3rd Party Testing in NC

[bphgravity]

Well, here in North Carolina, we are still in a fierce battle to maintain the third party certification requirements for electrical equipment. And once again WE NEED YOUR HELP!

In June of last year I sent you all an email requesting your help in defeating North Carolina House Bill 2843. The bill was an attempt to eliminate the requirement for third party certification of electrical equipment. Because of all of your emails and phone calls, enough representatives felt so cautious that the bill never made it to the floor of the House.

Now we have another attempt with House Bill #39-Section 7, to try to accomplish the same thing. There are elements of our community and government who are ignorant to the code and the importance of third party certifications. Their primary interest is money and they see this only, as a costly requirement. These people are convincing some of our elected officials that this is a tremendous financial burden that is unique to North Carolina. North Carolina is the only state that requires third party certifications and because of that, business is being lost to other states.

Please help us educate our Representatives. If House Bill 39 is allowed to pass, no one knows better than the people in our industry, what consequences will be paid.

Once again, Representatives from the NCIAEI request your help in defeating this bill. Regardless the state you live in, we request that you call and or email at least one member listed below. We are trying to stop it before it even gets to the floor. The Assistant Attorney General has mentioned that it would be of great help to hear from members of our industry in other states, because one of the arguments for the bill is that North Carolina is the only state requiring listing or labeling.

Thank you in advance,
Phil Henning
Sales Engineer
Certifigroup / MET Labs
800.321.4655

I brought up this issue to Don Shields of UL at our recent IAEI meeting. According to him, 5 of the major NRTL's are all over this.

Apparently, a company installed two large weaving machines from Europe at a factory. Upon inspection, the local inspector rejected the equipment due to lack of listing. The company brought in UL for field evaluation which resulted in big time $$$$in order to get the equipment in compliance.

The company appealed the rejection and required repairs up through the different channels in the local jurisdiction with no success. And now its been placed in the hands of the legislators.

Sounds like a real political mess to me...

 

[iwire]

These people are convincing some of our elected officials that this is a tremendous financial burden that is unique to North Carolina. North Carolina is the only state that requires third party certifications and because of that, business is being lost to other states.

If Phil was listening I would say to him maybe the elected officials are correct.

Most states seem to do fine without this burdensome requirement.

Here the AHJ is charged with the responsibility of approving equipment that is not listed.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Apparently, a company installed two large weaving machines from Europe at a factory. Upon inspection, the local inspector rejected the equipment due to lack of listing. The company brought in UL for field evaluation which resulted in big time $$$$in order to get the equipment in compliance.

The company appealed the rejection and required repairs up through the different channels in the local jurisdiction with no success. And now its been placed in the hands of the legislators.

Sounds like a real political mess to me...

It is a mess and don't even try to appeal if it is not listed. I live here in NC and I was amazed to learn that the NEC does not require a UL or 3rd party listing. Try putting up a light fixture down here without a listing and you'll have to remove it. I have seen furnaces, woodworking equipment from europe, etc have to get pull out, It, of course, always depends on how thorough the inspectors wants to be. Some areas around here they can spend literally 4 hrs. inspecting a 3000 sq. foot home just for the electrical work alone. I guess on the residential end it's not so bad---I always tell the homeowners it better be listed or don't buy it. A lot of appliances are also making their way in from Europe many of which still use the blue and brown color code for a 120 volt circuit.

 

[roger]

IMO, the bottom line is that the NRTL's are only worried about losing revenue.

Excerpt

? 66‑25. Acceptable listings as to safety of goods.
All electrical materials, devices, appliances, and equipment shall be evaluated for safety and suitability for intended use. This evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with nationally recognized standards and shall be conducted by a qualified testing laboratory.

NC has a problem with the wording of that statute in that many motors, straps, hangers, strut, plates, etc... are not listed, so the statute is bogus to start with.

I think if I were an inspector I'd be borderline offended that my expertise would not be allowed to approve a machines installation yet some attached label makes it safe. (see the red lettering in the ROP below)

I have hands on experience of NRTL listed medical equipment (and there is no exception for this particular equipment) with absolute NEC violations incorporated into them.

IMO, a blanket requirement that industrial machinery must be listed parallels UL 2200, see the following NFPA 110 ROP, specifically the reasons for the negative votes.

