Codes for inspections and safety

[Twophase]

I am reviewing a number of IEC and VDE standards (European) regarding installation safety and inspection of installations. I am relatively new to the NEC, and notice that juristictions often use their own codes anyways. Regarding these European codes, do we have a series of equivalent codes in the US? I did find a few UL codes for installation safety (hazardous locations UL 1203, panel standard UL508A, etc). Would the NEC be the inspection standard (since we do not know what the local standards are)?

Thanks!

 

[jim dungar]

Just like Europe, we have more than one set of standards, so there is no single answer. What are you actually looking to do?

UL does not have codes, it has standards that deal with product design and manufacturing, but it is fairly vague on the specifics of how to install those products.

NFPA has a whole lot of different standards that do deal with installation and safety. This may be you best place to look, but relatively few of them are required by any type of code or law.

NFPA 70 (the NEC) is a code for the installation of premises wiring. It is a 'what needs to be done' not a 'how to do it' standard, for example it might say a conduit needs to be supported, but it does not say how it must be done.

 

[Coppersmith]

The code is a model standard for electrical installation which has been adopted in almost all areas of the US and some foreign countries. Each jurisdiction is free to make local provisions that override or add to the NEC. This is rare. From the National Electrical Code:

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the
practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards
arising from the use of electricity. This Code is not intended as a
design specification or an instruction manual for untrained
persons.
(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered
necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper
maintenance result in an installation that is essentially free
from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or
adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.
(C) Relation to Other International Standards. The requirements
in this Code address the fundamental principles of
protection for safety contained in Section 131 of International
Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60364-1, Electrical Installations
of Buildings.
Informational Note: IEC 60364-1, Section 131, contains fundamental
principles of protection for safety that encompass protection
against electric shock, protection against thermal effects,
protection against overcurrent, protection against fault currents,
and protection against overvoltage. All of these potential
hazards are addressed by the requirements in this Code.
90.2 Scope.
(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation and removal of
electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and
communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and
optical fiber cables and raceways

 

[tom baker]

The NEC, or NFPA 70, has to be adopted by some regulatory agency to be effective. The NEC is revised every 3 years, and some agencies are on the 2020, 2017, or 2014. Many agencies have there own amendments. In my state, we require UL or NRTL listing for most products. My suggestion is once you know where you are working or shipping to, ask here what rules you will need to know. If you are building a control panel, UL 508A is the go to standard. While you may use UL 508A to build a panel, it can be "listed" by other NRTLs, such as ETL, CSA - US. UL is generally the most expensive.

 

[Jraef]

I’ll just add that most of the UL standards are in the process of being “harmonized” with equivalent IEC standards, with the eventual goal of making it so that if you build to the newer UL standards here, you will also meet the IEC standards if exporting. So for example UL 508 is becoming UL 60947, which will be the same as IEC 60947.

It will not likely work exactly the other way though because in many jurisdictions, we require “3rd party listing”, the NRTLs (Nationally Recognized Testing Labs) mentioned by Tom above. IEC is not a listing and testing authority, it relies on “self regulation”, which many people here do not accept. But it will make it easier for entities like TUV and DNV to have their labeling accepted here.

 

[tom baker]

Jfaef: A seminar I attended discussed the IEC process, so I know that its self regulated and the head of the company is ultimately accountable. I am very familiar with the UL and NTRL process. And yes the IEC products here in the US are not accepted. Can you compare UL and IEC, do they both result in safe products?

 

[rbalex]

It's been I while since I said it, but show me the statute in a US jurisdiction that gives an AHJ their "authority" and I will show you in that same statute or one superior to it that the AHJ carries no liability except for a criminal infraction such as accepting a bribe. Competence to enforce is not a factor. In the case of NRTLs they have no liability either-even if they certified a product AND the product was installed per their certification. Liability is always with the owner/operator of a facility. They may be able to eventually "share" the liability with a designer, installer, insurer, etc., but inspectors or certifying agencies have no requisite competence standard except, as I said, some criminal act can be established.

About a third of my career was for IEC based projects. I had no problem with manufacturers self-certifying their products. They are liable in those cases.