Jim Stafford:
Thank you. There are a lot of people willing to speculate to the EMC-PSTC
about subjects they really do not know. It is refreshing to see a
professional treatment of a subject.
Dave George
----------
>From: Jim Stafford
>To: EMC-PSTC
>Subject: OSHA-29 CFR 1910 Subpart S
>Date: Tuesday, February 04, 1997 6:13AM
>
>
>From: Jim Stafford
>To: EMC-PSTC
>Subject: OSHA-29 CFR 1910 Subpart S
>Date: 1997-02-04 06:13
>Priority: 3
>Message ID: AB5B4A674E7ED01195C3008029E127AA
>Received: from bbmail1.unisys.com by ea_ihx101.ea.unisys.com with SMTP
>(Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63)
> id C54KAM5B; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:58:40 -0000
>Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by
>bbmail1.unisys.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA23203; Tue, 4 Feb 1997
>08:53:50 GMT
>Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id
>BAA26251 for emc-pstc-list; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 01:21:03 -0500 (EST)
>Date: 04 Feb 97 01:13:35 EST
>From: Jim Stafford <[email protected]>
>To: EMC-PSTC <[email protected]>
>Subject: OSHA-29 CFR 1910 Subpart S
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>Sender: [email protected]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: Jim Stafford <[email protected]>
>X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]>
>X-Listname: emc-pstc
>X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
>X-Info: Help requests to [email protected]
>X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected]
>X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
>There seems to be some different interpretations as to the scope of OSHA-29
>CFR
>1910 Subpart S.
>
>This subpart DOES NOT apply to all equipment that plugs into the AC
>mains.
>
>The Introduction specifically states
>
>1910.301 (a) Design and safety standards for electrical systems
>These regulations are contained in 1910.302 through 1910.330. Sections
>1910.302
>through 1910.308 contain safety
>standards for electrical utilization systems. Included in this category are
>all
>electrical equipment and installations
>used to provide electric power and light for employee workplaces. Sections
>1910.309 through 1910.330 are
>reserved for possible future safety standards for other electrical systems.
>
>Later in 1910.399 utilization systems are define as
>(128) A utilization system is a system which provides electric power and
>light
>for employee workplaces,and includes
>the premises wiring system and utilization equipment.
>
>utilization equipment is described just above this in 1910.399 (127)
>Utilization equipment means equipment which utilizes electric energy for
>mechanical, chemical, heating, lighting
>or similar useful purpose.
>
>This definition clearly does not cover a computer unless maybe it is used
>to
>control one of the elements above.
>
>The introduction specifically reserving 1910.309 through 1910.330 for other
>"electrical" systems indicates that there
>are other types of systems that do not fall under these standards.
>
>This specification is design to handle installations in the workplace, NOT
>the
>design of individual pieces equipment.
>The only electrical systems that need to be "approved" which is
>"acceptible"
>equipment as designated in 1910.399
>(1) are those covered by this subpart which was described in the
>introduction
>and then redefined in 1910.399 (128).
>
>Engineers at our company have been "told" at seminars that UL or "approved"
>equipment was necessary to plug into
>the mains due to this CFR. This misinformation has led to alot of
>confusion and
>misdirected effort.
>
>Clearly there are state and local regulations that vary. I am not sure
>about
>the source of these regulations other than
>those specified in the NEC. It is definitely easier if the inspectors see a
>mark
>from an NRTL; however, I am not sure that
>it is actually required by the state and local regulations. This has only
>been a
>concern when our equipment was put into
>a new building that was under construction. It has seldom been an issue
>when the
>equipment (small rack mount equipment)
>was installed after the facility was built. Maybe the inspectors and the
>facilities engineers also have a different interpretation
>of the regulations.
>
>
>Jim Stafford
>HPS
>Product Engineer.
>(These comments do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer).
>
>
