# Portable generator hookup



## FL JW (Jul 16, 2021)

Hey everyone 

So I think I screwed up. Customer asks for a 50 amp generator inlet box for temp power. He's a retiree transplant down here from Michigan or something and he's scared about hurricanes. No problem, I said, I can get it done. I assumed the manual for his generator said 50 amps or something. This is definitely where I made my mistake. 

I go to my supply house, get a 2 pole 50 amp breaker, wire, and a generator inlet box. They give me one rated for 50 amps. I go to the job and install it. I notice that the neutral and ground are bonded at the plug. I think "oh yeah first means of disconnect". At this point, I'm exhausted from crawling 70' in this guy's 150° attic, so I just put it in. I call the inspection for tuesday of next week, wrap up and go home. 

I'm looking through my book today at another client's house and I realized the neutral bar in the panel of the first guy's house is bonded and there's no mechanical disconnect. I realize how dumb it was to install a 3 prong. I realize I should've looked it up myself instead of listening to the **** this DIYer had to say. 

Long story short, I'm not code compliant. Got a floating neutral and they don't make 50 amp generator inlets. Is there any way out of this? This guy is going to be mad when I tell him I have to downgrade him to 30 amp. (I also didn't use a generator panel, I just installed an interlock kit. I'm pretty sure this is legal)


----------



## wiz1997 (Mar 30, 2021)

I'm not up on code requirements on generator connections.
My question is " does the plug count as a disconnect?"


----------



## wcord (Jan 23, 2011)

The nema ss2-50p configuration will work, but don't you have to use a transfer panel?
How can you connect the generator feed with only a breaker interlock? A transfer panel uses 3 pole breakers to isolate the neutral


----------



## FL JW (Jul 16, 2021)

wiz1997 said:


> I'm not up on code requirements on generator connections.
> My question is " does the plug count as a disconnect?"


Irrelevant because of the bonding screw in the panel. You can't bind twice



wcord said:


> The nema ss2-50p configuration will work, but don't you have to use a transfer panel?
> How can you connect the generator feed with only a breaker interlock? A transfer panel uses 3 pole breakers to isolate the neutral


They sell boxes that have a male end sticking out of the bottom. You start the generator, flip off the branch circuits, plug in the cord and then operate the interlock and the box feeds the panel directly, at which point you just flip on the circuits you want to use


----------



## wcord (Jan 23, 2011)

Don't you have to isolated the neutrals under NEC rules?


----------



## FL JW (Jul 16, 2021)

wcord said:


> Don't you have to isolated the neutrals under NEC rules?


Oh, you mean separated from the other neutrals in the panel that aren't being powered by the generator?


----------



## FL JW (Jul 16, 2021)

So here's what article 702.5 has to say on the subject of transfer equipment in optional standby systems. See the exception. I don't think it applies to residential applications.

Man, this is pretty embarrassing. I should've taken a second to look at the code book before I did this. I completely screwed up this installation.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

Notice it says "in any operation of the transfer equipment" that would imply a panel interlock kit is not approved because someone could remove the cover and both breakers could be turned on.
Also I believe generators above 5000 watts have the neutral and grounding leads isolated already. Did you run 4 wire or 3 wire?


----------



## FL JW (Jul 16, 2021)

kb1jb1 said:


> Notice it says "in any operation of the transfer equipment" that would imply a panel interlock kit is not approved because someone could remove the cover and both breakers could be turned on.
> Also I believe generators above 5000 watts have the neutral and grounding leads isolated already. Did you run 4 wire or 3 wire?


2 hots a neutral and a ground. I was really hoping the installation would fall under the exception, but after re reading it, I don't think so.

As far as the "in any operation of the transfer equipment", I've seen that interpretation before, that tampering would lead to a situation where the utility line becomes hazardous. I have to think, by that logic, wouldn't the transfer switch be unacceptable as well? Someone could remove the cover and jump the switch leg. At what point is it malicious tampering rather than just operation?


