Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: 501.15

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by gadfly56 View Post
    OK, is the pull station mounted in a 4X enclosure or is the pull station itself listed as meeting NEMA 4X? Does it look like this?

    Attachment 18299
    Similar, but mine states "Nema 4X rated, and UL listed for CID1, Gps B,C,D." The housing has a threaded entry, top and bottom. Looks like Nema 7 but nothing actually states that.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern illinois
    Posts
    15,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale001289 View Post
    Similar, but mine states "Nema 4X rated, and UL listed for CID1, Gps B,C,D." The housing has a threaded entry, top and bottom. Looks like Nema 7 but nothing actually states that.
    that's because UL does not list to NEMA enclosure standards.
    Bob

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by petersonra View Post
    that's because UL does not list to NEMA enclosure standards.
    Good point


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale001289 View Post
    Similar, but mine states "Nema 4X rated, and UL listed for CID1, Gps B,C,D." The housing has a threaded entry, top and bottom. Looks like Nema 7 but nothing actually states that.
    OK, based on your description, you have one of these from Edwards, now available through Kidde.

    Name:  MPSR XP Pull.jpg
Views: 26
Size:  10.0 KB

    The explosion proof model is also listed to NEMA 4X. Nothing talks about NEMA 7, although the station I posted earlier does come with a NEMA 7 listing.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    4,901
    500.8(C) Marking. Equipment shall be marked to show the environment
    for which it has been evaluated. Unless otherwise
    specified or allowed in (C)(6), the marking shall include
    the information specified in (C)(1) through (C)(5).
    Note it only calls for "marking" for the environment for which it has been evaluated; "Nema 4X rated, and UL listed for CID1, Gps B,C,D.", is sufficient. It is not specifically required to mark it explosionproof. I'll leave confirming that explosionproof isn't mentioned in 500.8(C)(1) through (C)(5) as an "exercise for the student."

    The Kidde device as shown requires an external seal. There is neither an NEC nor UL requirement for "factory sealing."

    "NEMA" designations are no longer the actual standard term; "Type", as indicated in Section and Table 110.28, is the proper term.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,737
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    Note it only calls for "marking" for the environment for which it has been evaluated; "Nema 4X rated, and UL listed for CID1, Gps B,C,D.", is sufficient. It is not specifically required to mark it explosionproof. I'll leave confirming that explosionproof isn't mentioned in 500.8(C)(1) through (C)(5) as an "exercise for the student."

    The Kidde device as shown requires an external seal. There is neither an NEC nor UL requirement for "factory sealing."

    "NEMA" designations are no longer the actual standard term; "Type", as indicated in Section and Table 110.28, is the proper term.
    Yes, that will happen when the last of the oldtimers, such as myself, are laid to rest. Just like science, it advances one obituary at a time.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    Note it only calls for "marking" for the environment for which it has been evaluated; "Nema 4X rated, and UL listed for CID1, Gps B,C,D.", is sufficient. It is not specifically required to mark it explosionproof. I'll leave confirming that explosionproof isn't mentioned in 500.8(C)(1) through (C)(5) as an "exercise for the student."

    The Kidde device as shown requires an external seal. There is neither an NEC nor UL requirement for "factory sealing."

    "NEMA" designations are no longer the actual standard term; "Type", as indicated in Section and Table 110.28, is the proper term.
    I was hoping for hermetically sealed/factory sealed contacts so an external conduit seal wouldn't be required but per my conversation with vendor last night (RSG/Aames Security, Inc. in CA)this is not the case.

    Thanks again for all the excellent feedback!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern illinois
    Posts
    15,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale001289 View Post
    I was hoping for hermetically sealed/factory sealed contacts so an external conduit seal wouldn't be required but per my conversation with vendor last night (RSG/Aames Security, Inc. in CA)this is not the case.

    Thanks again for all the excellent feedback!
    hermetically sealed contacts would not eliminate the need for an external seal in a C1D1 area.
    Bob

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by petersonra View Post
    hermetically sealed contacts would not eliminate the need for an external seal in a C1D1 area.

    If the Enclosure is Explosionproof with Hermetically Sealed contacts, no external conduit seal is required. 501.15(A)(1) Exception a.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •