My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6920 SEAWAY BLVD 2018-01-01 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
SEAWAY BLVD
>
6920
>
6920 SEAWAY BLVD 2018-01-01 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/4/2019 3:25:24 PM
Creation date
3/9/2017 5:32:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
SEAWAY BLVD
Street Number
6920
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1015
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
; <br /> Page 2 <br /> Everett IIldg. Dept <br /> 8/25/80 <br /> 6. The uni.t manufacturer, First Co., as a member of UL, is obligated to remove <br /> the UL label from the unit at any time he deviates from the originally sub- <br /> mitted design, even though he may add a UL anproved device for improvement. <br /> To comply with UL, the manufacturer must again resubmit the unit with the <br /> new device. This procedure I am told, could take from 10 tc 15 months and <br /> thousands more dollars. It is also my understanding that adding the choker <br /> coil and P.E. switches to the unit in the field, also violates UL standards. <br /> However, the units would already have the UL label, but could be altered <br /> improperly, which is not in the best interest of the owner. <br /> 7, There are 212 units on this job that are unique to this job only. The <br /> manufacturer did not reapply for a UL l;abel because of economics. There <br /> are too few units and the cost to send �them through UL would be prohibitive <br /> for the owner. <br /> g, There are no other manufacturers, that I know of, that produce a fan coil <br /> unit with UL label svch is used on this project. <br /> You can see we are caught in a bureaucratic process, that if followed rigidly, <br /> does not permit flexibility. UL is not a law making body. They are manufacture <br /> oriented and controlled to set standards for themselves and others. They sell <br /> the UL label requirements to state, county and city building departments te such <br /> a degree that the codes become restrictive of energy conservation and sometimes <br /> restrictive of trade also. I think .the State of Washington realizes this fact. <br /> It is my understanding that the new State code will remove any mention of UL, <br /> but will require a recognized laboratory which could be one of many. <br /> It has been a joint effort by the owner, engineer and this contractor, to put <br /> together an economical energy efficient system. To do so, we must sometimes <br /> vary from the norms because there is not always equipment available that would <br /> allow us to be inovative. In this case, we are being inovative and are trying <br /> to use the best possible means available, all UL approved equipme��t. <br /> I am sure that if a variance is granted, the owner and this contractor would be <br /> most apPreciative. <br /> Very truly yours, <br /> ALLIED S ET METAL FABRICATORS� INC. <br /> Charle��4>`�" ., <br /> d' <br /> Project Manager <br /> CHB/eg <br /> enclosure � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.