----------



## gpop (May 14, 2018)

You have 4 wires so whats the problem.

The 50 amp generator inlet should be 4 wire (3 pins and a ground on the outside ring) 








Amazon.com: Manshan 50 Amp Generator Power Inlet Box, NEMA SS2-50P Power Inlet Box for 3 Prong Generator Cord, 125/250 Volt, 12500 Watts, ETL Listed, Weatherproof, Outdoor Use : Patio, Lawn & Garden


Amazon.com: Manshan 50 Amp Generator Power Inlet Box, NEMA SS2-50P Power Inlet Box for 3 Prong Generator Cord, 125/250 Volt, 12500 Watts, ETL Listed, Weatherproof, Outdoor Use : Patio, Lawn & Garden



www.amazon.com





the cord between the generator and the inlet is also 4 wire (one end is 3 pin with a metal contact on the outside the other is standard 4 pin). Technically you should break the generator N/G bond and put a sign on the generator (also supply the owner with a N/G shorting plug) but most people don't as no one knows which generator they will use. (if you don't remove the N/G bond at the generator gfci breaker in the home will trip)


----------



## gpop (May 14, 2018)

kb1jb1 said:


> Notice it says "in any operation of the transfer equipment" that would imply a panel interlock kit is not approved because someone could remove the cover and both breakers could be turned on.
> Also I believe generators above 5000 watts have the neutral and grounding leads isolated already. Did you run 4 wire or 3 wire?


If the generator is classed as portable and has a 120v receptacle on the front then normally they have a G/N bond. 

Inadvertent interconnection. If you bypass the interlock on purpose that's not inadvertent. 
You can also add a label saying "service by qualified personnel only. Main breaker must be off and locked before removing cover"


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

How many times have we seen panel covers left off? A power outage comes by and an unskilled homeowner fires up the generator. They do make interlock kits that clip directly to the main and generator breaker for some panels. I think these panel cover interlock kits are great but you have to know the customer


----------



## ohm it hertz (Dec 2, 2020)

FL JW said:


> and they don't make 50 amp generator inlets.


There are none available in your area I'd assume?


----------



## FL JW (Jul 16, 2021)

gpop said:


> You have 4 wires so whats the problem.
> 
> The 50 amp generator inlet should be 4 wire (3 pins and a ground on the outside ring)
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, it looks like that guy isn't listed. The listing agency isn't recognized by OSHA, so that's not possible for me to use

Edit: nevermind, it's definitely NRTL listed






OSHA's Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program - Current List of NRTLs | Occupational Safety and Health Administration







www.osha.gov







kb1jb1 said:


> How many times have we seen panel covers left off? A power outage comes by and an unskilled homeowner fires up the generator. They do make interlock kits that clip directly to the main and generator breaker for some panels. I think these panel cover interlock kits are great but you have to know the customer


I don't disagree, an interlock is a pretty simple safety mechanism to defeat. However, I don't think I've ever walked onto a job and seen a main breaker panel without a dead front. Plus, once you explain that having line voltage pushing against a generator will probably blow the generator up, the homeowner is pretty unlikely to mess with it. This guy is a DIYer and tried to get me to just hook the wires up in the panel. He said "I'll do the installation 99% of the way and just pay you $50 to hook the wires up because I'm so scared of electricity". Of course, I told him no way, but the thing I took away from that is "there's no way this guy is going to be taking the dead front off"



ohm it hertz said:


> There are none available in your area I'd assume?
> 
> View attachment 157828


That looks like exactly what I need. Thank you


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

I always thought the neutral / ground bond issue with portable generators was when they are bonded at the generator itself. That's why when I install a gen inlet and interlock kit, I always use the sticker that comes with the inlet that says something like: "For connection of floating neutral system only".


----------



## FL JW (Jul 16, 2021)

Update: I changed the plug and it passed inspection. The inspector was fine with the interlock kit


----------



## argile_tile (Aug 12, 2021)

Interesting get up, the interlock kit. way easier and more suitable for the cost consicious.



