This question deals with the 1999 version of the NEC. Our business is attempting to relocate into a a municipality that has adopted the 1999 NEC. We are having trouble getting a certificate of occupancy because the machines we use in the manufacture of our product are customized to produce a particularized product and the City is insisting that each of our machines be inspected and labelled by a testing agency such as UL. The City takes the position that article 110-3 of the 1999 NEC mandates this and mandates that all such machines be labelled by an approved testing agency such as UL. The cost to do this for each machine is prohibitive, and we do not believe that the 1999 NEC requires this to be done. Can anyone give me any guidance? Is the 1999 NEC generally interpreted to require a manufacturer with unique equipment to have such equipment listed and labelled? Any help would be greatly appreciated because I have not had much experience interpreting the NEC. Thank you very much for any insight that you can offer. Randy Wisener
article 110-3 of 1999 Code
- Thread starter rnwisener
- Start date
- Status
Re: article 110-3 of 1999 Code
Randy
If the machines you are using were a custom production you should go back to the manufactures of the equipment and ask them to state what standards were followed in the construction of the equipment, meaning did they follow US, or european standards and they should supply a letter to that effect.
Randy
If the machines you are using were a custom production you should go back to the manufactures of the equipment and ask them to state what standards were followed in the construction of the equipment, meaning did they follow US, or european standards and they should supply a letter to that effect.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: article 110-3 of 1999 Code
110-3. Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment
(a) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:
1. Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this Code
FPN: Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to identify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling.
Inspectors are not normally trained to evaluate large pieces of equipment; therefore, many inspectors demand listing or labeling, as noted in the FPN above, before they will accept an installation. It would behoove you to contact a NRTL to have them do a field evaluation on this equipment. Even if it were listed and labeled, you have modified it and voided the listing.
Sorry, but the inspector is just doing his job which is protecting your workers and the public.
110-3. Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment
(a) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:
1. Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this Code
FPN: Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to identify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling.
Inspectors are not normally trained to evaluate large pieces of equipment; therefore, many inspectors demand listing or labeling, as noted in the FPN above, before they will accept an installation. It would behoove you to contact a NRTL to have them do a field evaluation on this equipment. Even if it were listed and labeled, you have modified it and voided the listing.
Sorry, but the inspector is just doing his job which is protecting your workers and the public.
Re: article 110-3 of 1999 Code
With the advent of computers, chip making, robotics and other complex production equipment, the requirement for field testing, and requiring listed equipment is taking on a new spin.
Oregon has an administrative rule, requiring all electrical material and equipment to be listed or field evaluated. The problem is...The NRTLs are not capable or qualified, in testing most of the equipment.
This rule was passed by the electrical safety board. It was only a coincidence that most of the board members were employees of NRTLs. I am sure there was no conflict of interest.
I have had to instruct some of the field technicians in proper procedure for high voltage cable testing. They would have destroyed the cable.
I know of one manufacturer, who makes robotic equipment, who will void the warranty if the buyer has a third party test the equipment.
There is a local printing company with million dollar presses. The local inspector demanded they be field evaluated before he would sign off on them. There is four machines. The cost was three thousand each for evaluation. The company notified the city they were moving to another jurisdiction and taking the 50 employees. The presses were immediately approved.
With the advent of computers, chip making, robotics and other complex production equipment, the requirement for field testing, and requiring listed equipment is taking on a new spin.
Oregon has an administrative rule, requiring all electrical material and equipment to be listed or field evaluated. The problem is...The NRTLs are not capable or qualified, in testing most of the equipment.
This rule was passed by the electrical safety board. It was only a coincidence that most of the board members were employees of NRTLs. I am sure there was no conflict of interest.
I have had to instruct some of the field technicians in proper procedure for high voltage cable testing. They would have destroyed the cable.
I know of one manufacturer, who makes robotic equipment, who will void the warranty if the buyer has a third party test the equipment.
There is a local printing company with million dollar presses. The local inspector demanded they be field evaluated before he would sign off on them. There is four machines. The cost was three thousand each for evaluation. The company notified the city they were moving to another jurisdiction and taking the 50 employees. The presses were immediately approved.
- Status