Class 1 Div 2 Receptacles

[jdsmith]

We were recently notified by Crouse-Hinds that the FSQC230 receptacles and BP59 plugs that we have standardized on are being discontinued in the next two years. We are estimating that we have 1500-2000 of the FSQC230 receptacles installed in the plant right now that need to be replaced. Does anyone else also have FSCQ / BP series receptacles? Were you notified that they are being discontinued?

What are the preferred receptacle and plug combinations being used right now for 120V, 20A service? We have demonstrations set up with the major manufacturers soon, just wondered what others are using and any feedback or experiences to consider when selecting a new standard.

 

[petersonra]

My first question is why would they need to be replaced? Are they going to stop working because CH stops making them?

 

[hpe1087]

FSQC230 receptacles

FSQC230 receptacles

It appears as if the concern is not a matter of not working, rather an issue of replacing "when" they stop working.

If other manufacturers, such as Appleton or Killark, offer an equal to the Crouse-Hinds, a replacement issue may not arise. But, with that number of units in place, the cost of replacement may be more than the company's budget will allow.

Sounds like this man is on the ball to determine future repair/replacement options today instead of trying to find monies in the near future for such repair/replacement. :thumbsup:

At a list price of $1,650 (discounted to just above $700) that adds up to quite a large chunck of change. Factor in labor and you've got quite an investment to find replaements for this item. hmy:

Appelton part #JBR3034150 may be an option, but mounting differences will drive up installation costs.

I'd have your salesman pin the manufacturer (Crouse-Hinds) down to a specific date this item will not longer be available to set some plans in motion for future repairs/replacements for certain. :rant:

Then, the cost of plug replacements need to be factored in as well!!

 

[weressl]

It appears as if the concern is not a matter of not working, rather an issue of replacing "when" they stop working.

If other manufacturers, such as Appleton or Killark, offer an equal to the Crouse-Hinds, a replacement issue may not arise. But, with that number of units in place, the cost of replacement may be more than the company's budget will allow.

Sounds like this man is on the ball to determine future repair/replacement options today instead of trying to find monies in the near future for such repair/replacement. :thumbsup:

At a list price of $1,650 (discounted to just above $700) that adds up to quite a large chunck of change. Factor in labor and you've got quite an investment to find replaements for this item. hmy:

Appelton part #JBR3034150 may be an option, but mounting differences will drive up installation costs.

I'd have your salesman pin the manufacturer (Crouse-Hinds) down to a specific date this item will not longer be available to set some plans in motion for future repairs/replacements for certain. :rant:

Then, the cost of plug replacements need to be factored in as well!!

Have management write to C-H an official request for the phase-out plan. Normally,the manufacturers will support the product for at least 10 years after stopped selling it. Unless there is continuous use, such as multiple operations on a daily basis, or if there is a corrosion issue, receptacles last a very long time as in multiple decades.

Stock some spare part, then plan a conversion as they fail and have conversion extension cords(short) available.

 

[nollij]

This is interesting. I will have to question our local sales representative as we use quite a few of these in the Group B areas. I hope that they have a replacement product that can accept the same styles of plugs.

It would be a shame to have different sets of plugs required for different areas of the facility. That would be confusing for the maintenance folks.

 

[nollij]

I should have read more carefully. We use the FSQC2320s. It seems I read the word without reading the letters if that makes any sense. It is confirmed that Cooper Crouse-Hinds has discontinued the 3 digit FSQCs though.

"We discontinued our old line of FSQCXXX parts( 3 digits follow prefix) i.e. FSQC230 is discontinued."


One possible recommendation for your phasing out would come from a plan that we have in place for our dated heat trace controllers when the manufacture will stop repairing our broken units (they are already discontinued). Replace one whole area at a time and use those units that you just replaced as spares when others fail. This would at least help standardize for folks what areas use what receptacles. This would require that you have a warehouse and can keep track of equipment.

 

[jdsmith]

My first question is why would they need to be replaced? Are they going to stop working because CH stops making them?

We install around 20 new receptacles per year and purchase somewhere around 50 plugs per year in normal years and 200 plugs in turnaround years.

We have these issues:
- We use pigtails with a BP59 plug on one end, a 2 ft length of SO cord, and 2-4 straight blade receptacles (NEMA 5-15R) on the other end. These cords tend to disappear, but regardless of whether the refinery keeps buying them or we require all of our contractors to have them, somebody needs to buy new BP59 plugs on a regular basis so they can make up additional pigtails. If the pigtails can no longer be made because the plug is discontinued, our entire installed base of receptacles is useless because the pigtails will gradually break or disappear so we can't plug equipment into the installed base of receptacles. Once the plug becomes unavailable we need to change all of out receptacles to a different style.

- Maintaining two types of pigtails and two types of receptacles or having some adapter pigtails would work in the interim but doesn't solve the problem long term - to maintain this system we would still need to purchase the plugs that are going to be discontinued.

If other manufacturers, such as Appleton or Killark, offer an equal to the Crouse-Hinds, a replacement issue may not arise. But, with that number of units in place, the cost of replacement may be more than the company's budget will allow.

We can probably get a replacement receptacle that will mount in the same way to minimize conduit rework in many cases. Appleton offers a plug that will mate with our existing Crouse Receptacle, but the Appleton/Crouse combination is UL listed for general purpose applications only, not for C1D2 applications.

For the newer arctite series of plug Appleton offers several combinations of Appleton/Crouse parts that are UL listed for C1D2 - this is an attractive option because it doesn't tie us down to one manufacturer.

Have management write to C-H an official request for the phase-out plan. Normally,the manufacturers will support the product for at least 10 years after stopped selling it. Unless there is continuous use, such as multiple operations on a daily basis, or if there is a corrosion issue, receptacles last a very long time as in multiple decades.

Stock some spare part, then plan a conversion as they fail and have conversion extension cords(short) available.

Crouse Hinds (not just the distributor) met with us and notified us that they will be discontinuing the parts in 24 months or sooner if the ancient machine that makes them breaks down in less than 24 months. Apparently there are a small number of plants that are standardized on this series and they made the business decision to stop supporting the products due to low sales. They would not tell us which other plants use the FSQC230 and BP59 series (BP49, BP59, BP69) or tell us exactly how many plants are still using them. We mentioned a refinery neighbor to the north and Crouse told us they are happy to change to Crouse's preferred newer plug! I haven't called my contact there yet, but somehow I don't believe they're dancing in the streets at the prospect of a half million dollars in receptacle replacements.

We are in an expansionary period now with a lot of project work going on including a new hydrotreater that's going into detailed design right now. Our goal is to identify our desired replacement receptacle in the next 2 months so we can immediately start installing the new receptacle on projects. We then intend to count the receptacles we can find and budget for a capital project to replace receptacles in 2012 or 2013.

 

[rbalex]

We can probably get a replacement receptacle that will mount in the same way to minimize conduit rework in many cases. Appleton offers a plug that will mate with our existing Crouse Receptacle, but the Appleton/Crouse combination is UL listed for general purpose applications only, not for C1D2 applications.

Read Section 501.145 very carefully in light of a very careful reading of the definition of identified.

 

[jdsmith]

Read Section 501.145 very carefully in light of a very careful reading of the definition of identified.

501.145 Receptacles and Attachment Plugs, Class I, Divisions 1 and 2
Receptacles and attachment plugs shall be of the type providing for connection to the equipment grounding conductor of a flexible cord and shall be identified for the location.

Identified (as applied to equipment). Recognizable as suitable for the specific purpose, function, use, environment, or application, and so forth, where described in a particular Code requirement.

Informational Note: Some examples of ways to determine suitability of equipment for a specific purpose, environment, or application include investigations by a qualified testing laboratory (listing and labeling), an inspection agency, or other organizations concerned with product evaluation.

Given the above, let's say we had a document from UL or FM stating that the combination of a Crouse Hinds #xxx receptacle with an Appleton #yyy plug meets the intent of 501.145. Would that be sufficient to meet the code? The way I'm reading, it would meet the requirements of being "identified".

There are some products on the market that do not have third party certification for C1D2. My plant has not accepted these products in the past - we have always demanded this "identification" from a third party testing laboratory for lights, receptacles, etc.

 

[rbalex]

Given the above, let's say we had a document from UL or FM stating that the combination of a Crouse Hinds #xxx receptacle with an Appleton #yyy plug meets the intent of 501.145. Would that be sufficient to meet the code? The way I'm reading, it would meet the requirements of being "identified".