Amazon.com



About this item: *Infrared Sensor Soap Dispenser: The automatic soap dispenser has built-in precision infrared motion and PIR sensor detection technology*, (yea - check, that's the real ad)

It also says it's listed. Then also "best price from certified Chinese Square Can Making Machine manufacturers, Square Tube Machine suppliers, wholesalers and factory on Made-in-China.com Qty"

it makes you wonder if anything is listed. do you have to call the listing agency for a complete list of what they actually did list?


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

argile_tile said:


> Interesting get up, the interlock kit. way easier and more suitable for the cost consicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Be careful when using products that say listed for someone's panel. I highly doubt that Square D will allow another's device mounted to their panel. You are basically altering the panel. It is always better to buy the panels with the interlock kit mounted at the factory. Let them assume liability.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

argile_tile said:


> About this item: *Infrared Sensor Soap Dispenser: The automatic soap dispenser has built-in precision infrared motion and PIR sensor detection technology*, (yea - check, that's the real ad)
> 
> It also says it's listed. Then also "best price from certified Chinese Square Can Making Machine manufacturers, Square Tube Machine suppliers, wholesalers and factory on Made-in-China.com Qty"





kb1jb1 said:


> Be careful when using products that say listed for someone's panel. I highly doubt that Square D will allow another's device mounted to their panel. You are basically altering the panel. It is always better to buy the panels with the interlock kit mounted at the factory. Let them assume liability.


I figure there's zero chance Square D would ever give their blessing for you to install someone else's device in their panels. Why would they do that? For one thing they'd have to test it. That takes time effort and money. Why would Square D invest that in someone else's product? Especially a competitor's product? 

But we don't go by Square D's blessing. I mean Square D would never give their blessing to installing a Siemens or Eaton panel, would they? We go by the NRTL's blessing. 

So if someone else makes a product for Square D panels, and pays a NRTL to test it with Square D panels, and it passes to that NRTL's satisfaction, and you don't see any readily apparent problem with the product, you have done your part and you can install it. 

If someone thinks a product with a Chinglish Amazon page with a description that mixes it up with a soap dispenser is NRTL listed because that Amazon ad says so, they are probably so dumb they'll get lost between their front door and the mailbox, so fortunately for everyone involved they'll never install that crap.


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

The packaging and kit in that Amazon page looks similar to the kits I buy from GenInterlock.com, on the amazon page you can the website "GenSafety.com" printed in one of the pictures. I went to the site and it just re-directs you to a wix website that looks partially built. Only a few interlock kits to chose from and I didn't see anything claiming to be listed by UL or MET or anyone else.

I'll keep buying my interlock kits from GenInterlock.com, they at least show documentation of their MET certifications.


----------



## hornetd (Oct 30, 2014)

kb1jb1 said:


> Be careful when using products that say listed for someone's panel. I highly doubt that Square D will allow another's device mounted to their panel. You are basically altering the panel. It is always better to buy the panels with the interlock kit mounted at the factory. Let them assume liability.


That issue has been adjudicated and is now settled law in the United States. A manufacturer has no power to forbid the manufacture and use of non OEM parts for their products. They sell it they loose all control over how it is used. ETL, UL, & ULC all list parts for various electrical products that are not OEM. The manufacturers were unlawfully using the way they had their products listed to prevent the use of another manufacturers parts. They would only have the item listed as an assembly which prevented the panel from being used with anything, such as another manufacturer's breakers. which was not listed in that same way. Since the manufacturer would only authorize the listing of the assembly and would not list the panel as a discrete part that prevented the use of other manufacturers parts with the panel. I do not recall which circuit's Court Of Appeals decided that was unlawful restraint of trade but since the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) declined to grant a writ of certiorari; in other words to hear the case at all; that is now Black Letter Law. That is legalese for a principal that does not have to be argued by the attorneys asserting it. The court gets to decide if the principal applies to an instant case. If the judge says it is applicable the matter is closed to anything but appeal of the applicability of the settled principal to the case but not whether the principal is good law. 

