a cord and plug on furnace blowers and submersible pumps.
That is his "legal" way to use a portable generator.

I was checking the OSHA site for NRTL companies and that Wyle Lab, was not listed. They make those interlocks for a number of service panels and they say that they are tested to UL *** standard.

This came off the OSHA site:

A Few Minor Exceptions

In general, under 29 CFR Part 1910, products required to be approved must be NRTL approved. However, there are a few exceptions. Most notably, for electric products, there are two exceptions. If the electric products are of a kind that no NRTL approves, then OSHA allows approval of the products by a Federal agency or by a State or local code authority that enforces NEC workplace safety provisions. The other exception concerns "custom-made equipment," which designates equipment designed, made for, and used by a particular customer (i.e., unique or one-of-a-kind items). In this case, the employer must demonstrate safety based on test data provided by the manufacturer. As can be seen, these exceptions are very narrow.

As indicated earlier, NRTLs can use testing done by other parties under certain programs allowed by OSHA. These other parties include product manufacturers and can be located anywhere in the world. While using these programs can minimize the work that the NRTL must accomplish itself, the NRTL must exercise adequate control to ensure that other parties are doing the activities appropriately. Nonetheless, these programs can reduce the time and cost necessary for product certification.

This is part 2 of the above post.

So would the interlock that Wyle labs make be "Custom made" for that particular panel? And if so, wouldn't that fall under the first paragraph of the OSHA statement about not being NRTL listed?

Well, everything I have found on the subject seems to indicate that the NRTL listing for all products previously tested by Wyle Labs is still valid and has not been revoked in any way, which would make sense.
Only WYLE Labs themselves are directly affected by having their NRTL recognition revoked by OSHA as of August 24, 2011, but all equipment that was approved by them as an NRTL before this date is still valid and acceptable for use, just as it was before this revocation occurred.

Here is a statement from OSHA:
OSHA/Wyle Labs

The last paragraph states "The DATES section above provides the effective date of revocation. Consequently, the Agency no longer accepts product certifications made by Wyle on or after this effective date."

Products certifications from Wyle Labs made after August 24, 2011 would no longer accepted by OSHA, but according to the interlockit website, those interlock kits were tested in 2005 and revised in 2009, so are still NRTL approved and recognized by OSHA.
Interlockit Testing

The idea of an interlock is accepted by U/L: since Schnider sells one for their SqD and Homeline panels.
I guess that not being a NRTL would be a problem tho if you chose not to accept it.
Personally, this is a simple enough device that if it looks like it works, it works. I could see a guy in a machine shop making a real nice one but it still would not be listed.

I guess that is what 90-4 was put in there for.

Amen.

I installed one of these from interlockkit.com last month on a GE panel. I was apprehensive that it would be a cheesy set-up. It was actually nicely done. The steel was heavy guage, nicely tooled and engraved. The kit came with the proper drill bit, lock-tite, etc. It was a nice fit. I will put in more of them. They are expensive, but a cheaper overall install alternative to a separate transfer switch.

Greg, John,

I know that I could use a 90-4 and as long as the piece of equipment looked safe, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If it was listed my liability would be lessened but if anything goes wrong, we will all be in court. From the manufacture to the installer and everyone in between. You know how that works.

Let's clear up a few things about the legal system and liability. I'm tired of the same old canards being passed around, like a Christmas fruitcake gone bad.

As desirable as a predictable legal system may be, ours is less predictable by the day. Not only can someone be sued for anything, they often are- and there are enough goofy judgements out there that the outcome is never certain.

UL gets sued all the time ... and it's pretty rare for them to remain on the suit after the first exchange of motions. UL's listing, UL will happily assert, doesn't mean a damn thing for any specific widget, and they quite happily assert they have absolutely no responsibility for anything. Instead, UL will claim that the UL mark only means that the manufacturer submitted a sample that probably passed testing and was thought to comply with their standards on that particular day, by folks who might have erred.

A little different from what UL's marketing makes you think. Remember this: advertising claims have zero meaning.

All the UL sticker does is give the AHJ an excuse to be lazy, to avoid doing his job. In effect, the AHJ says "well, someone else thought about this, so i can be lazy and just assume they guessed right." It doesn't change that the AHJ is still the AHJ.

We find this concept perverted every code cycle, where the various lobbyists show up in the AHJ's office and say 'how dare you modify / amend / edit our wonderful model code, when the real experts have just decided that this is how it should be? You'll be liable ...'

Well, here's a news flash - you're liable, no matter what. That's who the AHJ is. That's his job. The NFPA isn't going to pay the judgement.

