Confused interpretations about proper methods!

[Joe Tedesco]

QUESTION: Is it appropriate to install phase couplers in electrical panels?

ANSWER: I say no. The interior of a cabinet is supposed to be used to enclose a panelboard and is often used for items that were never designed to be put inside of them, such as bell transformers, etc., and the attached product.

I hope that the Home Inspector understands the following typical warranty:

"LIMITED WARRANTY

Seller warrants this product, if used in accordance with all applicable instructions, to be free from original defects in materials and workmanship for a period of five years from the date of purchase. Refer to the warranty information on the PulseWorx website www.PulseWorx.com for exact details."

Read the manufacturer's instructions here.

[Inspectorjoe]

Joe:

Of course that device shouldn't be installed in a panelboard enclosure.

I'm puzzled as to why you hope home inspectors understand the warranty.

[Joe Tedesco]

... because some are being advised by so called qualified electricians that it is OK, and I believe that they are setting themselves up for future problems, this was one way that I choose to add additional information to an already battered and tattered discussion on another board that I frequent.

[Inspectorjoe]

Originally posted by Joe Tedesco

Seller warrants this product, if used in accordance with all applicable instructions, to be free from original defects in materials and workmanship for a period of five years from the date of purchase. Refer to the warranty information on the PulseWorx website www.PulseWorx.com for exact details.

I don't mean to seem obtuse, but I still don't see what understanding the warranty will accomplish. Why should a home inspector care if the company won't warrant the device if it was not "used in accordance with all applicable instructions"?

It seems that this note in the installation guide would be a lot more relevant: Note: Installation must be carried out by a qualified electrician only. The main breaker must be turned off during installation and the coupler must be installed in a suitable junction box or equivalent enclosure. Installation must be carried out in accordance with all applicable codes and requirements, including, but not limited to, the National Electrical Code (NEC).

[Joe Tedesco]

I agree, but the interpretation by others was that "or equivalent enclosure" included the cabinet in which the panelboard is installed. I was trying to help the inspector who asked the question. The interpretations, as to the fill and splices in the cabinet, goes back long before the new kids on the block arrived.

I believe that their continued disagreement is only to save face because they have been doing it wrong for a long time!

[hausdok]

OK Joe,

I've modified your original post to put it into context. No need for links over to the soap opera. I suspect if you search the archives here you'll find similiar discussions that dealt with lightning suppressors and such.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[Sodapop]

In regards to question in OP.

NO!

See NEC 2008 or earlier 312.8 Enclosures for Switches or Overcurrent Devices.

As far as to why Home Inspectors should care:

Although I am not familiar with what a phase coupler does, the NEC forbids such installations as I noted above. In regards to the warranty of the product, some homeowners may go after the manufacturer of the product when damage to wiring in the panel occurs. The manufacturer is simply protecting themself from liability.

Electricians, myself excluded, probably think that since 312.8 allows it if space permits, that it permits it period. Most of them don't delve into the Code more than they have to. Most panels don't have the required space to allow for such a connection anyway.

[Sodapop]

Joe,

While I know you have posted this on another forum, what is your consensus with their statements?

While I have commented on that forum my opinions even while stating Code sections, most of the responses are "That section doesn't apply."

While I believe it is a violation of the NEC but cannot find a specific solid NEC reference, I still believe it is poor workmanship to do so.

By the way: Could you post those photos here as well?

[Joe Tedesco]

Originally posted by Sodapop

Joe,

While I know you have posted this on another forum, what is your consensus with their statements?

While I have commented on that forum my opinions even while stating Code sections, most of the responses are "That section doesn't apply."

While I believe it is a violation of the NEC but cannot find a specific solid NEC reference, I still believe it is poor workmanship to do so.

By the way: Could you post those photos here as well?

Article 312 has rules that were added many years ago in the old Article 373 and never did allow this mess and use of the space used for conductors for other equipment or devices.

I have the original information and the way people are interpretating the fill issue, is not the way the code panels wanted to have the rule understood.

I guess that I will have to keep on, and hope that the new kids will learn to understand someday, I was a hot shot too when I was their age, funny thing I have reports from 1965 which are with the facts, the bottom line is that the item here is not allowed and if it was it would take up far too much space.

I cannot even see the information on the right side.

[Brandon Chew]

It is clear to me from the schematic provided in the manufacturer's installation instructions that when the instructions say "2. Install the coupler into a suitable workbox or equivalent enclosure using the two mounting holes" and they describe the unit as "the PPC-1 is designed to install in a suitable junction box and wire to two phases (circuits) of the circuit breaker panel", they are talking about an enclosure that is separate from the circuit breaker panel.

[Joe Tedesco]

VIOLATION!

I received a reply from UL and Schneider Electric today asking if this was allowed and here's their reply:

QUESTION: Here's the reference that makes the installation a violation!

312.8 Enclosures for Switches or Overcurrent Devices. Do you agree?

ANSWER: Joe: Yes, plus 110.3(B) since the panelboards are not designed for extra equipment that have not been listed as an accessry for inclusion in the panel.

For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for

EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global

markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and

http://www.ulc.ca or contact your local sales representative. --

---------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION: Do you allow this type of product in your cabinets with panelboards? I believe NEC Section 312.8 and 110.3(B) are being violated.

ANSWER: Joe after looking at the picture, the answer is no we do not.

Thanks for contacting us here at Schneider Electric. Your business is important to us.

Regards,

Schneider Electric

888-778-2733

[]

[Sodapop]

I agree with you that the device in the panel is a violation, but it is becoming clearer to me why you believe it so. Thank you for that. Your knowledge of the NEC goes back farther than I've been alive.

When mentioning 110.3(B) and 312.8 on the other forum, the consensus is that they don't apply. My reasons for it being a violation have been picked apart piece by piece. I have cited 110.3(B) and 312.8 It seems to be that since it is not a listed or labeled approved device that it cannot be installed per 110.3(B).

Other than 110.3(B) and 312.8, do you have any other Code references?

[Joe Tedesco]

Section 110.3(A)( could be used. I am going to include the subject of this discussion and picture in one of my CodeWatch articles on the internet at:

www.ecmweb.com

The people who have different opinions are entitled to them, but I will stand fast and go with what I know to be the correct use of the equipment, they are talking about stuff that belongs in Article 409.

I see were some of those who are inspectors agree, I would like to hear from other inspectors and see what they would do.

Joe