Proposal 110-6 – (3.2.1)
Posted: 08-Feb-2001
SUBMITTER: Lawrence A. Bey, Onan Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:
"The capability of the energy converter, with its controls and accessories, to survive without damage from common and abnormal disturbances in actual load circuits shall be demonstrable by tests on separate prototype modes, or by acceptable tests on the system components as performed by the component suppliers. Where available, the generator set(s) shall be listed for emergency service as a completely factory-assembled and factory-tested apparatus."
SUBSTANTIATION:
"Underwriters Laboratories Standard 2200 has been published for listing emergency generator sets for stationary installations. The scope of UL 2200 is equipment intended for installation and use in accordance with the National Electric Code, NFPA 70, NFPA 37, NFPA 99, and NFPA 110.
Listing of generator set equipment can provide a consistent basis for approval of equipment by the authority having jurisdiction based on a published standard for safety. Listing relieves the authority having jurisdiction of the burden of examination of equipment for which the authority having jurisdiction lacks the resources and facilities. Without listing, the possibility exists for inconsistent examination and approval between jurisdictions.

In many local jurisdictions it is mandatory for all installed electrical equipment to be listed. In these jurisdictions the only alternative available for generator sets has been field inspection by a third-party certifier of each unit as installed, and the expense is passed directly to the end user.

UL 2200 includes a standard testing protocol for a complete factory-assembly. Testing per UL 2200 demonstrates compliance with NFPA 110, 3-2.1. Individual component testing by individual component suppliers does not demonstrate the required compatibility and performance as it relates to safety."

While the Technical Committee initially accepted the proposal with a hand count (albeit a narrow margin) in Baltimore last year, a written ballot resulted in 11-5 rejection of the proposal. Those voting for the rejection of the proposal were:
Ernie Allen, Ohio Hospital Insurance Co. Robert Burditt, SBC Communications Dan Chisholm, Healthcare Circuit News Manuel DeLerno, S-P-D Industries Dennis DeMoss, Sargent & Lundy Doug Erickson, ASHE Gordon Johnson, EGSA Louis Myers, Marathon Electric David Stymiest, Smith, Seckman and Reid Delmont Thurber Herb Whittal, EGSA All negative votes were submitted with an explanation according to NFPA procedures. Following is Dan Chisholm’s:

Proposal 110-6, Log # 6 - Explanation of Negative vote​

The requirement for listing generator sets in accordance with the current draft of UL 2200, or any other existing "listing" standard"




will NOT:

1) Increase the reliability of the EPS, or
2) Reduce safety hazards for the operator.



​

It WILL:

1) Increase the cost of generators with no offsetting benefit, and
2) Increase the chances of acceptance of substandard equipment by authorities having jurisdiction.



​

UL first promoted UL 2200 as a standard that would "…evaluate generators for their abilities to operate safely and reliably during power interruptions…" But from the start, UL has relied on scare tactics as a way to propagandize this standard––as demonstrated in their article entitled "Can You Start Me Up?", which appeared in Vol. 7, No. 1, of UL’s The Code Authority. The article begins with the following ludicrous description: "Mercy Hospital, Anytown, U.S.A., 10:37 p.m. A heavy thunderstorm shakes, rattles and rolls the entire town. Downstairs in the hospital basement, several three-year-old emergency power generators are poised for action. But they've never been used in real-life situations. Not ever. Sure, they've been checked (once or twice) and maintained (cleaned off a few times) -- but, for the most part, they've sat silently, just in case. In seven minutes, power throughout Anytown will go out. Will the hospital generators kick in, or will they go out too?" For UL to describe health care facility EPS’s in a way that suggests most if not all EPS’s are poorly maintained and unlikely to work as prescribed in an power outage confirms UL has not even bothered reading NFPA 110, Chapter 6, especially 6-4 which is referred to by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, which has "deemed status" from the Health Care Financing Administration. It is this standard which assures an EPS is tested and maintained according to the manufacturer’s recommendations – unquestionably the proven method for guaranteeing generator set reliability.

UL 2200, on the other hand, cannot guarantee reliability or reduce safety hazards. UL has touted 2200 as a standard that would do just that: increase reliability and reduce chances of injury, death and property damage; yet when questioned regarding details of incidents where compliance to UL 2200 could have had an effect related to these issues, UL did not have an answer. This is because there have been no such occurrences, and with no empirical data proving a need for UL 2200, it is untenable that the public be burdened with another expensive standard.

Far from reducing safety hazards, UL 2200 has not addressed even the simplest and most visible Federal standard…1910.147, Lockout/Tagout. Paragraph 1910.147(c)(2)(iii) states in part ".... whenever new machines or equipment are installed, energy isolating devices for such machine or equipment shall be designed to accept a lockout device." If UL 2200 is supposed to be in part a safety standard why has UL ignored a "code" that has saved more lives than any other OSHA requirement?

UL would like us to believe that if a generator has the UL 2200 listing, it is set for life. In the substantiation section of Proposal 110-6, the submitter makes the statement that listing would, "…relieve the authority having jurisdiction of the burden of examination of equipment for which the authority having jurisdiction lacks the resources and facilities." UL 2200, which was written without due regard for NFPA 70, 110 or the simplest of Federal standards, is simply not a viable substitute for an AHJ visiting the job site and inspecting the set according to a professional engineer’s specifications and NFPA standards. This is a dangerous proposition.

