The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Industrail Control Panel bonding per 409.108
by sparkyinak
Yesterday at 03:17 PM
Calling all Non-US members!! (Non-US only)
by aussie240
12/07/16 02:39 AM
Photo Upload Tutorial
by DanK
12/06/16 11:35 PM
Sprinklered equipment 26-008
by bigpapa
12/02/16 04:24 PM
On Delay Relay with Auto Reset
by Potseal
12/01/16 09:59 AM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 13
HotLine1 9
sparkyinak 8
Texas_Ranger 8
Trumpy 6
Who's Online
0 registered (), 226 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#81646 - 09/04/02 08:55 AM Enforceability of manufacturers written instructions
tdhorne Offline
Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 344
Loc: Maryland, USA
In many threads here and eleswere the subject of the manufacturers written instructions come up. I have come to believe that if the instructions are not part of the listing they are not enforceable by the AHJ. If the lable that bears the listing mark says use only copper wire that is enforceable but the manufacturers admonision in the installation instructions that do not bare a listing mark to use only the manufacturers breakers is not enforceable.

I would like to know were inspectors come down on this issue.
--
Tom
_________________________
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use" Thomas Alva Edison

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#81647 - 09/04/02 09:48 AM Re: Enforceability of manufacturers written instructions
resqcapt19 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2209
Loc: IL
Tom,
I agree with you. One perfect example is the use of classified circuit breakers. All panels come with instructions that state that you must use their brand of breakers, but UL has classified breakers from other manufacturers that can be safely used in the panel.
Don
_________________________
Don(resqcapt19)

Top
#81648 - 09/04/02 11:24 AM Re: Enforceability of manufacturers written instructions
dana1028 Offline
Member

Registered: 01/09/02
Posts: 163
Loc: San Carlos, CA
In our local jurisdictional meetings it is pretty much the understanding that mfrs. with no listing have no status - i.e. their written instructions carry no weight over the NEC

Top
#81649 - 09/05/02 05:43 PM Re: Enforceability of manufacturers written instructions
harold endean Offline
Member

Registered: 02/16/02
Posts: 2248
Loc: Boonton, NJ
Boy, have you guys hit a hard spot for inspectors. The circuit breaker panels all say to use "Their" breakers in "Their" panels. Yet some other company makes a breaker that is listed for another panel. Do you pass the job? Do you fail it? How do I know how's breakers are listed for who's panels any more. Vutler Hammer bought, Westinghouse, Bryant, American(Federal), and Challenger. I believe, and ITE Siemans bought Murray. Now where does that leave GE and Square D.? Can you use a Square D breaker (Homeline) in an ITE/Siemans panel? Show me some paperwork, and I can accept it. I believe that only Bryant type "BR" breaker is the only one that will fill, GE, Square D homeline, ITE/Siemans, Murray, etc. All of those black square type breakers. While we are on this subject, how about twin breakers? The NEC allows up to 42 breakers in a panel. However does that mean you are allowed a twin breaker in an ITE 4040MB panel? NO, because the manufacture says that this panel is allowed only 40 full size breakers NO twins. Believe me, I am not trying to give anyone a hard time, just trying to do my job and eforce the NEC as I see it written.

Top
#81650 - 09/05/02 06:45 PM Re: Enforceability of manufacturers written instructions
resqcapt19 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2209
Loc: IL
Harold,
The "classified" breakers are required to be supplied with a listing of the panels that they can be used in. As far as putting more than 40 poles in a 40 circuit panel, that isn't just a "manufacturer's instruction", that is a listing and labeling requirement.
Don
_________________________
Don(resqcapt19)

Top
#81651 - 09/06/02 04:10 AM Re: Enforceability of manufacturers written instructions
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5545
were does the CSPC and NEMA stand on these issues?


are they not our 'trade watchdogs'?

Top
#81652 - 09/06/02 06:13 AM Re: Enforceability of manufacturers written instructions
tdhorne Offline
Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 344
Loc: Maryland, USA
UL classified breakers have a list enclosed in the package with the breakers to show what panels they are classified for use in. For you to demand to see the list is not unreasonable. I also support you in rejecting the common practice of installing any breaker that physically fits the panel assembly.

The only thing I take issue with is the practice some inspectors have of enforcing the manufacturers unlisted instructions. It is not in cutler hammers best interest to permit the installation of a Thomas & Bettes classified breaker in their panels but that does not make it OK for anyone to use a misapplication of the listed or labeling instructions rule to prevent the installation of a breaker that is laboratory classified for use in that panel. I have had surge arresters turned down on inspection because they were installed in a panel of a different manufacturer. I simply removed the surge arrester and asked for the inspection to proceed without it. The inspector looked at me hard for nearly a minute. He knew that I would reinstall the surge arrester as soon as he was gone. Given that the surge arrester was an intermatic, installed in exact compliance with the instructions, I did not see what else I could do. The inspector wanted me to install the plug on surge arrester that is built by the panels manufacturer. Those units have a much lower dissipation rating than the wire in intermatic that I was installing. On that type of issue were you need inspection to get paid for your work processing an appeal is impractical.
--
Tom
_________________________
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use" Thomas Alva Edison

Top
#81653 - 09/17/02 11:24 AM Re: Enforceability of manufacturers written instructions
George Corron Offline
Member

Registered: 05/16/01
Posts: 728
Loc: Lorton, Va USA
From the IAEI UL corner. Sorry I rang in late on this. http://www.ul.com/regulators/novdec2001.pdf

3rd column

[This message has been edited by George Corron (edited 09-17-2002).]

Top
#81654 - 09/17/02 03:16 PM Re: Enforceability of manufacturers written instructions
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5545
hmmm,
it mentions the UL Question corner via the IAEI.....can anyone comment on this?

Top
#81655 - 09/17/02 05:33 PM Re: Enforceability of manufacturers written instructions
George Corron Offline
Member

Registered: 05/16/01
Posts: 728
Loc: Lorton, Va USA
Sparky,
It was (maybe is) a column in the IAEI news where you wrote in to the UL rep asking questions.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals