# UL Listed



## ICE (Jul 20, 2011)

But should it be?  Have you found violations with UL listed equipment?


----------



## ICE (Jul 26, 2011)

I am sure that some of you inspectors have written corrections regarding UL listed equipment that had to be addressed by UL.  I have done it a few times and would like to hear about the cases that you have encountered.


----------



## Bryan Holland (Jul 26, 2011)

I occassionally come across unlisted products, products with counterfeit listing labels, field-altered listed products, & listed products being used or installed in violation of the listing.  The most common product I have issues with are listed electrical signs followed by solar PV equipment & swimming pool equipment, in general.


----------



## beach (Jul 26, 2011)

Referring to the origonal post, a lot of people look only for the UL listing and label, however, other listing agencys may be used if they meet the definition of listed and labeled in the NEC.

(I say that because you will note that Bryan used "Listed" and not UL in particular in his post)


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 26, 2011)

What problem are you addressing here. Wire size on the 300A fuses?


----------



## ICE (Jul 26, 2011)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> What problem are you addressing here. Wire size on the 300A fuses?


There is no working space.  To even get to several of the fuses, part of the shielding must be removed.  This job is located in a city near where I work and the chief el. engineer invited me along.  The lack of working space was caught by him on an earlier inspection.  The job is a huge solar system that I mentioned in another thread.


----------



## ICE (Jul 26, 2011)

A while back I inspected a ****** jacuzzi tub.  There was no #8 solid bonding the pump motor to the water pipe.  There was no lug on the motor for the bonding jumper.  The installation instructions made no mention of a bonding jumper.  I called ****** and talked with their technical dept.  I was assured that the model tub I was looking at is listed without a bonding jumper.  They gave me the listing # and as far as they were concerned, all was good.  They did not mention double insulated.  I explained that the pump was not double insulated, is made from stamped steel, is the same pump I have seen many times over the years and I am not comfortable with their answer.  They stood by their answer.

I brought this to the attention of the chief EE and he contacted UL.  UL said that the listing is for a tub with a double insulated motor.  The chief also chided me for ordering a modification of a listed piece of equipment. {I told the contractor to install a lug and bonding jumper.} I told him that the listing is void and I made the equipment as safe as I have seen them for years.  He agreed and I agreed and I promised not to do it again, again.  He said that UL was going to come out and look at the equipment and then deal with ******.  That was months ago and I have heard nothing.

Another was a tract of homes that are blessed with a photo-voltaic system.  *** ***** techs were on site to give us training.  I noticed a bonding jumper that stretched between the individual panels.  It is 6" of wire with a crimp eye at each end.  The attachment is a screw into the end of an extrusion.  I asked to have one removed.  The screws were sheet metal screws.  They had to change the screws and retest for UL listing.  They were crestfallen that they had to go on all of the tile roofs and change the screws to machine screws.  Funny how something as small as a screw can screw you.

There have been other situations with UL and third party listings but none worthy of note.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Jul 26, 2011)

We have had issues with UL listed gas fireplace units of a certain model. Our issue was that the pre installed appliance connector was before the pre installed shut off valve. You could not shut off the gas and pull out the unit for servicing. Also, the shutoff valve was inside the side wall and could only be operated with a small coat hanger like tool that reached into a groove/ slot on the side of the unit. Impossible to maneuver in an emergency. We make  installers add an additional shutoff before the unit.


----------



## gupiaotools (Aug 10, 2011)

I especially like the spacing for the guardrail. I want to share it


----------



## ICE (Dec 22, 2011)

The contractor is arguing that since the equipment is UL listed with this fitting for the conductors to enter the cabinet, I can't require an insulated or smooth bushing.  My feeling is that the unit will vibrate and the conductors are against the threads which could cut through the insulation.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 22, 2011)

If the code says the equipment must be listed amd it was properly listed then you do not have the authority to impose additional criteria related to vibration and possible chafing


----------



## tmurray (Dec 23, 2011)

I never understand contracts who will argue over installing something that costs a couple of bucks. Any contractor who wants to stay in business will quickly see that it is easier to spend a couple of bucks and keep the inspector happy than to **** them off.

Personally I would recommend protecting the wires if there is no code violation and note that you recommended it. Later if there is a problem because the threads ate through the wires you can easily cover yourself and prove the contractor's negligence.


----------



## ICE (Dec 23, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> If the code says the equipment must be listed amd it was properly listed then *you do not have the authority* to impose additional criteria related to vibration and possible chafing


Sure I do, I'm the inspector and I found a code violation.  UL is not infallible and I have caused UL to revoke a listing several times.


