110.3(B) LOL

[K8MHZ]

All PVC cement is not listed for conduit.

The last can of listed cement I looked at had instructions that did not include primer. The 'same' stuff in the plumbing aisle had primer in its instructions.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

"It is UL's official position that all instructions provided by the manufacturer are 110.3(B) instructions."

Not correct. Indeed, only a very small part of the information provided with a product is considered as 'instructions' by UL.

They have published numerous statements that all instructions are reviewed and are to be considered 110.3(B) instructions.

Case in point: Classified breakers. Square D has been using it's "instructions" in an attempt to prevent the use of non-Square D breakers in their panels - even though such a position (IMO) contradicts the UCC (but that's another topic).
The fact is that UL does NOT consider the "use only our stuff" as part of the instructions.

To me that only shows that they will change their story for money...some one pays them to classify a breaker and then by magic it is ok.

What UL does consider is other standards and norms. For example, there are ANSI / ASTM standards that define conduit sizes; UL will refer to these standards when evaluating conduit and its' fittings.

Regarding primer: You're required to use a listed cement - not just any PC glue will do. The can needs a UL lable. AFAIK, there are no primers listed for use with electrical conduit, nor does the code require priming. Therefore, I conclude that the use of primer violated the NEC. ...

Carlon's instructions say that the use of primer is permitted, but not required.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Carlon's instructions say that the use of primer is permitted, but not required.

Not for ENT.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The following is from the UL/IAEI meeting in 2006.

Q: Manufacturer?s installation instructions "recommendations." [FONT=GKALMI+Arial,Arial][FONT=GKALMI+Arial,Arial]Some manufacturer?s installation instructions include "recommendations" that are not required by the NEC? or other Model Code. How does UL view such "recommendations?" Specifically, for a hydromassage bathtub, the NEC? requires accessibility. A manufacturer?s installation instructions recommend a certain sized opening for such accessibility, but don?t say that it is mandatory. Instructions for smoke alarms "recommend" a detector in every room, which is not required by building or fire codes. Does the AHJ have the authority to ask for the installation instructions? Is UL doing anything to standardize the terminology that installation instructions use?


A: Installation instructions provided with UL Listed products are reviewed as part of the Listing investigation. Manufacturer?s recommendations that are part of the installation instructions should be followed in order to comply with NEC? Section 110.3(B). The AHJ should expect all installation instructions provided with UL Listed equipment to be available for review at the time of inspection.
If an AHJ believes that the manufacturer?s recommendations in the installation instructions exceed what is necessary for a safe installation; then NEC? Section 90.4 gives the AHJ the prerogative to approve the installation.
More than one Model Code regulates many different installations in the built environment. Smoke alarms are an excellent example of this, since multiple Model Codes address requirements for their installation; including the International Residential Code? (IRC?) and NFPA 72, the National Fire Alarm Code?. When this situation exists, the installation instructions will then reflect the installation requirements found in each of the governing Codes.

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[jxofaltrds]

The following is from the UL/IAEI meeting in 2006.


[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Thanx. I'm going to print/save this.

 

[jim dungar]

The following is from the UL/IAEI meeting in 2006.

In particular UL says:

[FONT=GKALMI+Arial][FONT=GKALMI+Arial]If an AHJ believes that the manufacturer?s recommendations in the installation instructions exceed what is necessary for a safe installation; then NEC? Section 90.4 gives the AHJ the prerogative to approve the installation.

[/FONT][/FONT]
So manufacturer's recommendations are optional. Non-NEC (i.e requirements per other codes) recommendations are optional. In regards to recommendations, the AHJ is the governing body, not the instructions.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Should or shall!

I think that you should follow the recommendations. I do not feel that I could fail you for not following the recommendations.
Not following the instructions. Yes for failing.

 

[renosteinke]

Don, you really have to pay attention to what UL really says. They're masters of the 'weasel words' and there's always an 'escape clause.'

Regarding this discussion, their definition of 'instructions' is rather limited, and not simply everything written that comes with a product. Defining where the 'instructions' end and marketing begins can be quite a challenge.

Though I'm not very fond of UL, I do object to assertions that they'll list anything for money. I'm not quite sure what their motives are, but simple greed isn't on the list. At least, greed for money, that is. The 'money' libel is far too easy to make .... and, IMO, is most often trotted out by the real scoundrels.

In the specific case of the classified circuit breakers, it's a given that the little foreign firm that first submitted their breakers for use in Square D panels has never paid UL even 1% what Square D pays them every year.

The ready disdain for profit is another bit of propaganda that has weaseled its' way into our culture. Since when is making money a bad thing? We're not Communists, after all.

Otherwise, who do you think has the greater motive to fib? The manufacturer, or a third party? In this sort of dispute, I'll go with UL every time.

The simple fact is that UL tests everyone to the same industry standards - which means that there ought not ever be an issue connecting "Brand A" to "Brand B."

In a more generic vein, I resent it when 'settled matters' are ignored, and attempts are made to breathe life into discredited theories. NEC language regarding instructions aside, the NEC simply cannot go against what is already settled law ("Res Adjudica"). That's what was behind my reference to the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Simply put, a manufacturer may not require you to use his stuff unless he's willing to supply it and put it in for free. Such language was added to the UCC specifically in response to spurious denials of warranties.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, you really have to pay attention to what UL really says. They're masters of the 'weasel words' and there's always an 'escape clause.'

Regarding this discussion, their definition of 'instructions' is rather limited, and not simply everything written that comes with a product. Defining where the 'instructions' end and marketing begins can be quite a challenge.

They have repeatly said that they review every word of the information supplied with a listed product and that 110.3(B) applies to every work.

Though I'm not very fond of UL, I do object to assertions that they'll list anything for money. I'm not quite sure what their motives are, but simple greed isn't on the list. At least, greed for money, that is. The 'money' libel is far too easy to make .... and, IMO, is most often trotted out by the real scoundrels.

In the specific case of the classified circuit breakers, it's a given that the little foreign firm that first submitted their breakers for use in Square D panels has never paid UL even 1% what Square D pays them every year. ...

I will never accept classified breakers as not being in direct conflit with their statements on the instructions supplied with the product.

... Otherwise, who do you think has the greater motive to fib? The manufacturer, or a third party? In this sort of dispute, I'll go with UL every time.

I would put them on the top of that group too, but that isn't saying too much.

The simple fact is that UL tests everyone to the same industry standards - which means that there ought not ever be an issue connecting "Brand A" to "Brand B."

Just because the standards are the same, does not mean that parts from Brand A can be used safely with Brand B equipment. Sure, with cases like raceways, that should always be true, but with a more complex item, it is likely to never be true.

In a more generic vein, I resent it when 'settled matters' are ignored, and attempts are made to breathe life into discredited theories. NEC language regarding instructions aside, the NEC simply cannot go against what is already settled law ("Res Adjudica"). That's what was behind my reference to the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Simply put, a manufacturer may not require you to use his stuff unless he's willing to supply it and put it in for free. Such language was added to the UCC specifically in response to spurious denials of warranties.

That doesn't change the fact that UL says ALL supplied information is 110.3(B) information.
I do understand the warrantee issue, but that only applies when there is a 3rd party part that meets all of the OEM specs. That is not always the case, and I don't even see it as applying to the classified breakers, given the restrictions that UL put on them, them must not be the OEM equal.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

In particular UL says:
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
So manufacturer's recommendations are optional. Non-NEC (i.e requirements per other codes) recommendations are optional. In regards to recommendations, the AHJ is the governing body, not the instructions.

90.4 is rarely used. It places a huge liability on the AHJ.

 

[jim dungar]

90.4 is rarely used. It places a huge liability on the AHJ.

UL says the responsibility does belongs to the AHJ.

Some marketing person at the manufacturer creates some recommendations and includes them in their instructions submitted to UL.
UL reviews the instructions, including the recommendations, and lists the product.
The AHJ says we aren't qualified to review anything; so we require following the 'UL listed' information supplied with the product, including the manufacturers recommendations
Isn't the end result being: what ever the manufacturer says must be followed, blindly?

So Don, in your opinion: Why do we need trained inspectors and AHJ's, if we have manufacturers?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

UL says the responsibility does belongs to the AHJ.
... Isn't the end result being: what ever the manufacturer says must be followed, blindly?

I think that is exactly the position UL has placed us in.

So Don, in your opinion: Why do we need trained inspectors and AHJ's, if we have manufacturers?

In this day and age everything is CYA, and I don't think you see too may AHJs using 90.4. It is much easier and safer from a legal point of view to enforce the instructions.

In my opinion most of the instructions that are supplied with the product are really just recomendations from the manufacturer. The only thing that should be enforced as a 110.3(B) instruction is what is in the listing standard and in the White Book...everything else is optional.

 

[kwired]

The day the IE wants to see me make up every PVC fitting to ensure I do it according to instructions is the day I am quitting this trade. Too many techicalities being picked on in to start with anymore.

 

[renosteinke]

Don, we're going to have to part with opposing assertions.

I believe you are misrepresenting UL's position.

I point-blank assert that UL has repeatedly made clear that not everything is considered part of the listing instructions, etc. I'm sorry, but I've been right there, on the scene, when senior UL personnel dissected labeling and discussed what was relevant to them and what wasn't. There's an awful lot of stickers placed and pages of instructions published that have no bearing whatever, at least as far as UL is concerned. To claim that UL claims you must follow these irrellevancies is giving UL a jurisdiction even they don't claim.