Tom Horne


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

hornetd said:


> That issue has been adjudicated and is now settled law in the United States. A manufacturer has no power to forbid the manufacture and use of non OEM parts for their products. They sell it they loose all control over how it is used. ETL, UL, & ULC all list parts for various electrical products that are not OEM. The manufacturers were unlawfully using the way they had their products listed to prevent the use of another manufacturers parts. They would only have the item listed as an assembly which prevented the panel from being used with anything, such as another manufacturer's breakers. which was not listed in that same way. Since the manufacturer would only authorize the listing of the assembly and would not list the panel as a discrete part that prevented the use of other manufacturers parts with the panel. I do not recall which circuit's Court Of Appeals decided that was unlawful restraint of trade but since the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) declined to grant a writ of certiorari; in other words to hear the case at all; that is now Black Letter Law. That is legalese for a principal that does not have to be argued by the attorneys asserting it. The court gets to decide if the principal applies to an instant case. If the judge says it is applicable the matter is closed to anything but appeal of the applicability of the settled principal to the case but not whether the principal is good law.
> 
> Tom Horne


That's interesting......so now I can legally put a Square D Homeline breaker in a Siemens panel?


----------



## hornetd (Oct 30, 2014)

micromind said:


> That's interesting......so now I can legally put a Square D Homeline breaker in a Siemens panel?


That depends on whether that breaker is Underwriters Certified or Recognized for use in that panel. It is still up to the manufacturer whether they submit the part for Certified, Listed, or Recognized classification. Siemens cannot forbid the installation of the Square D Homeline breaker in their panel but the breaker would have to be listed or certified for that use at the Schneider Electric / Square D's not inconsiderable expense. If Schneider Electric was not interested in competing with Siemens in the replacement breaker market for Siemens breakers they would not pay to have a recognized electrical testing laboratory Certify their breakers for use in a Siemens panel. If you are going to use a lot of them for some sort of upgrading project you would want to check with Square D to see if they could provide a Certification sheet for the breakers your were considering using. Since each test sequence and examination effort a lab makes it gets paid their has to be enough business anticipated for Schneider to be willing to spend the money for that. 

Tom Horne


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

You can legally put an Eaton CL breaker in that Siemens panel. It’s UL classified for several different panels.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

micromind said:


> That's interesting......so now I can legally put a Square D Homeline breaker in a Siemens panel?





yankeejoe1141 said:


> You can legally put an Eaton CL breaker in that Siemens panel. It’s UL classified for several different panels.


If I follow, the point of the ruling is the manufacturer has no leg to stand on forbidding aftermarket parts; if someone makes a part for their equipment, and UL tests / approves / lists it, you've satisfied what the NEC requires.


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

splatz said:


> If I follow, the point of the ruling is the manufacturer has no leg to stand on forbidding aftermarket parts; if someone makes a part for their equipment, and UL tests / approves / lists it, you've satisfied what the NEC requires.


That’s the way I understand it to be too. And as far as I know the Eaton CL breakers are the only ones that are UL recognized for multiple panels.

Eaton CL chart


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

So on a 10 month old panel, still under warranty, I install a " Smith" circuit breaker in a " Brown" panel and for what ever reason a fire happens. Who is getting sued? The panel company is going to say, " we told you to use our breakers only". I understand about classified breakers but you better keep the documentation and make sure you follow it. Classified breakers are usually twice the price probably because they have liability built into the price. . What about using the classified, replacement use only twin circuit breakers with out the rejection feature in a 16 circuit panel where the buss bar fins are not slotted?


