ICE
Oh Well
But should it be? Have you found violations with UL listed equipment?
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
UL Listed
- Thread starter ICE
- Start date
ICE
Oh Well
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
Silver Member
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
Gold Member
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)
(I say that because you will note that Bryan used "Listed" and not UL in particular in his post)
chris kennedy
Sawhorse
What problem are you addressing here. Wire size on the 300A fuses?
ICE
Oh Well
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.chris kennedy said:
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE
Oh Well
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Daddy-0-
Moderator
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.
G
gupiaotools
Guest
I especially like the spacing for the guardrail. I want to share it
ICE
Oh Well
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.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
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.
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
Oh Well
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.Mark K said:
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.tmurray said:
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.
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
Oh Well
deleted the post
chris kennedy
Sawhorse
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.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.
jwelectric
Silver Member
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?
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?
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.
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
Silver Member
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.
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
Oh Well
Bravo! Such an insightful post showing the personality behind the keyboard is rare.jwelectric said:
Welcome to the forum?
Tiger
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE
Oh Well
Oh my goodness.gbhammer said: