4th June 2020
Unlike Canada the requirement for NRTL (Nationally Recognised test laboratory) approval is not mandatory. However, the vast majority of your potential customers are very likely to require and request it due to their own internal health and safety requirements.
The US is very litigious, and companies need to protect themselves. There is a practice in the US whereby for insurance reasons, companies employ an AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction). An AHJ visits their works and reviews all manner of details including the installation and use of electrical equipment.
If the equipment has been reviewed by an NRTL to the correct standard, then this is a tick in the box and the auditor moves on to the next area.
There are two potential routes to obtaining NRTL approval on a machine:
A field evaluation of a machine would involve a review and testing against the requirements of NFPA 79 – Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery. This is quite involved but if incorporated from the outset, the process can be managed. A common misconception is that building a machine with all UL approved parts allows for the UL mark to be applied. This is not the case.
A large part of the machine which attracts a lot of attention during the inspection is the control panel – this part will be evaluated in accordance with UL508a which again is quite involved but if incorporated from the outset can be managed and designed correctly to avoid potential cost down the line. However, if the control panel has been built by an approved UL Panel Builder and has the UL mark this is a tick in the box and the auditor will move on to the next aspect.
A field evaluation inspection of a machine must be carried out in the US as NFPA 70 (US wiring Regulations) is also looked at. If the machine does not meet the requirements, then the machine is ‘Red Tagged’ which means that power cannot be applied until it is brought up to specification and re-valuated. This of course incurs cost and time.
One potential issue is that the machine does not have the correct gauge wire, this is because the US require much larger gauge wire than we would use in the UK. If the incorrect wire size is used, then the machine will need to be rewired in the correct size before the unit can be re-evaluated and marked.
If you’ve been following this blog series then you’ll notice an obvious link between all of its considerations – the effect of getting UL wrong and the importance of speaking to the right people in the know before moving forward on growth initiatives into US markets.
Having an understanding of the processes encompassing inspection and evaluation is a major facet to the right UL practice for machine builders and OEMs and hopefully, the information here alleviates that concern which is often overlooked when converting European builds to US ready machines or looking to expand into the US with new build considerations altogether.
If you have a specific question about UL then the form below will be the most useful tool for you. With these questions, we can respond to your specific needs directly.
To be notified of any updates during the campaign, navigate to the sign-up tab in the form below.
Whilst this is the final blog in the series, PP C&A will be publishing pre-recorded presentations on the subjects covered throughout the campaign in the coming weeks.
Stefano Muraro of Rockwell Automation explores specific evolutions of UL508A standards and the impact on industrial control panels, highlighting innovative, sustainable solutions.
In this guest contribution to the ongoing Sustainability in UL Standards campaign, Phil Murby, UK Commercial Manager at Lutze explores a different approach to the construction of a control panel.
In this guest contribution to the ongoing Sustainability in UL Standards campaign, Phil Murby’s insights provide practical guidance on aligning control panel wiring practices with sustainability and compliance, offering tangible solutions for both efficiency and environmental stewardship.
As the manufacturing community increasingly leans towards sustainable practices, machine builders and OEMs find themselves at the centre of impact and progress. But there are several caveats to ‘doing the right thing’, that will almost certainly emerge. The implications for standards and certifications like UL508A for one, could be significant.
European machine builders are increasingly eyeing the lucrative North American market. Ian Knight believes accessing the opportunity depends on your firm’s ability to strategically navigate standards and avoid the pitfalls of safety compliance.
PP Control & Automation has long been promoting the considerations to be mindful of when navigating UL 508A. When doing so, questions linking to NFPA often enter the discussion. This supplement offers some clarity on the relationship between the two.
PP C&A has signed a deal with Product Approvals to boost its product certification offer to global clients.
Having an understanding of the processes encompassing inspection and evaluation is a major facet to the right UL practice for OEMs and the often overlooked considerations and risks when converting European builds to US-ready machines or when looking to expand into North America with new machine builds altogether.
With the control panels built and the components selected, all under UL guidance, machine connectivity will bring the whole thing together but there’s a serious worry that all that hard work can be undone by not understanding the importance of cabling in relation to UL.
Many definitions used in systems implemented in North America have no equivalent in the design of industrial installations according to European regulations. The reason for this is not a simple problem of different terminology, but a different conceptual approach altogether.
With these questions, we can respond to your specific needs directly and also build on the communications planned over the coming weeks.
Ian Knight, Chief Information Officer at PP Control & Automation (PP C&A) challenges the prevailing, often vague narrative around AI adoption and reframes the conversation around a more practical starting point: operational constraints.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant concept for manufacturers. It is already being explored across quotation, production planning, engineering, quality, supply chain and customer service functions. Yet, for many organisations, the gap between experimentation and meaningful operational impact remains difficult to close.
A leading aquaculture specialist – that is changing the way fish are vaccinated safely – has signed a major manufacturing deal.
On paper, defined discipline-specific suppliers can look organised. However, every additional supplier introduces another handoff, and every handoff creates another point where time, quality, communication and accountability can be lost.
Very rarely does growth not surface because an OEM lacks ambition. Shortcomings arise because operating models built to support such ambition don’t evolve quickly enough.
Recent weeks have brought two important industry moments into sharp focus, concluding that demand for AI and automation is rising, but investment, skills, and long-term thinking must follow.
For decades, one question has sat at the heart of operational strategy for machine builders and OEMs: make or buy? It’s a familiar debate and it isn’t the wrong question by any means, but perhaps it is an incomplete one.
In most machine building businesses, change is still treated as an exception. A late-stage drawing revision, component substitution, or wiring tweak discovered during build. Each one is handled, resolved, and signed off. And then everyone moves on. But what if that’s the wrong way to think about it? What if change isn’t the disruption to the system but the system itself?