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

kb1jb1 said:


> So on a 10 month old panel, still under warranty, I install a " Smith" circuit breaker in a " Brown" panel and for what ever reason a fire happens. Who is getting sued? The panel company is going to say, " we told you to use our breakers only". I understand about classified breakers but you better keep the documentation and make sure you follow it. Classified breakers are usually twice the price probably because they have liability built into the price. . What about using the classified, replacement use only twin circuit breakers with out the rejection feature in a 16 circuit panel where the buss bar fins are not slotted?


I would guess in your smith and brown scenario that I would go after the manufacturer of the classified breaker, since it started the fire. I followed the instructions and put it into another panel, just like they said I could.


----------



## hornetd (Oct 30, 2014)

kb1jb1 said:


> So on a 10 month old panel, still under warranty, I install a " Smith" circuit breaker in a " Brown" panel and for what ever reason a fire happens. Who is getting sued? The panel company is going to say, " we told you to use our breakers only". I understand about classified breakers but you better keep the documentation and make sure you follow it. Classified breakers are usually twice the price probably because they have liability built into the price. . What about using the classified, replacement use only twin circuit breakers with out the rejection feature in a 16 circuit panel where the buss bar fins are not slotted?


At the risk of being somewhat pedantic I will point out that it matters not what form it takes the distinction is between a Circuit Limiting (CTL) panel board and a non CTL panel board. Adhering to the classification list will save you here. The Electrical Testing Laboratories will not List a twin pole breaker of any type if it is not of the CTL compatible type. You will not find a panel that is not CTL Listed on the list of panels for which a twin pole breaker has been certified either. You probably won't find any non CTL panel boards on the list for any certified breaker at all. As long as you used the certified breaker in a panel that it was certified for use in the plaintiff cant get at you. Additional protection is afforded by our ranking in the economic pecking order. We don't have the deep pockets which the plaintiff's attorneys desperately want to pick. They do get 1 of every 3 dollars the defendants forfeit after all. 

Since our liability insurance contract gives our insurer subrogation; decision making power over how to respond to the suit; our insurer' Attorneys will find a least cost response and that is the end of the question for us. We paid our losses in advance long before the instant case arose by keeping our liability insurance premiums paid up. If the plaintiffs did obtain an adverse judgement against us our insurer's attorney/s would sue the manufacturer of the classified breaker and the laboratory which classified it for "Harmful Reliance." That means that they enticed us to rely on the certification in order to sell us their product and thereby brought us to harm in the form of the adverse judgement and attendant monetary damages that we, actually our insurer, forfeited to the plaintiffs. More simply we relied on their assertions about the suitability of the product for the use to which it was put and got harmed so they owe us, again actually our insurer, what that cost us.

Tom Horne 
Retired Electrician

Notice that I did not say Juris Doctor and certainly not Attorney at Law. That said I didn't sleep through my 6 semesters of Administrative, Liability, and Code Enforcement law. Although I believe the information I've offered is all based on well settled law it is still worth exactly what you paid for it. That would be zero, zip, nada, nothing, null set, none! I believe that anyone of normal intelligence will understand this. They who would rely on what I have written as qualified legal guidance do so at their own peril!


----------



## RodDriver (Nov 9, 2019)

Sorry for resurrecting a dead thread. The exception clearly states that an interlock device is only acceptable for use as a lockout by qualified persons working on the system. It's not approved for permanent use.


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

RodDriver said:


> Sorry for resurrecting a dead thread. The exception clearly states that an interlock device is only acceptable for use as a lockout by qualified persons working on the system. It's not approved for permanent use.


What exception?


----------



## RodDriver (Nov 9, 2019)

The code requires a transfer switch. Interlock is only mentioned as an exception to the rule.


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

RodDriver said:


> The code requires a transfer switch. Interlock is only mentioned as an exception to the rule.


Please state the code article number you’re referencing so I can review it.

Thanks…


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

Well, mine is riveted into the panel so it’s not going anywhere. If someone is going to go to the trouble of removing a panel cover, starting a generator, plugging it in and throwing both feeds…I can tell them easier ways to kill themselves.