UL 2200 is expensive. For those who will be paying the increased "tax" imposed by UL it’s not a laughing matter. UL has only one goal in mind…money. Unfortunately, UL has convinced one generator manufacturer that listing their sets will give them a marketing advantage, essentially increasing their market share---at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Additional information on UL 2200 and the opinion of other NFPA Technical Committee members, including Doug Erickson, Chairman, NFPA 110, and Hugh Nash PE, Chairman of the electrical section of NFPA 99, can be found at http://www.mgi-hcn.com/archive/topic/ul.htm.

Roger

 

[philj639]

I am Listening

I am Listening

iwire, Roger,

Maybe you've misunderstood the message.

Bob(irwire), I don't know where you are located, but here in North Carolina the AHJ is god. They have full authority to accept any piece of equipment they see. In the current situation, the AHJ required the company to have the equipment 3rd party inspected. It is the AHJ that is being attacked for his decision. You also misunderstood my comment above about NC requirements vs. other states. As you stated, the AHJ has the authority. It’s the same here. The AHJ is requiring 3rd party testing, which is common across the US as both you and Roger have admitted. The opposition is arguing that the AHJ requesting 3rd party certification is unique to NC and that in no other state do they require 3rd party certification. It has been my experience that the Florida inspectors are very strict with regards to 3rd part certifications. Is that not your experience?

As for the NRTL’s being worried about losing revenue, if I had a choice I would much rather be spending my time in a lab with a responsible manufacturers piece of equipment on my test bench as apposed to the field evaluation. And to be perfectly honest with you both of you, I’m not in my occupation for the money any more than you are. I do consider a certain level of responsibility that comes with my position though. The responsibility to save or reduce the loss of life by insuring that the accepted codes and safety standards are being met. If you don’t feel that responsibility as well, I’m very sorry.

Best regards to you all,

Phil Henning

 

[roger]

iwire, Roger,

The responsibility to save or reduce the loss of life by insuring that the accepted codes and safety standards are being met. If you don?t feel that responsibility as well, I?m very sorry.

Best regards to you all,

Phil Henning

Phill, a knowledgeable inspector can do just that with out an NRTL being involved. As far as your second sentnece, you haven't been here long enough to even include that kind of statement in your post.

I stand by my post that UL 2200 is a perfect example of a useless UL standard, and if you feel different, I'm very sorry.

Bob, will probably be offended by you thinking he is from FL

BTW welcome to the forum.

Roger

 

[George Stolz]

Phil, welcome to the forum.

It's unfortunate that your entrance is marked by what will likely be a string of comments in support of Bob and Roger's position. I hope that doesn't turn you off the place for good.

That said, I live in Colorado, where there is no such requirement - and the majority of the country is just the same. I agree with the above posters who have spoken out in favor of getting that law off the books in NC. It's unnecessary, in my opinion.

 

[philj639]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome

Post deleted: Duplicate.
Post left in place toward post count.

-George

 

[philj639]

Thanks for the warm welcome

Thanks for the warm welcome

Post deleted: Duplicate.
Post left in place toward post count.

-George

 

[philj639]

Roger and George, Thank you for you welcomes. I’m honored. Roger “As far as your second sentence, you haven't been here long enough to even include that kind of statement in your post”.
I apologize for any offense with that comment, at the same time, I don’t think it is fair for you to paint a broad stroke with a statement such as: “IMO, the bottom line is that the NRTL's are only worried about losing revenue.”.
Bob, sorry in advance for the confusion about Florida.

Let me try to clarify;

This statute falls under Chapter 66 (Commerce and Business) Article 4

? 66 25. Acceptable listings as to safety of goods.
All electrical materials, devices, appliances, and equipment shall be evaluated for safety and suitability for intended use. This evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with nationally recognized standards and shall be conducted by a qualified testing laboratory.

This statute is not in question. What the current proposed legislation is attempting to do is strip the North Carolina electrical inspectors authority to accept or decline industrial machinery. In a nutshell the legislation implies that this should not be an authority granted to the inspector.

Now if I understand all of you correctly, we are all in agreement that the AHJ does have and should have the authority to accept or decline any piece of equipment within his/her jurisdiction. Please correct me if I’m wrong. The AHJ can elect to accept it as is, perform their own inspection, or require an inspection by an independent third party or even a PE in some areas.

Under the proposed legislation, the authority of the inspector would be limited to the building itself. That’s it.

Now on March 13th a new bill was introduced titled: An Act To Adopt The International Building Code and To Expedite the Decisions of the Building Code Council.

They have gone so far as to suggest that North Carolina scrap NFPA70 for the ICC code. Can you imagine what implications that would have?

This battle in North Carolina is not just about NRTL’s or “Listing/ Labeling”.