UL is quite right: UL is NEVER the AHJ, and it's the responsibility of the AHJ.

Likewise, we're going to have to agree to differ regarding classified breakers. UL says they're OK, I say they're OK. Placed together with the UCC, it seems pretty clear that a court would have no choice but to see things my way, as well.

The UL 'listing' is meant for complete assemblies only. Sure, there are plenty of exceptions - indeed, I am told that the humble replacement lamp ballast was what got things rolling at UL, to where they finally instituted the 'recognized component' program.

Do you own a car?
OK, what motor oil goes in it? Compare that to what the owners manual might say. If you're willing to put anything but Delco oil in your GM product , and have it done by anyone but the dealer, .... you're not following 'instructions.'

That's why UL has repeatedly stated that ONLY those 'instructions' that are PART OF the listing are relevant. Of course, the man in the field has no way of telling just where the line must be drawn.

Now ... this afternoon I get to hook up a very nice foreign machine whose instructions tell me to NOT tie it into the building ground, but to drive a separate ground rod. Gee, which part of the NEC do I violate? Section 110 or 250?

One need not follow illegal orders, and it seems clear to me that any sort of 'use only my stuff' instructions qualify as illegal orders. They are illegal because they contradict both reason and existing law (UCC). The OP should feel perfectly free to use Cantex pipe with his Carlon fittings ... heck, toss in some Exxon stuff, too, while you're at it ....

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, we're going to have to part with opposing assertions.
....

I guess so.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...Likewise, we're going to have to agree to differ regarding classified breakers. UL says they're OK, I say they're OK. Placed together with the UCC, it seems pretty clear that a court would have no choice but to see things my way, as well.
....

Given that UL places limits on the classified breakers that they do not place on the OEM breakers, I am not so sure the courts would not side with the OEM in a case where the OEM breaker would have been used within its listing and the classified breaker outside of its classification.

 

[K8MHZ]

Do you own a car?
OK, what motor oil goes in it? Compare that to what the owners manual might say. If you're willing to put anything but Delco oil in your GM product , and have it done by anyone but the dealer, .... you're not following 'instructions.'

That's a very poor analogy. I used to work for car dealerships.

First, check your manual. There is nothing there that says you must have your oil changed at the dealership or what brand to use. New car dealerships tend to use Valvoline. At the MoPar dealerships I was at, we sold thousands of gallons of Valvoline (we had a huge tank of it with hoses running to each bay) and I don't remember selling so much as a quart of MoPar brand oil. The bottles just sat on the shelf, collecting dust.

IIRC, years ago it was made illegal to void a warrantee based upon where you had your oil changed. Now, if you put something other than the GRADE of oil the manual lists and it results in engine damage, your warrantee is probably not going to cover it.

 

[hillbilly1]

Nagh, they pretty much just look for the purple primer here.
Does Carlton make a purple primer?:roll:

Indiana is the same way, only place I've ever run across the inspector wanting it, so there doing it in Tennessee now?

 

[Little Bill]

That's a very poor analogy. I used to work for car dealerships.

First, check your manual. There is nothing there that says you must have your oil changed at the dealership or what brand to use. New car dealerships tend to use Valvoline. At the MoPar dealerships I was at, we sold thousands of gallons of Valvoline (we had a huge tank of it with hoses running to each bay) and I don't remember selling so much as a quart of MoPar brand oil. The bottles just sat on the shelf, collecting dust.

IIRC, years ago it was made illegal to void a warrantee based upon where you had your oil changed. Now, if you put something other than the GRADE of oil the manual lists and it results in engine damage, your warrantee is probably not going to cover it.

What he ^^^^^said!
I have a friend that works in the engineering division for a major filter mfg company. I was asking him about having to use a certain car mfg's filters. He said they made them quit putting that in their manuals. As long as the filter meets the standards, any brand can be used. Their wording sometimes still leads people to think they must use the particular car mfg's filters, but that's not true.:happyno:

Heck, the company my friend works for makes filters for several mfgs and brands them accordingly. (STP, Mobile 1, Toyota, etc.)

 

[kwired]

What he ^^^^^said!
I have a friend that works in the engineering division for a major filter mfg company. I was asking him about having to use a certain car mfg's filters. He said they made them quit putting that in their manuals. As long as the filter meets the standards, any brand can be used. Their wording sometimes still leads people to think they must use the particular car mfg's filters, but that's not true.:happyno:

Heck, the company my friend works for makes filters for several mfgs and brands them accordingly. (STP, Mobile 1, Toyota, etc.)

Very likley the same for the Mopar or Delco motor oil. May be different specifications but likely comes off the same production line as others.