Fire Resistive Cable listing dropped by UL -- does this nuke new Article 728?

[fmtjfw]

UL and ULC announce important changes to certification programs (Release 12PN-51)

UL has recently conducted research on a wide array of current products and systems originally certified under UL 2196,Tests for Fire Resistive Cables and ULC-S139, Standard Method of Fire Test for Evaluation of Integrity of Electrical Cables and determined that they no longer consistently achieve a two-hour fire-resistive rating when subjected to the standard Fire Endurance Test of UL2196 or ULC-S139. Consequently, UL and ULC will not be able to offer certification to the currently existing program related to these standards.

As a result, manufacturers are no longer authorized to place the UL mark or ULC mark on the following products:

UL Classified Fire Resistive Cable (FHJR)
ULC Listed Fire Resistant Cable (FHJRC)
UL Listed cable with "-CI" suffix (Circuit Integrity)

Furthermore, UL has removed from its certification directory all Electrical Circuit Protective Systems constructed with Fire Resistive Cable (FHIT).

To view the UL Public Notice please visit our public notice page.

 

[bwyllie]

definitely going to change the wiring methods for the fire alarm cabling since the UL listing for CI cable has been pulled.

 

[Maders]

The Pyrotenax rep stopped by our office yesterday. We requested a formal clarification of the issue. Here is an excerpt of his formal response:

Please be advised that UL has completely shut down its certification of fire resistive electrical cables program because of repeated performance failures in test results with the fire rated polymeric cable in conduit systems. So, as it stands now, no electrical cable is able to carry the UL fire rated certification. I hasten to add that Tyco?s MI cable carries additional third party certification as a two hour fire rated cable by Factory Mutual (which, like UL, is recognized by OSHA as a nationally recognized testing lab) and continues to meet and exceed all the requirements of ANSI?s (American National Standards Institute) 2196 two hour fire test standard (RHH/RHW meet neither), so the product remains certified for use in the wiring of emergency feeders/fire pumps and complying with the Commonwealth?s and the NEC requirements for critical circuits.

If I'm reading this correctly, not only has CIC lost its 2-hour UL listing, but MI as well. This is a huge issue for designers and installers in MA.

 

[lowryder88h]

MI Cable

MI Cable

I've just recently talked to a MI cable rep, MI cable has a FM label does this cover NEC 110.3

 

[DHkorn]

FM approval

FM approval

MI cable carried both the UL and Factory Mutual approvals when used in approved systems.
The decision of whether it is approved for you is based on your AHJ's acceptance of the FM rating.

 

[fmtjfw]

MI

MI

FM is a NRTL

UL White Book:
PPKV -- MI cable
PPYT -- MI fittings

Neither is dropped by UL.

PPYT is limited to 90?C dry and 60? wet.

332.80 Ampacity. The ampacity of Type MI cable shall be
determined in accordance with 310.15. The conductor temperature
at the end seal fitting shall not exceed the temperature
rating of the listed end seal fitting, and the installation
shall not exceed the temperature ratings of terminations or
equipment.

limits the installation of MI to 90? or 60?C as I read it.

UL has dropped MI-CI, if there ever were such a thing.

 

[BPoindexter]

Well this has resulted in a somewhat humorous situation at our location. The rep that sells this type of cable to us sent an email stating that it met this IEEE test standard and that one. No UL file number and the wording they used was "Industry Compliance". :?

Lots of smoke and mirrors- where's the beef?

 

[shortcircuit2]

So if the cable that failed the test has been used in the field previously, should it not be recalled?

Would not the systems in the field with cable thought to have a 2-hour fire rating fail under conditions of the test also?

 

[ameyers32]

Type MI cable is FM specification tested, not FM approved. It has been tested per UL 2196 (the standard that UL yanked), but this does not indicate an approval. Go to approvalguide.com (you will have to register, its free) to find the text.

UL white book does not indicate anything for fire resistivity (page 295 http://www.ul.com/global/documents/offerings/perspectives/regulators/2012 WB FINAL.pdf)

I have taken the position that MI cable is not a listed cable for fire resistivity in the US. i have yet to find anyone to convince me otherwise, although many have tried.

I've spoken with the folk from UL, and the failing occurred with type RHW cable in RGS conduit, not with MI. The failing had to do with the zinc coating on the interior of RGS conduit and the reaction with the RHW. This was the reason for yanking the standard. I know Tyco is currently trying to get MI cable tested and listed separately as a fire resistive cable.