Not that there's much liability; AHJ's already have legislation protecting them from any personal responsibility. I build a house that burns down, I'm the guy who gets bankrupted and ridiculed and loses his means of earning a living (license). You inspect and the place falls down, YOU say "oh well" and the government you work for takes things from there.

Your only role is to point at a stack of papers and insist to your fellow government dweebs that your tail is covered, it was someone else's fault. That UL label is the first thing you hide behind.

Which is really ironic, since the other impulse of government is to get ever more involved in ever more minute details. Absolute authority, zero accountability.

Reno:
You say...

"Not that there's much liability; AHJ's already have legislation protecting them from any personal responsibility. I build a house that burns down, I'm the guy who gets bankrupted and ridiculed and loses his means of earning a living (license). You inspect and the place falls down, YOU say "oh well" and the government you work for takes things from there."

I believe that the 'government' that I work for will suspend (minimum) or revoke my licenses, and can also go after a revocation of my contractors licenses for negligence. The "oh well" you reference would be "oh ...."

John is right that Sovereign Immunity may keep you out of court but it will not save your career from termination and administrative actions against your license.

You actually have fewer protections in an administrative hearing than you have in criminal or even civil court.

In all my days, I've never heard of ONE case where an AHJ was even wrist-slapped by the court system.

What motivates all of them is pride: no-one wants to look stupid -- particularly among peers.

As for career termination: that happens because one's bids blow up. Not in all my days have I heard of an EC going under because of UL issues -- or any other national testing lab.

Under no circumstances should any repair oriented electrical contractor ever step-up and offer quality assurance for materials not installed by his firm.

That's the insurance business -- and you're not even licensed for it. Some such boiler plate needs to be in your service contract -- yesterday.

All system verification certifications must be written with enough wriggle room to leave you off the hook.

If the other party wants that level of financial protection -- they have to buy an insurance policy backed by a financially responsible party that can and will be there when the bad stuff happens.

I would always have some phrase stippulating that inspection services do NOT constitute any measure of insurance -- since pre-existing conditions are un-inspectable in as much as they are buried within walls or underfoot.

Further, that Grandfathered elements may pose hazards (missing grounding conductors, etc.) even as they remain functional, and lawful.

John and Greg, thank you for your replies. I deliberately made my post as absolute as I could, to highlight the issues.

Tesla, you're quite right .... I can't ever recall hearing even a rumor of a city inspector suffering because the 'customers' were unhappy, or simple incompetence. Instead, I see action taken ONLY when:
-They back the wrong side in an internal 'office politics' situation;
-A separate government actually arrests and prosecutes them; or,
-They offend some special-interest group.

When there is a misfit - be it ego, attitude, or ineptitude- the person always seems to get promoted.

For all the jabber of 'administative actions,' we don't see the ranks being culled at anything like the enthusiasm we see in the 'private sector.'

I tend to agree with Reno that the only time I have heard of inspectors being sanctioned was if they falsified inspection reports. (like not even driving by).
If they could say they made a good faith effort and they just missed something I doubt anything would happen unless it was a regular thing. They they would just be "given the chance to seek other opportunities"
We have had a few who were prosecuted for bribery but that is a whole 'nother thing and it was egregious cases.

NJ has a division of the DCA called Regulatory Affairs. Part of their responsibility is to provide oversight/discipline for all State licensed construction inspectors.

Discipline can and does range from one-on-one conferences to mandatory continuing ed, to suspensions, to $$ fines,to revocations.
I have seen all of the above happen, and I have personally only had a 1-on-1.

Our contractors license boards basically follow the same.

The procedures of the contractors boards are considered public info, and are available at the Board websites, listed within the agendas and/or minutes. To my knowledge, I do not know if the Reg Affairs info is public or confidential.

Harold may have some input.

John,

I guess it must just be our state that cares, because I too have had a 1 on 1 with the DCA and it isn't pretty. I know of several AHJ's who lost their license for a month, or two or three depending on the severity of the "Crime" (or mistake) I have seen AHJ's lose their lic. and their contractors Lic. as well.

Reno brought up a point about UL listing. I have a question. Can you install AL wires on a CU busbar? or terminal?

Harold:
The answer to Al conductors on a Cu bus would be dependent on the lugs used to terminate the conductors being suitable for Al conductors, and Cu mounting. Most are dual listed.

As to the lugs being suitable to mount on Cu, the mfg data would answer that. The lugs that are factory attached to buss (a MLO panel) are usually dual rated. The question of suitability of field installed lugs on buss (industrial) is 'show me the mfg data'.

