Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Joe,
A quick look at the UL information shows me that most of the changes involve things that are part of the building wiring system...not cord and plug connected equipment. There will always be interaction between the code and the standards for the items that are installed as part of the building wiring system. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem making the code a "use" code in addition to an "installation" code, and I have a problem with code rules that apply to things that are not part of the building wiring system.
Don

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Did someone forget their meds?

Was this comment intended as a insult to the posters here? You added nothing dealing with any technical content.

Please count to 10 before you post a message of this type.

I hope that the Moderator's will agree with me.

 

[rbalex]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Originally posted by charlie:
Joe is trying to make the point that the CMPs will make changes to the Code that will effect the UL standards.

And, in my opinion, that particular point is well taken.

There is really no "stand alone? set of Standards out there. Depending on the jurisdictions electrical work is still affected by other organizations ? organizations that may or may not have a bent toward coordinating with NFPA. Thankfully UL is one that is interested. We have often made the point in this forum that the UL ?White Book? is Volume II of the NEC.

However, there is a problem with UL too. While they generally attempt to reconcile their Standards with the NEC; they, as an organization, also strongly attempt to influence the adoption of their standards by attempting to get ?listing and labeling? made a general requirement. You will only have to go back an edition or two in the White Book and you will find that Category Code PRGY was not in it. ?PRGY? is the code for ?Motors.? For the most part, NEMA motors have never been listed and UL has wanted to change that for years. They can?t directly force the motors manufactures to list, so they have been trying the indirect approach of having the NEC do it for them.

The problem with the UL Standards, in my opinion, is they are NOT truly consensus standards despite what ANSI says and the public has no real input to them. The NEC may be the only way the public can affect them.

 

[rbalex]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

BTW, that is not the way I think it should be - just my take on how things are at the moment.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Originally posted by joe tedesco:
Was this comment intended as a insult...

Honestly, it was insulting. I apologize.

A proposal to add "and use" to a code that is already generalistic (Edit: almost to) the point of unusuability seems a little fruitless and effectively a waste of time, in my opinion. But I could have stated that in a less insulting and clearer manner.

IMO, it rings similar to the code in 590 which puts it into law that Christmas lights shall only be allowed to hang for 90 days. Has this ever been enforced? At least that one has specifics to it, even if it is laughable.

[ February 20, 2005, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[iowadean]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

in 590 which puts it into law that Christmas lights shall only be allowed to hang for 90 days.

In the 2005 NEC, 590.5 adds that holiday lighting must be listed. As an inspector, does that mean I must check all the holiday lighting that is put up in my jurisdiction? Sorry, but that is not going to happen. For one thing, there is no permit required so how would you track it? This might get the insurance company off the hook if a fire is started by unlisted equipment. Otherwise, what is the point of stating this?

 

[sandsnow]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Originally posted by rbalex:
You will only have to go back an edition or two in the White Book and you will find that Category Code PRGY was not in it. ?PRGY? is the code for ?Motors.? For the most part, NEMA motors have never been listed and UL has wanted to change that for years.
The problem with the UL Standards, in my opinion, is they are NOT truly consensus standards despite what ANSI says and the public has no real input to them. The NEC may be the only way the public can affect them.

Bob
Your motor comment is interesting. Back 20 years ago the story was that UL could not list a motor because they did not know what it was going to be used for. Someone could connect a 5HP motor to a fan requiring 7.5 HP for example. Since the pool pump motor has the pump attached, then that was the end use. Aren't hazardous motors listed or classified only for the hazardous application?

Doesn't UL have industry reps on their councils and committees or whatever they are? I will have to go to the website and look.
Maybe it's not open to everyone like the NEC proposals; but it's better than the ICC where the building code is written (voted on) by soley the building officals.

BTW, your annex A story takes personal ambition/ego on the part of an AHJ to a new low.

 

[rbalex]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Larry,

UL is definitely opening up - much to their credit. Before 8-10 years ago virtually their entire "User Advisory Committee" base was manufacturers. As far as they were concerned, that's who their users were.

I remember it was a big deal with the API when one of our Subcommittee on Electrical Equipment members was invited to join their motor UAC. In 2001, I was invited to join the UAC for HazLoc products and the appointment was in progress when I left my employer. I never restarted the clock.

Their ANSI certification as a consensus organization has been challenged a enough times by enough organizations and individuals that ANSI has asked them to review their appointment process. They have responded positively, if slowly.

 

[tony_psuee]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Larry and others too,

If you are interested, below is a link of which Standard Technical Panels (STP's) are currently looking for members and the respective representation category.

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/stp/call_4_members.html

Tony

 

[goodcode]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

An interesting issue. The problem is real.
The proposed solution however, would be uneforceable.
There is no easy solution, no one section to suggest text to eliminate untrained persons from making safe electrical installations an accident waiting to happen or eliminate abuse of appliances by homeowners.
Two suggestions: (1) Address individual product issues with individual changes to the NEC to drive the Product Standards. An good example is the the text in 404.15 (B). Anywhere there is a Part in an Article titled "Construction Specifications" or similiar, we can drive the product standards through the NEC.
(2) Where possible strengthen minimum installation requirements in the NEC. If a single problem continues to appear in existing installations we can attempt to strengthen existing installation minimums.
Send in those proposals!

 

[charlie]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Hello GoodCode, I am looking forward to hoisting a few with you again.

Take care, Charlie

 

[goodcode]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Definition:
Few, A. Always more than one, usually more than two.

 

[charlie]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

I don't remember having less than three.

 

[physis]

Re: Revise Section 90.2(A) as follows:

Oh man, I always miss out.