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 23, 2011)

tmurray said:
			
		

> I never understand contracts who will argue over installing something that costs a couple of bucks. Any contractor who wants to stay in business will quickly see that it is easier to spend a couple of bucks and keep the inspector happy than to **** them off. Personally I would recommend protecting the wires if there is no code violation and note that you recommended it. Later if there is a problem because the threads ate through the wires you can easily cover yourself and prove the contractor's negligence.


I have done inspections where I would have sworn the contractor was trying to get me Pee'd off. I treated him the same way I would have treated the best contractor anyone could hope for. Being mad for any reason is no reason to change how you perform your job.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 23, 2011)

If the product does not comply with a specific code provision throw the book at them.

If the Listing is not in compliance with the listing criteria throw the book at them.  Besides UL not being infalable it needs to be recognized that they get their money from the manufacturer whose equipment they are certifying.  This has the potential of creating a bias.

But you do not have authority to impose criteria that is not in the regulations.   Statements such as "My feeling is that the unit will vibrate and the conductors are against the threads which could cut through the insulation" give me the impression you are creating your own criteria.  Where is there a requirement in the regulations or Listing criteria that requires an "insulated or smooth bushing"?

While most contractors will "...spend a couple of bucks and keep the inspector happy than to **** them off" when what is being required by the inspector is not required by the regulations then it is effectively extortion.  As was noted you can offer a recommendation but it should stop at that point.


----------



## ICE (Dec 23, 2011)

deleted the post


----------



## TJacobs (Dec 24, 2011)

I'm with ICE...looks bad and is an easy fix.


----------



## chris kennedy (Dec 25, 2011)

ICE said:
			
		

> The contractor is arguing that since the equipment is UL listed with this fitting for the conductors to enter the cabinet, I can't require an insulated or smooth bushing.  My feeling is that the unit will vibrate and the conductors are against the threads which could cut through the insulation.


Did anyone read the units install instructions? My guess is that the manufacture intended for an installer supplied fitting to be used in those Meyers hubs. IMO the install pictured is in violation of 110.3. Also IMO Tiger has the option of 110.2 to disapprove the install.


----------



## jwelectric (Dec 25, 2011)

I don’t see anything in the original post that an inspector could turn down. There is no requirement for there to be the working clearances found in 110.26 for this piece of equipment. I think this is more a case of an uneducated inspector than anything else. This statement is not being made with any type of animosity but just the way I see things based on what has been posted.  A good reading of Article 690 will clear this up.

There is a procedure that an electrical enforcement officer can take if they question the listing on a piece of equipment but turning down the electrical contractor for something he has no control over is not one of them. This is the easiest way for a code enforcement official to get his butt called to the carpet should they run into the right contractor. Let me be clear, I am one of those contractors.

When an inspector writes on their inspection report, “in my opinion” I will usually throw it in the trash and continue as though he had written nothing.  As a contractor all I am looking for is the reference in the NEC that I stand in violation of. If it is something beyond my installation then it is not something that can be called out by the NEC such as the listed piece of equipment in the original post. It is the manufacturer that is in violation and not the contractor therefore there is no leg to stand on for turning down the contractor.

 If it is something that needs to be addressed by the Nationally Recognized Testing Lab then they are the ones to contact.  There are too many liabilities that I would encounter as a contractor should I start altering a listed piece of equipment therefore I will refuse to alter anything and hope and pray that some inspector does not attempt to hold my job for something that is beyond my installation.  I promise that this would be one mad inspector before the sun goes down or maybe even one mad unemployed person.

How was that for my first post?


----------



## Mark K (Dec 26, 2011)

Jwelectric

While I agree with your position on requiring the inspector to specify a specific code reference, it is not the inspector’s responsibility to contact the testing lab that issued the product listing.

The building inspector is not turning down the contractor.  Rather his is making a statement that the installed work does not comply with the adopted regulations which include the NEC.  At that point the inspector is typically limited to not issuing a certificate or occpancy, recommending that power not be turned on, or issuing a stop work notice.  It is the permit applicant’s responsibility to comply with the regulations.

Assuming the inspector is correct the responsibility and cost of sorting this out is between the electrical contractor, general contractor, owner, and manufacturer.  The building inspector or building official will have no involvement in how this is sorted out.  If you were not the one who selected the equipment you will likely find that you will not be responsible for resolving the problem, even if the inspector is correct.

I believe that it is your responsibility to notify the general contractor and the manufacturer of the problem.

If you believe that the inspector is wrong then I recommend challenging him and notifying the building official.  If inspectors are challenged when they are wrong they will likely make fewer mistakes in the future.

I suggest that you reconsider your policy of ignoring the inspector’s “opinion”.  Rather I recommend that you politely ask if there is a code basis for that “opinion” and if there is not telling him no thanks.  Better to get the problem out in the open now as opposed to having it flare up the day before the owner wants to move in the building.