John,
I am talking about landing a wire without connections directly to a copper ground bar. I was reminded by an AHJ that we should not allow AL wires to be landed on copper ground bars. For example Ilsko D-176 web site here:

http://ilsco.com//TechnicalDrawing//N0009.pdf

States that it is UL listed for CU wire only.

YET, when inspecting a Generac transfer switch the EC on the job I was going to red sticker the job. The EC on the job asked me to read a small label in the top left corner of the switch. He had to move the wires out of the way so that I could read it. It stated that all of the connections in this transfer switch was UL listed/labeled for CU or AL wires.

Now that seems to go against the manufacture of the ground bar listing. Should you pass it (and accept the UL listing of the switch) or fail the job (Because AL wires on copper ground bar is not allowed by UL listing)?

I'll have to look at a Generac in the field. On what you say, you are faced with contradictory data within the enclosure. My first opinion would be to check the mfg install books, or call Generac. I guess that EC was running SER cable?

Thinking harder the wording of the label "connections within" could be referencing the factory wiring within the switch, not the field connections.

Sparky may want to think about crimping a Cu tail on the Al & call it done. What do you think??

This 'conflict' is resolved by remembering that the ampacity of aluminum vs copper is quite different.

When a copper grounding bar is listed, it is for a rating, a rating whose ampacity vs the wire portals (those side holes) would work as specified for copper – yet only at a de-rated level if aluminum replaced the copper conductors. Field installers/ electricians are not permitted to re-rate grounding buses downwards or upwards. We're not in the EE business.

When the exact same situation occurs in an engineered, manufactured, tested and listed assembly the entire configuration is synchronized so that -- for that assembly -- aluminum conductors inside the 'copper holes' fits the ampacity requirement.

They perform the tests that a practicing electrician is in no position to do.

Hence, both labels are correct.

All of the above is why you should go with the listing label and avoid field engineering/ second guessing the factory.

BTW, one last shot: even the aluminum alloy used to make conductors varies. Todays aluminum conductor is much, much more thermally stable than the old stuff. Once it was accepted that the original alloys were expanding and contracting too much for consistent safety, steps were taken.

When aluminum conductors are mated with mechanical lugs of modern design – they give trouble free service. So much so, that my Pocos won't install copper, as a matter of policy, unless they absolutely have to – and the customer pays up for the conductors. That payment must come in advance – weeks in advance – for the order will be custom – brutally expensive, in fact.

John,

Sometimes it gets so confusing out there that I can see why AHJ's don't care anymore. I hear from many, many EC's that, "I don't get failed for that in other towns!" As an AHJ, I don't want to be a pain in the a**, but I also want everything to be safe out there too. I try to treat every job almost like my own. First thing I look for is safety.

Another place I get this confusion with listings is pool heaters. How many manufactures are getting listing on pool heaters with AL lugs for bonding. That drives me crazy. I think we already had this discussion before.

Harold:
I feel your pain. I hear 'xxx' in next town over is OK with this. 'xxx' said this is good.

When I take my cell phone & say 'let me call him', the story changes. Or on occasion 'xxx' says to me ' I did not say that'; or 'oh, I thought that was OK'.

Harold...

There's quite a price spread between copper lugs and aluminum lugs.

Right off the top of my head, I wouldn't trust ANY aluminum alloy as a viable conductor whenever Chlorine is present.

Hydrochloric acid reall goes to town on aluminum...

But, at a slower pace, so does hypochloric acid... table salt, road salt, and ground salt...

(Bleach is the sodium salt of hypochloric acid: sodium hypochlorite.)

----------

And, I can't think of the last time I saw copper bussing or copper lugs with a listed hot tub assembly.

It can't represent even 0.01% of the cost of the unit to go with copper.

What gives?

John,

Sometimes when I hear that another town doesn't fail me for "whatever", I sometimes say , Well I know for a fact that towns 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,.. will fail you for this because I work in several of these towns, and the rest of them are my friends and I know for a fact that they will fail you for this. They told me so. That usually shuts them up real quick.

Tesla,

I have been seeing AL lugs on pool heaters again and on hydro massage tubs. I don't recall seeing AL lugs on hot tubs, but I haven't seen a hot tub in a few months now. Next one I get I will have to check again.

The only label to follow is the one supplied by the manufacturer of the final UL Listed device.

A general statement like 'never land AL on CU' does not apply when UL has done the actual testing.

A reference to general use instructions for a similar looking ground bar are meaningless. First, the switch's bar may be a different manufacturer. Second, the Ilsco device is actually Component Recognized by UL, which means it must be used as 'part of' something larger assembly. Third the Ilsco ground bar does not really say copper only, it has the stamp 6-14CU in one location, and 4-14 (no material type listed) in another.