Please visit: http://www.nciaei.org/ for actual documents, copies of bills ect.
I have also included the links below two three of the proposed bills. Please read them and see if you agree with the legislation.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=s575

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascrip...p.pl?Session=2007&BillID=s695&submitButton=Go


http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=s694


Best regards,

Phil Henning

PS. Sorry, I haven't figured out how to do hyperlinks yet

 

[philj639]

Wow, thanks George, guess the hyperlinks worked.

 

[augie47]

Nrtl

Nrtl

Phill, a knowledgeable inspector can do just that with out an NRTL being involved. .........................................
Roger

I hope I'm not taking this too much out of context, but I beg to disagree.
I would like to think of myslef as a fairly knowledgeable inspector, ....by no means the best, but one with decades of experience, certifications and a engineering degree and, I certainly don't consider myslef to be qualified to judge the safety of all the equipment I see installed. Taking into account fault & withstand currents along with the engineering involved with matching "recognized" components, etc. is beyond my abilities. Tennessee has a "third party certification" requirement and I'm glad that we do when I come upon sophisicated equipment on our industrail applications.

 

[George Stolz]

Wow, thanks George, guess the hyperlinks worked.

I picked the best of the three, I think.

I'll hopefully have some time tonight to actually look at them!

 

[roger]

I hope I'm not taking this too much out of context, but I beg to disagree.
I would like to think of myslef as a fairly knowledgeable inspector, ....by no means the best, but one with decades of experience, certifications and a engineering degree and, I certainly don't consider myslef to be qualified to judge the safety of all the equipment I see installed. Taking into account fault & withstand currents along with the engineering involved with matching "recognized" components, etc. is beyond my abilities. Tennessee has a "third party certification" requirement and I'm glad that we do when I come upon sophisicated equipment on our industrail applications.

Augie, If you or any inspector was not comfortable approving an installation of machine or piece of equipment I certainly would not expect you to. On the other hand, an inspector that had no problem in doing so should be able to with out a third party sticker.

This can be carried on into what an inspector is familiar with at any level.

I was involved with a Hospital in a small town, and with the exception of a grocerey or convenience store, the inspectors were basically limited to inspecting new homes, they had no clue as to what they were looking at in ICU's, CCU's, or O.R's, etc... so they called on inspectors in other towns to help them out. I think this was a great way for them to handle the situation.


Roger

 

[philj639]

Now I think we're on the right track

Now I think we're on the right track

Roger, Augie,

Augie, If you or any inspector was not comfortable approving an installation of machine or piece of equipment I certainly would not expect you to. On the other hand, an inspector that had no problem in doing so should be able to with out a third party sticker.

EXACTLY!!!! Presently in NC there are basically three options at the discretion of the inspector/AHJ. Inspect and accept the equipment themselves, require it be reviewed by one of the acceptable third parties approved by the NC Build Code Counsel, or require it be reviewed by an acceptable PE.

Roger, I agree with you 100%. If you as the inspector wish to accept a piece of equipment based on your own review, that is at this time, and should be, within the authority granted to you as an electrical inspector. If however you would prefer to have that equipment reviewed by a third party for the reasons stated by Augie, that is at this time, and should be, within the authority granted to you the electrical inspector.

What the current legislators are trying to do is strip that authority from you the electrical inspector. They are trying to exclude electrical machinery from the authority of the inspector completely. Please refer to my previous post for links to the specific legislation.

Warmest regards,

Phil Henning

 

[roger]

Phill, I have been keeping up with this situation some what, and whole heartedly agree with you that making a / any machine above an approval process is absolutly rediculous and dangerous.

Roger

 

[philj639]

Thanks Roger,

Any help you can provide us with your knowledge and expertise would be appreciated. I am a proud member of the NC IAEI. We have quite a battle trying to convince the politicians of this obvious fact. If you visit www.nciaei.org, you will find additional information and the means to contact our legislators.

Best regards,

Phil Henning

 

[goodcode]

The NEC is next

The NEC is next

Good discussion.
Im glad to see this issue made its way to this forum.
Its all about getting the installation right for safety of both persons (first) and property (second.)
Good Code is a stool with three legs, take one away and down it goes and it will stay down. The three legs are: (1) the installation code itself (the NEC,) (2) enforcement (the electrical inspector) and (3) product standards (listing and lableing is how we ensure its right)
If this does in fact pass in NC, the electrical inspectors throughout the state, regardless of occupancy, will go next. It may take a few years but they will go by the way of the dinosaur.
If we do not need product standards in industry then we do not need them in commercial or residential applications.
Things are not always what they seem. We always need to "be careful what we wish for because we just may get it."
I do not always agree with the manufacturers. I do not always agree with the research and testing organizations. However I do know that when one leg of the stool is removed the others can no longer stand up.