Conflict between the General Directory and the Manufacturer

[iwire]

In this thread Stranded wires under screws it was brought out that there is a conflict between the UL General Director information and a manufacturers literature regarding stranded wire and devices.

From the 2008 general directory

RECEPTACLES FOR PLUGS AND
ATTACHMENT PLUGS (RTRT)
GENERAL
This category covers general use receptacles for use in wiring systems
recognized by ANSI/NFPA 70, ‘‘National Electrical Code’’ (NEC), and
outlets for use in appliances and fixtures. It also covers some attachment
plugs, male inlets, and cord connectors with nonstandard slot or blade
configurations which are part of a line of wiring devices including receptacles.
Other similar attachment plug devices are covered under Attachment
Plugs (AXGV).

snip..

Terminals of the wire-binding screw, setscrew, or screw-actuated back wired clamping types are suitable for use with both solid and stranded
building wires.

Now looking at Pass and Seymour's literature for their CR series receptacles they say only solid conductors may be used.

CR Series: #14 – #10 AWG solid side wire only. BR Series: side and internal screw-pressure-plate back wire capable of accepting #14 – #10 AWG solid or stranded copper or copper-clad wire.

From HERE

To me this is a big problem, can anyone explain what is going on?

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

In this thread Stranded wires under screws it was brought out that there is a conflict between the UL General Director information and a manufacturers literature regarding stranded wire and devices.

From the 2008 general directory




snip..



Now looking at Pass and Seymour's literature for their CR series receptacles they say only solid conductors may be used.



From HERE

To me this is a big problem, can anyone explain what is going on?

I mentioned this in the prior thread.

Manufacturers have to meet certain Standards for their products. Some products, such as devices, may have to meet several Standards.

When the manufacturer has the product evaluated by an NRTL, there is a fee attached to the process. There is also additional cost to bear to meet all of the different Standards.
Not all Standards necessarily have to be followed to produce the product, there are times that certain Standards can be bypassed, as long as the manufacturer states this in their evaluation.



Maybe Pass & Seymour decided to pass up this part of the evaluation as a means to be more cost effective in producing their product. How many people actually read some of the "small print" that we beat to death on this site???

This of course is just my guess at what has occured with the P&S product of discussion.

 

[iwire]

I mentioned this in the prior thread.

Manufacturers have to meet certain Standards for their products. Some products, such as devices, may have to meet several Standards.

When the manufacturer has the product evaluated by an NRTL, there is a fee attached to the process. There is also additional cost to bear to meet all of the different Standards.
Not all Standards necessarily have to be follow to produce the product, there are times that certain Standards can be bypassed, as long as the manufacturer states this in their evaluation.



Maybe Pass & Seymour decided to pass up this part of the evaluation as a means to be more cost effective in producing their product. How many people actually read some of the "small print" that we beat to death on this site???

This of course is just my guess at what has occured with the P&S product of discussion.

Pierre I do not believe a manufacturer can pick and choose which sections they are tested for. They can choose not to be tested, or they can choose to submit their product for a particular standard.

If they choose to have their receptacle tested for UL compliance with the standard for receptacles that standard requires certain tests.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Pierre I do not believe a manufacturer can pick and choose which sections they are tested for. They can choose not to be tested, or they can choose to submit their product for a particular standard.

If they choose to have their receptacle tested for UL compliance with the standard for receptacles that standard requires certain tests.

I am only reaching in the dark with this response, as I do not know the exact process of how evaluations for specific products are conducted. I have spoken directly to UL product people and do understand some of the process.


Lets say the receptacle is to be listed as suitable for employing stranded conductors and all the other bells and whistles has to meet up and be tested for.
In order to meet this evaluation, there are a list of standards for the testing, lets just say the list is 10 different standards.

Now the manufacturer chooses to forego the need to have the terminals tested for stranded conductors, and then the NRTL as part of their testing process, tells the manufacturer if they choose to forego the stranded conductor testing, they have to state in the installation instructions that stranded conductors are not permitted.

I am aware that, as part of the testing performed by the NRTL, it results in the installation instructions to be written as such, due to the results of that testing.

 

[jim dungar]

Just because UL tests the terminal for stranded wire does not mean the manufacturer is not allowed to restrict the use of their product. Maybe P&S has higher standards than UL?

 

[iwire]

I moved a couple of off topic posts to the Stranded wires under screws thread. :smile:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Just because UL tests the terminal for stranded wire does not mean the manufacturer is not allowed to restrict the use of their product. Maybe P&S has higher standards than UL?

And if that is the case that would be a perfect example of a manufacturer's recommendation (instruction) that is not a 110.3(B) listing and labeling instruction. We would have the listing and labeling saying the use of stranded is ok and the manufacturer saying its not ok. It would not be a code violation, but could be an issue in a civil court case if there was an incident.

 

[jim dungar]

And if that is the case that would be a perfect example of a manufacturer's recommendation (instruction) that is not a 110.3(B) listing and labeling instruction. We would have the listing and labeling saying the use of stranded is ok and the manufacturer saying its not ok. It would not be a code violation, but could be an issue in a civil court case if there was an incident.

If P&S includes the restriction in their instructions that they submit to UL as part of their labeling process then 110.3(B) would require you to follow it.

Warranty issues and associated restrictions are not installation instructions.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If P&S includes the restriction in their instructions that they submit to UL as part of their labeling process then 110.3(B) would require you to follow it.

Warranty issues and associated restrictions are not installation instructions.

I don't think that P&S can submit it that way. It is my opinion that it is a condition of the listing standard that the device be suitable for use with both solid and stranded conductors. If they don't want to comply with that, then they have to list it under another standard or sell an unlisted product. It remains my opinion that if the receptacle is listed to UL 498, that this instruction provided by P&S is not a 110.3(B) instruction, it is only an manufacturer's recommendation. If UL intended to let them restrict the use to solid conductors, then the guide information should have a wording such as "unless otherwise marked" following this statement in the guide information.
"Terminals of the wire-binding screw, setscrew, or screw-actuated back wired clamping types are suitable for use with both solid and stranded building wires."
There is no such statement in the guide information.

 

[jim dungar]

I think we need an answer from UL.