0 members (),
181
guests, and
10
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 73
Member
|
Under the definition for Listed it clearly states that it has to be acceptable to the AHJ. While I don't like this, because it causes too much variation as to what is acceptable and what isn't. This is the way things are. In a certain community in MI we recently had an appeal on such an issue. An UL approved Phase converter was used in a service for a fire pump motor. The AHJ said UL hadn't approved it for that particular application. To the best of my knowledge it still has not been settled, because the Electrical Board of MI sent it back to the locat community to work it out. They did not want to be the one's to possibly set a National Standard on the issue. Listed. Equipment, materials, or services included in a list published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation of products or services, that maintains periodic inspection of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic evaluation of services, and whose listing states that the equipment, material, or services either meets appropriate designated standards or has been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose. FPN: The means for identifying listed equipment may vary for each organization concerned with product evaluation, some of which do not recognize equipment as listed unless it is also labeled. Use of the system employed by the listing organization allows the authority having jurisdiction to identify a listed product.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 693
Member
|
LK, I suggest asking the manufacturer for an 'on official letterhead' letter stating that the components are approved and that the industry as a whole generally does not have assemblies approved.
I would also contact as many other manufacturers as you can for similar statements. Ask the inspector what we would like to see specifically addresses in these letters, for him to accept this as 'standard'.
There is one other route: over his head. I'm as polite as anyone when it comes to inspectors, but when one is wrong... Well, let's just say that I enjoy the trip up the food chain.
Larry Fine Fine Electric Co. fineelectricco.com
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
If the inspector is not comvinced this is a listed assembly he should dust off his article 680 skills and inspect it as a field assembed unit. It isn't rocket science
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,429
OP
Member
|
Well, as of yesterday afternoon, the inspector is no longer working for the city, this is too bad, because i would like to know his reason for failing, I happen to beleave, he should not take on the liability, of a manufacture that has workers that may or may not be qualified, and have no listing, nor do feel i want to take on this liability, some postings noted field inspections, this would be fine if i did all the wiring, but as you know the control panel and various pumps and heaters are not wired by the installing electrician, so the inspector in my opinion did, make the right decision, however, inspectors should not have to take on this burden and neither should we as contractors, the spa industry needs to get up to date.
[This message has been edited by LK (edited 06-02-2005).]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 173
Member
|
So what is the solution?? Should the spa sales folks tell the buyer: "Make sure your electrician doesn't get his installation inspected. This spa is not listed as a 'package'" I'm sure he make a lot of sales that way. Like has been said, this is a manufacturer's issue.
I personally feel the inspector is being overzealous. I also feel he is taking no responsibility for the spa itself by passing the electrician's installation.
Speedy Petey
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." -Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 613
Member
|
Maybe the inspector was concerned that a unlisted tub may be a hazard to persons using the hot tub...practical safeguarding.
shortcircuit
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,429
OP
Member
|
Speedy,
There is the problem, when the inspector approves the instalation, he is accepting the package as being in compliance, and should any defect exist, he wll also assume part of the liability, where as if the package was listed, then the liability would fall on the manufacture and listing agency, as far as non listed spas go, what i would like to know is how are the inspectors going to treat them, and will this treatment be equal for all areas, as it is now Washington State, requires listed spas, some areas of Ca, also require them, and pockets of communties around the country, are requiring that they be listed, so where do we stand when we accept a job, with a non listed package?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 375
Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382 Likes: 7
Member
|
LK I'll broach this matter with DCA on Tuesday or Wed of the coming week, without mentioning any specifics. I had a few discussions, and still do not have a FIRM answer for the 'Jersey guys'.
Like I said on the phone.....interesting!
John
John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,429
OP
Member
|
John,
It is intresting, by the way, the inspector is gone as of yesterday, I will fill you in on the phone, as soon as i get more information on this issue, and any info from DCA will be helpful.
Thank you, Les
|
|
|
Posts: 806
Joined: October 2004
|
|
|
|