On 3M's Data Sheet for ITCSN heat shrink they say its good for overhead indoor outdoor direct buried and submersible (you get the idea) and in features it states reliable and proven UV resistant. On the next page it says performance test UL 486D. I had been using this product in direct sunlight purchased from 2 different vendors. Due to a situation i have to make a submittal to my company so I pulled the UL rating to add to this and it says not evaluated for UV exposure. I called them and asked technical for applications and was told direct burial only they havnt pursued the UL for UV rating but are going to now and assured me for 20 years it has had no problems. My questions are: what course of action do I have for the product I have installed and recovering some money for this? Also what can be done to make them correct their Data Sheet? My vendors were not even aware of this.
3M false advertisement
- Thread starter wrgeer
- Start date
- Status
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
As far as the money goes, I can't help you. As far as the data sheet, contact UL. According to them, the instructions are part of the listing, so they are creating a counterfeit label.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
IMHO, good luck.
In a purely technical sense, 3M did not say their product was 3rd party listed for UV.
In a purely technical sense, 3M did not say their product was 3rd party listed for UV.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
Could it be that the standard is a minimum and 3M exceeded it by adding UV resistance?
The tech will tell you point blank its underground only. Stated 20 years no problems but lately more people are asking about the rating. Stated as soon as he got the phone he would see what he could do to get the rating applied. My company has no desire to push to legal I mean whats a mere 15k. Seems to me that my job description gets bigger and bigger and now you have to check UL rating of "trusted" industry leaders...... Thanks for advice contacted UL and let them run with it.
Buck Parrish
Senior Member
- Location
- NC & IN
How about wrapping it with scotch 33.
Or a 3 m tape that is UV rated.
Terminology would be. We use an outter covering for UV resistance.
Or a 3 m tape that is UV rated.
Terminology would be. We use an outter covering for UV resistance.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
So far there is no evidence that the items you have installed are not UV rated. All you know is that they have not been tested by UL for UV.
I guess the issue is: do you trust 3M as a manufacturer when they say their product is suitable for the application, or do you require a third party certification?
I guess the issue is: do you trust 3M as a manufacturer when they say their product is suitable for the application, or do you require a third party certification?
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
That is in the realm of the AHJ. I would trust 3M but the AHJ may not.
That is in the realm of the AHJ. I would trust 3M but the AHJ may not.
Well I do trust the product but I am going over equipment and items that are not permissable and cant say well this is wrong but this isnt quite as wrong so look over this due to the liability on this. Also My equipment is mobile and moves to multiple sites and different states so that complicates going to the AHJ. The tape isnt an alternative due to the fact I am using the heat shrink on portable cables and the abuse would tera it up in no time. I am doing the audit to get the correct cable and pin and sleeve connectors to resolve the issue but in the mean time I had to keep the equipment running.
Thanks for all the advice views and expertise
weressl
Esteemed Member
Does 3M says that the product was tested for UV resistance by UL? No, they don't. They say that the product is suitable for overhead, indoor...etc., AND that it is tested by UL 486D. If that UL Standard means anything to you, then you also (should) know what the standard says. There is no restriction on any manufacturer to make any claim, but there is liability if they claim does not match reality. You have not given sufficient evidence here that the product does not stand up to the claim.
There are only a few instances where a product HAS to be tested by an independent and Nationally Recognized institute. Listing and labeling is a common method to determine a product's suitability for a certain application, but it is not the only available option.
DanZ
Senior Member
It sounds like 3M said on the packaging that it was UV resistant, and when the OP called 3M about it, they contradicted their own packaging and said nope, it's not good for UV, or overhead / outdoor, just direct burial...
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
According to what I read in the OP. 3M never said the item was not UV rated. 3M said it was listed by UL to a standard that did not require UV testing.
The 3 M data sheet states UV resistant along with the rest of what I posted earlier. I checked the 486D on UL site and found it was not tested for UV resistance. Now I have went to the eye doctor and got glasses on and under the LARGE UL I see the small print stating listed 98U1 wire connector system for use with underground connectors. It is a question when you make a statement of product feature ( in this case UV resistant) it is misleading. The Technical person stated he would push to get this done since so many people have been going to them asking about this. I gues its the modern comparison to the old west when they sold cure all medicines all about liability and deniiability in marketing.
weressl
Esteemed Member
Your point is lost on me. What does underground has to do with UV protection? What is misleading and how so?
I reviewed the data sheet and find no fault with the areas of your contention.
They state that it is UV resistant. They do not state that this statement is 'verified' by a third party testing. They stated that their internal aging test indicates that the product will last for 20 years.
You have no case that I can see.
This is the reverse example of the snake-oil-salesman and defrauded buyer. You are trying to make a claim due to your failure to comprehend what is stated.
weressl
Esteemed Member
You read the data sheet. That counts as due diligence to me.
You now seem to have concerns.
I do not understand what concerns do you have. (You seemed to focus on UV resistance and complain about the undergound application. I do not see how these tie together.) Can you state it?
In what aspects does the product not live up to your expectations?
Did the product actually failed in the application?
My sense is that you are concerned about something, but your actual concerns are unwarranted and the person you talked to was unable to resolve your concerns.
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
The issue of UL listings being not compatible with marketing spin is the ugly stepchild of responsible advertising. It happens a LOT more than people realize. But UL is not in the law enforcement business and when confronted, they usually back down from taking any definitive action.
I ran into this with a major manufacturer. They have what appears to be the only product on the market that is UL listed. But when other mfrs have submitted to UL, they fail the test because UL has a very onerous test procedure. I know of one mfr who put the advertised products through the UL test procedure and THEY failed in the same way. When they confronted UL to ask how they had passed, UL said they had NOT passed the UL test and were NOT listed! The competitor challenged UL saying that the other company was advertising them as such, and UL said they "wrote them a letter" about it. Nothing more has been done and a year later, people are STILL under the impression that this product is UL listed when it is not.
I ran into this with a major manufacturer. They have what appears to be the only product on the market that is UL listed. But when other mfrs have submitted to UL, they fail the test because UL has a very onerous test procedure. I know of one mfr who put the advertised products through the UL test procedure and THEY failed in the same way. When they confronted UL to ask how they had passed, UL said they had NOT passed the UL test and were NOT listed! The competitor challenged UL saying that the other company was advertising them as such, and UL said they "wrote them a letter" about it. Nothing more has been done and a year later, people are STILL under the impression that this product is UL listed when it is not.
ptonsparky
Tom
- Occupation
- EC - retired
I was looking at a cover for splices that was being pushed by the salesmen for underground use on repairs. They were a little baffled when I brought up the label on the package that indicated they were for damp locations only. Underground=wet in my opinion. Don't trust a salesman to much.
- Status