----------



## jwelectric (Dec 26, 2011)

Mark

I can’t say about other states but I do know a little about the Administrative Rules governing the code enforcement officials here in NC. The code enforcement official here inspects according to the adopted codes not by the NRTL Standards that govern the manufacture of equipment.

Here the code official inspects the work done by the contractors. If they feel there is an issue with the equipment there is an avenue for them to take and it does not involve the sub-contractors. There is no way that a code official can force an electrical contractor to alter a listed piece of equipment manufactured by some company that they are of the “opinion” that does not meet the NEC.

The internal wiring of equipment if governed by the Standards of the listing NRTL and is not a NEC issue.

Starting on page 727 of the 2011 code cycle is a list of Standards that are not part of the any NFPA document and does not form any mandatory requirement of the NEC. Another tool for the inspector is the White Book published by UL.

A few years back a new local inspector was turning down water heaters simply because the internal wiring on the unit was #12 and not #10. It didn’t take long for that inspector to learn his job stopped at the terminations of the installed circuit when it came to applying the rules of the NEC. His opinion that the 12 should be upgraded to 10 did not matter at all.

As far as the inspector’s opinion, I have an opinion also and both of us we also have something else, and both stink. I am in business to make money not to discuss the opinions of how an installation is to be done. Either it passes or it doesn’t and the opinion of how it should be done by the inspector is not what I am interested in.

Now don’t get me wrong, I have had some pretty good ideas come from inspectors that ended up saving me money in the end but it was never something they left on an inspection report.


----------



## ICE (Dec 26, 2011)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> How was that for my first post?


Bravo! Such an insightful post showing the personality behind the keyboard is rare.

Welcome to the forum?

Tiger


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 27, 2011)

Eeny, meeny, miny moe,

Catch a tiger by the toe.

If he hollers make him pay,

Fifty dollars every day


----------



## ICE (Dec 27, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Eeny, meeny, miny moe,Catch a tiger by the toe.
> 
> If he hollers make him pay,
> 
> Fifty dollars every day


Oh my goodness.


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 27, 2011)

ICE said:
			
		

> Oh my goodness.


I said that all through high school instead of cursing, it was a good thing I was intimidating or I may have been made fun of.


----------



## north star (Dec 27, 2011)

=

jwelectric,

Welcome to The Building Codes Forum! 

From the `08 NEC, Article 90.4:


*This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application*

*by governmental bodies that exercise **legal jurisdiction over*

*electrical installations, including **signaling and communications*

*systems, and for use by **insurance inspectors.....**The authority*

*having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the*

*responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for*

*deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and*

*for granting the special permission contemplated in a number*

*of the rules**......By special permission, the authority having*

*jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code*

*or permit alternative methods where it is assured that*

*equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and*

*maintaining effective safety........This Code may require*

*new products, constructions, or materials that may not*

*yet be available at the time of the Code is adopted.....In*

*such event, the authority having jurisdiction may*

*permit the use of products, constructions, or materials*

*that comply with the most recent previous edition of*

*this Code.*

*=*
​


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 27, 2011)

Please do feel welcome jwelectric.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 27, 2011)

There is a difference between interpretations of rules vs imposing new rules.  The building official has considerable lattitude in making interpretations but there is a line that one should not cross.

The approval of equipment and materials is in the context of the adopted regulations.  Here again it is not appropriate to impose new criteria.

The AHJ has the authority to relax criteria but not to impose additional criteria.

These constraints on the AHJ are a reflection of more basis constraints on the AHJ imposed by the Laws governing the adoption and enforcement of regulations.  They all flow from the fact that the building official and inspectior cannot modify the adopted regulations.  All regulations must be adopted by a governmental body such as the the city council, or state commission that was given the authority by the state.  These requirements flow from the requirements of due process that exist in the US Constitution.


----------



## jwelectric (Dec 27, 2011)

north star said:
			
		

> =jwelectric,
> 
> Welcome to The Building Codes Forum!
> 
> ...


Good point so let's see what the definition is;

Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). An organization, office, or individual responsible for enforcing the requirements of a code or standard, or for approving equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure.

FPN: The phrase “authority having jurisdiction,” or its acronym AHJ, is used in NFPA documents in a broad manner, since jurisdictions and approval agencies vary, as do their responsibilities. Where public safety is primary, the authority having jurisdiction may be a federal, state, local, or other regional department or individual such as a fire chief; fire marshal; chief of a fire prevention bureau, labor department, or health department; building official; electrical inspector; or others having statutory authority. For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representative may be the authority having jurisdiction. In many circumstances, the property owner or his or her designated agent assumes the role of the authority having jurisdiction; at government installations, the commanding officer or departmental official may be the authority having jurisdiction.

So I suppose that I am the AHJ at my house when the wife lets me be


----------