Now, I bought the CH interlock for my CH panel so go figure.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

RodDriver said:


> The code requires a transfer switch. Interlock is only mentioned as an exception to the rule.


Interlock isn’t found in the generator Article 445. Only the word “ interlocked”


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)




----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

backstay said:


> View attachment 160776


*You're posting images from all over the code which do not relate to each other and are not relevant to the OP.*

*What is the point?*


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

cuba_pete said:


> *What is the point?*


We’re looking for the exception to the rule that says we can’t use an interlock kit.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

yankeejoe1141 said:


> We’re looking for the exception to the rule that says we can’t use an interlock kit.


An _exception_ to a_ rule_ that says you_ can't_?

The OP already posted 702.5(D) which gives the specification for the interlock:

"*Inadvertent Interconnection.* Transfer equipment shall be suitable for the intended use and shall be listed, designed, and installed so as to prevent the inadvertent interconnection of all sources of supply in any operation of the transfer equipment."

This is one of the rare instances where NFPA leaves it up to the manufacturers and electricians to ensure safe installation and operation with little overreach. 702.7 leaves it up to _signs_ for the most part.

If people are looking for a specific "interlock" yes/no I don't think it's in the NEC.
============================================================

However, the 702.5(A) exception for transfer equipment reads:

_"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 disconnecting means* or by disconnection of the normal supply conductors." (_emphasis added)

That's an entirely different thing where there is likely a job site/construction and a generator is used for site power vice service power.

Is that the exception that people were looking for?

source: NFPA 70, _National Electrical Code_ (National Fire Protection Association 2020)


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

cuba_pete said:


> An _exception_ to a_ rule_ that says you_ can't_?
> 
> The OP already posted 702.5(D) which gives the specification for the interlock:
> 
> ...


Now you’re posting text from all over the code and adding your own emphasis and spin on it has nothing to do with what we were talking about…

What is the point?


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

And I may be slow on a lot of things but the way I read the exception to 702.5 it says the _part about lockable disconnecting means which nobody usually has, then it says OR disconnect of the normal supply conductors, which is what the interlock ensures. _


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Here is the enhanced content from 702.5(A)


Traditional ATS are not designed to permit parallel operation of generation equipment and the normal source and need not comply with Article 705. However, certain ATS configurations are intentionally designed to briefly (for a few cycles) parallel the generation equipment with the normal source upon load transfer from generator to normal source. This load transfer can occur with minimal disturbance or effect on the load. Transfer switches that employ this type of paralleling must comply with Article 705.
The exception provides requirements for the connection of loads to a generator without the use of a transfer switch. Supervision by qualified personnel is critical to ensuring that a dangerous backfeed condition is not created by connecting the generator to the system without the benefit of transfer equipment.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

cuba_pete said:


> *You're posting images from all over the code which do not relate to each other and are not relevant to the OP.
> 
> What is the point?*


The point was to respond to this.


RodDriver said:


> The code requires a transfer switch. Interlock is only mentioned as an exception to the rule.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

yankeejoe1141 said:


> Now you’re posting text from all over the code and adding your own emphasis and spin on it has nothing to do with what we were talking about…
> 
> What is the point?


No point...

Should have seen the poppycock coming when the OP posted "... _they don't make 50 amp generator inlets_ " and then someone started posting code sections for* DC generators. *ffs.

My code section is specific the the OP, not the off topic drunken posting.

It's not from all over the code...it's 702.5. Posting one part for DC generators and another wtf ever...

You boys have fun with your BS.


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

cuba_pete said:


> No point...
> 
> Should have seen the poppycock coming when the OP posted "... _they don't make 50 amp generator inlets_ " and then someone started posting code sections for* DC generators. *ffs.
> 
> ...


That was a long way of saying you didn’t like reading your own words back at you, lol.

Sorry for the butt soreness. 😉


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

cuba_pete said:


> No point...
> 
> Should have seen the poppycock coming when the OP posted "... _they don't make 50 amp generator inlets_ " and then someone started posting code sections for* DC generators. *ffs.
> 
> ...