There are some products on the market that do not have third party certification for C1D2. My plant has not accepted these products in the past - we have always demanded this "identification" from a third party testing laboratory for lights, receptacles, etc.

You read it carefully - and correctly. Now read the definition of "identified" in light of 500.8(A).

 

[jdsmith]

You read it carefully - and correctly. Now read the definition of "identified" in light of 500.8(A).

500.8 Equipment
(A) Suitability. Suitability of identified equipment shall be determined by one of the following:
(1) Equipment listing or labeling
(2) Evidence of equipment evaluation from a qualified testing laboratory or inspection agency concerned with product evaluation
(3) Evidence acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction such as a manufacturer's self-evaluation or an owner's engineering judgment

Interesting - -

501.145 says receptacles have to be identified for the location.

"Identified" in Article 100 means "suitable" for the application, environment, etc.

500.8(A) Says "suitable" is evidenced by listing/labeling, third party evaluation, or whatever the owner and manufacturer can convince the AHJ to buy off on.

In my case the AHJ is only interested in occupied buildings when there is a certificate of occupancy required - they are not interested in inspecting work that occurs in the process units.

Since the AHJ is out of the picture we're wise to stay away from the third provision in 500.8(A), leaving us with two options - listing/labeling, or third party evaluation.

Incidentally, I just received copies of the UL file cards showing which combinations of Crouse Hinds and Appleton plugs and receptacles UL has tested - PM me with your email if you'd like a copy.

 

[rbalex]

Interesting - -

501.145 says receptacles have to be identified for the location.

"Identified" in Article 100 means "suitable" for the application, environment, etc.

500.8(A) Says "suitable" is evidenced by listing/labeling, third party evaluation, or whatever the owner and manufacturer can convince the AHJ to buy off on.

In my case the AHJ is only interested in occupied buildings when there is a certificate of occupancy required - they are not interested in inspecting work that occurs in the process units.

Since the AHJ is out of the picture we're wise to stay away from the third provision in 500.8(A), leaving us with two options - listing/labeling, or third party evaluation.

Incidentally, I just received copies of the UL file cards showing which combinations of Crouse Hinds and Appleton plugs and receptacles UL has tested - PM me with your email if you'd like a copy.

I just wan't you to understand your real options. (I helped draft the original 500.8(A) text)

When it is on one of my projects, I usually have no problem with option 3. In your case, option 2 may be cost effective. Actually any NRTL that is qualifed for Hazarous Location equipment (not all NRTLs are) could probably do a reasonable investigation of any receptical/plug combination you were interested in. Although it has to be done exclusively out of their Cortland, NY lab, Intertek does a good job of third-party evaluation at a reasonable cost.

 

[jdsmith]

I just wan't you to understand your real options. (I helped draft the original 500.8(A) text)

When it is on one of my projects, I usually have no problem with option 3. In your case, option 2 may be cost effective. Actually any NRTL that is qualifed for Hazarous Location equipment (not all NRTLs are) could probably do a reasonable investigation of any receptical/plug combination you were interested in. Although it has to be done exclusively out of their Cortland, NY lab, Intertek does a good job of third-party evaluation at a reasonable cost.

Do you have an external AHJ that inspects your projects? Most folks aren't willing to take the liability of personally supplying the official engineering judgement in option 3. I suppose a written statement of manufacturer's evaluation would work (filed in the Management of Change file) but I'm not sure if I trust any of the hazardous location manufacturers right now. The list of manufacturers that I trust is pretty small - there are a few that still have good technical staffs despite the accountants and lawyers.

 

[rbalex]

Do you have an external AHJ that inspects your projects? Most folks aren't willing to take the liability of personally supplying the official engineering judgement in option 3. I suppose a written statement of manufacturer's evaluation would work (filed in the Management of Change file) but I'm not sure if I trust any of the hazardous location manufacturers right now. The list of manufacturers that I trust is pretty small - there are a few that still have good technical staffs despite the accountants and lawyers.

I guess it depends now. Things may have changed in jurisdictions I've worked in before. I work "coast to coast," but I've rarely had an AHJ balk more than a few days.

Whether you know it or not, all the listings, labelings, and/or AHJ blessings in the world won't relieve your employer of an ounce of liability. It may or may not effect what the insurer does.