 

[shortcircuit2]

UL stated at a meeting I attended recently that the test had been done in the past with only 1 conductor inside a raceway system that didn't have the zinc.

When they did a test recently with more than 1 conductor in the RGS with ZINC the chemical reaction caused the copper to turn to brass and the cable failed in 30 minutes.

They said that cable manufactured up to September 2012 with the UL label in the supply chain could still be used in the field and should not be used with raceways with ZINC.

Anyway...if the copper turned to brass in the test at UL...it also would turn to brass in the field under the conditions of the test...

 

[VUGear]

Issue goes away?

CERTIFICATION UPDATE as of December 21, 2012

 

[infinity]

I breifly glanced at the information, has UL re-listed the 2 hour conductors in EMT?

 

[RClamp1]

It appears 2-hour CI cable in EMT is not one of the restored systems.

It appears 2-hour CI cable in EMT is not one of the restored systems.

It is still basically rated shafts, wraps, or MI cable for now.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

This whole situation has really caused some crazyness.
I have not heard about UL re-instating this listing.

I see a lot of guys having a 2 hour fire rated enclosure being built around the installation - still very expensive. What a mess.

 

[hotwire1955]

As of 12-21-12 UL & ULC re-established certification of fire resistive cables.

 

[texie]

As of 12-21-12 UL & ULC re-established certification of fire resistive cables.

It seems they only re-established mineral-insulated cable, not fire rated cable in conduit. See below:

[h=2][/h]

In September 2012, both UL and ULC withdrew certification for Electrical Circuit Protective Systems (FHIT and FHITC) that employed fire resistive cables. This included UL Classified Fire Resistive Cable (FHJR), UL Listed cable with "-CI? suffix (Circuit Integrity), and ULC Listed Fire Resistant Cable (FHJRC). Certification was retained for systems that used protective materials like intumescent wraps, tapes, composite mats, etc. Fire resistive cables are used for emergency circuits in many applications, including high-rise buildings and places of assembly. Emergency circuits include feeders for fire pumps, elevators, smoke control equipment, fire alarm systems and other similar circuits. These circuits are required by the National Electrical Code and the Canadian National Building Code to have a 2-hour fire rating. This added level of survivability is intended to allow sufficient time for building occupants to exit a building during an emergency and to provide uninterrupted power for fire fighting equipment and emergency communication systems. There are two types of fire resistive power cable systems: polymer insulated cables that require conduit protection and armored cables that do not. Armored cable types include both mineral-insulated and metal-clad cable. The events that led to the certification withdrawal were based on systems employing polymer insulated cables, not armored cable. In 2011, UL was informed of an issue with using polymer insulated fire-resistive cables in conduit systems coated with zinc. UL confirmed that a problem existed and issued a notice stating that fire-resistive cables should be used only with components free of zinc. UL expanded their research and conducted extensive additional testing that showed an unacceptable level of variability with all non-armored polymer insulated cables. These findings led to the conservative decision to withdraw all certifications, including armored cable systems, even though there was no indication that similar issues existed with either metal-clad or mineral-insulated cables. Shortly thereafter, however, UL offered an interim test program to manufacturers of fire-resistive cable for possible re-certification of existing products. After UL/ULC withdrew all fire resistive cable certifications, a joint meeting of the UL Standard Technical Panel on Fire Resistive Cables and the ULC Standards Committee on Fire Tests was arranged. The meeting took place on October 24, 2012, in Ottawa, Canada, where the committee reviewed available information and agreed to form task groups to evaluate and update the fire resistance test standards for cable systems. This process will include additional testing and review, and a revised standard is likely to take at least two years to complete. Because mineral-insulated cable construction is completely different from the cable-in-conduit technology under investigation, UL/ULC worked with Pentair Thermal Management to reinstate Pyrotenax mineral-insulated cable as a 2-hour fire-rated cable system. The process included reviewing MI cable designs in detail, detailed technical explanations of the critical design factors related to mineral-insulated cable?s fire resistance, and extensive fire tests, in accordance with the interim test program performed at the UL facility in November and December of 2012. On December 21, 2012, UL and ULC re-established certification of fire-resistive cables used in electrical circuit integrity systems. The first system to be included is Pyrotenax Mineral Insulated Cable, and it has been assigned a new identification: System No. 1850. Information can be found at www.ul.com in the Online Certifications Directory.

 

[gadfly56]

As of 12-21-12 UL & ULC re-established certification of fire resistive cables.

What texie said. You want to get heart burn? Read the installation manual for MI cable. A two-hour rated soffit to run the cable in will look like a piece of cake.