They do make 50 amp power inlets.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

cuba_pete said:


> An _exception_ to a_ rule_ that says you_ can't_?
> 
> The OP already posted 702.5(D) which gives the specification for the interlock:
> 
> ...


Granted nobody is going to take off the cover and start the generator but somebody could have left the cover off well before the power failure. 
As for the inadvertent interconnection , the wording says to prevent under any operation of the transfer equipment. "Any operation " could imply the panel cover being left off.


----------



## RodDriver (Nov 9, 2019)

yankeejoe1141 said:


> Please state the code article number you’re referencing so I can review it.
> 
> Thanks…


702.5 Transfer Equipment. See the exception.


----------



## RodDriver (Nov 9, 2019)

kb1jb1 said:


> Granted nobody is going to take off the cover and start the generator but somebody could have left the cover off well before the power failure.
> As for the inadvertent interconnection , the wording says to prevent under any operation of the transfer equipment. "Any operation " could imply the panel cover being left off.


It says access by qualified people only. Pretty cut and dry that it's not permitted as a consumer item.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

yankeejoe1141 said:


> Now you’re posting text from all over the code and adding your own emphasis and spin on it has nothing to do with what we were talking about…
> 
> What is the point?





kb1jb1 said:


> They do make 50 amp power inlets.


yeah...I know...I was quoting the OP.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

yankeejoe1141 said:


> That was a long way of saying you didn’t like reading your own words back at you, lol.
> 
> Sorry for the butt soreness. 😉


You hurt my butt.


----------



## yankeejoe1141 (Jul 26, 2013)

cuba_pete said:


> You hurt my butt.


Lol


----------



## hornetd (Oct 30, 2014)

For the sake of my reeducation might I ask if I am the only one that sees a difference between disconnecting the supply conductors and removing a pull out, removing the fuses, or opening a circuit breaker. I worked on a power production team when I was in the Air Force, low these many years ago, and when we did a temporary connection to a building we *Disconnected* the supply conductors. We would take the supply conductors out of the the weather head splices. Although I don't think that the code requires it we did what safety engineers call a double block and break. In addition to disconnecting the supply conductors from the service drop we would have a climber open the drop splices on the pole. In the early 70s all of that splicing hardware was bolted so disconnecting the splices; and reconnecting them later was a fairly straight forward operation. To complete the operation the generator was connected to the service entry conductors from the locked terminal block compartment of the generator all the way up to the weather head. That placed all of the energized connections beyond the reach of any kind of casual tampering.

Tom Horne


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

hornetd said:


> For the sake of my reeducation might I ask if I am the only one that sees a difference between disconnecting the supply conductors and removing a pull out, removing the fuses, or opening a circuit breaker. I worked on a power production team when I was in the Air Force, low these many years ago, and when we did a temporary connection to a building we *Disconnected* the supply conductors. We would take the supply conductors out of the the weather head splices. Although I don't think that the code requires it we did what safety engineers call a double block and break. In addition to disconnecting the supply conductors from the service drop we would have a climber open the drop splices on the pole. In the early 70s all of that splicing hardware was bolted so disconnecting the splices; and reconnecting them later was a fairly straight forward operation. To complete the operation the generator was connected to the service entry conductors from the locked terminal block compartment of the generator all the way up to the weather head. That placed all of the energized connections beyond the reach of any kind of casual tampering.
> 
> Tom Horne


I believe it boils down to qualified person in an industrial setting. The code allows certain people to connect a generator with out a transfer switch but only closely monitored situations.


----------



## HertzHound (Jan 22, 2019)

After a severe storm it is common to hook up generators to service or panel without a transfer switch. You do so by removing the wires and making them safe. Like horneted said. I’ve done it on schools, municipal buildings, clam plants, etc..

It’s not the best way to do it, and requires a trip from the power company to disconnect and reconnect when power is restored. Plus the generator has to run after power is restored until the utility can get there to do a D&R. That situation seems to fit the exception.

What we are calling an interlock kit, is a manual transfer switch, isn’t it? What’s the listing on it? Interlock kit, or manual transfer switch?


----------



## HertzHound (Jan 22, 2019)

kb1jb1 said:


> I believe it boils down to qualified person in an industrial setting. The code allows certain people to connect a generator with out a transfer switch but only closely monitored situations.


Does the exception say industrial setting? From what was posted, it it doesn’t seem to be limited to industrial settings,where qualified people are usually employed around the clock, and there is no public people walking around?


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

HertzHound said:


> Does the exception say industrial setting? From what was posted, it it doesn’t seem to be limited to industrial settings,where qualified people are usually employed around the clock, and there is no public people walking around?


I learned something again. It seems any setting. Who qualifies the qualifier?


----------



## HertzHound (Jan 22, 2019)

kb1jb1 said:


> I learned something again. It seems any setting. Who qualifies the qualifier?


I’d qualify you in a heartbeat, but I’m not qualified to do that.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

When I briefly worked at a manufacturing plant,, I always got a kick out of what management thought of "Authorized " or "Qualified ". Who does the authorizing? The lunch lady? They would have the porter change 277 volt ballasts.


----------



## hornetd (Oct 30, 2014)

kb1jb1 said:


> I learned something again. It seems any setting. Who qualifies the qualifier?


During one of the 3 ice storms we've had here since 1980 the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) "Sustain In Place Team" was connecting generators with the same methods I used as a Zoomy back in 1971. We would park the portable generator on the roof of the apartment building and hang extension cords down to the apartments were the electrically operated medical device dependent patient lived. Building managers all over our service area were yelling their heads off about the special service that wasn't available to them. When the generator was large enough to secure on the ground by removing the wheels and the towing tongue we would happily run the power to several units of the same building so as to keep brittle patients out of the overloaded hospitals. We got a bunch of salvaged meters and used the blades on them as connectors to the load side of the meter socket base. You should have seen the Kluges we built in some of those apartment electrical rooms. We would practically dismantle the meter stacks and attach the generator supply directly to the ends of the feeders to the target apartments. We took a lot of grief from some very self centered people but between the 4 teams we kept over 200 brittle patients in their homes. When one guy threatened to tap into our cables to power his TELEVISION I lost my temper and said something I shouldn't have. A week later I was in my Fire Chief's office being asked if I had really told a citizen to "go ahead and **** with those wires. We haven't done a good pump and blow in several weeks. We'll put on a hell of a show for your neighbors but you will still be dead cooked meat." I answered "Chief I"m standing their in soaking wet socks and rubber fire boots 20 hours into a very bad day and you think I would say something like that to someone who wanted electricity for his television. Chief how could you think such a thing? He was dammed near laughing too hard to tell me to take more breaks next time and walk away when someone gets on your nerves. I answered yes sir and left. He was still laughing when I got to the end of the hall. You have to know that he always handled all noise complaints personally. You would only hear his side of the conversation of course but it often sounded something like. The sirens woke you up huh. Ahuh ahuh. Well I tell you what you do. The next time your awakened by sirens roll over and feel the wall. If it's cool then your all right so say a prayer for the people we will be searching for down long snotty hallways and go back to sleep. Have a nice day. click. 

Tom Horne

Well we aren't no big blue heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards to. We're just working men and women most remarkable like you.

I promise to perform my duty without fear of favor, cowardice or bravado, to put the public safety before my personal comfort and the public necessity before my personal gain. These things I do so that others might live.

"Tackling a burning building is dangerous on the face of it. The risks are plain even to the meanest intelligence. Consequently when one seeks to become a firefighter their act of bravery has already been performed. All that comes after is just their daily duty. Firefighters do not consider themselves heroes for doing what their business requires." Edward F Croker, Chief Engineer Commanding, Fire Department of the City of New York.


----------

