Counterfeit Ground Rods

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Northbrook, Ill., USA ? April 14, 2011: Underwriters Laboratories (UL) is notifying Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs), electrical contractors, electricians and retailers that the ground rods identified below bear unauthorized UL Marks for the U.S. and Canada. These products have not been evaluated by UL to the applicable Standard for Safety for the U.S. and Canada and are not authorized to bear the UL Mark.

Name of Product: Ground Rod, Model 834 4X41

Number of Units: Unknown

Manufacturer: Unknown

Date of Manufacture: Unknown

Defect: The thickness of the copper plating for these ground rods does not comply with U.S. and Canadian Standards for Safety. It is unknown whether the ground rods are suitable to ensure an adequate ground path.

Identification: The ground rods are 3/4 inch in diameter and eight feet long. The ground rods are marked on one end of the rod with the following information:

834 cULus Listed 4X41

For photos of the product visit:


http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/...-rods-with-unauthorized-ul_20110414085700.xml
 
Thanks Bryan. I believe there was another situation like this a year or so ago. I think it was a bit different in that they were being sold at the big box store as 1/2" rods but they weren't listed.

FWIW I see that the NEC changed the wording to just say listed and doesn't limit the rod to 1/2"
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Thanks Bryan. I believe there was another situation like this a year or so ago. I think it was a bit different in that they were being sold at the big box store as 1/2" rods but they weren't listed.

FWIW I see that the NEC changed the wording to just say listed and doesn't limit the rod to 1/2"
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is under the 2011 only 1/2" or smaller rods require listing. This would permit a smaller, listed rod to qualify as a rod electrode.

(5) Rod and Pipe Electrodes. Rod and pipe electrodes shall
not be less than 2.44 m (8 ft) in length and shall consist of the
following materials.
(a) Grounding electrodes of pipe or conduit shall not be
smaller than metric designator 21 (trade size 3⁄4) and, where of
steel, shall have the outer surface galvanized or otherwise
metal-coated for corrosion protection.
(b) Rod-type grounding electrodes of stainless steel
and copper or zinc coated steel shall be at least 15.87 mm
(5⁄8 in.) in diameter, unless listed.
Click to expand...
 
Considering I can use a chunk of unlisted 'pipe' as an electrode this seems like much about nothing ....... in other words UL just protecting 'their' turf. :roll:
 
iwire said:
Considering I can use a chunk of unlisted 'pipe' as an electrode this seems like much about nothing ....... in other words UL just protecting 'their' turf. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, I was kind of wondering why the fuss. 3/4" rods do not require listing. Too bad the counterfeiting operation didn't know this. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Here is what UL says about rods

G
round Rods ? Ground rods and pipe electrodes are suitable for use as
grounding electrodes in accordance with ANSI/NFPA 70, ??National Electrical
Code?? (NEC), and are also suitable for use in installation of lightning
protection equipment.
Ground rods are solid copper, solid stainless steel, copper-jacketed steel,
stainless-steel jacketed, galvanized steel, and chemically charged. They are
not less than 1/2 in. diameter and not less than 8 ft long and capable of
being driven to a depth of 8 ft. If other than circular, they have a periphery
not less than 1.6 in. and a minimum thickness of not less than 3/8 in.
Ground rods are marked with the rod length, and manufacturer?s name
and catalog number within 12 in. of the top of the rod.
Click to expand...

Seems like they must need listing.
 
I think the issue is not whether or not the rods need UL listing, probably if they just removed the UL mark, they could be sold in some areas no problem. The issue is that whomever is selling these is IMPLYING they are UL listed when they are not. That is the classic definition of fraud. Buyers are paying for something that is not true.
 
How would you drive a solid copper rod? Even hard copper is a lot softer than steel, and the copper clad steel ones often bend when you are driving them.
 
Jraef said:
I think the issue is not whether or not the rods need UL listing, probably if they just removed the UL mark, they could be sold in some areas no problem. The issue is that whomever is selling these is IMPLYING they are UL listed when they are not. That is the classic definition of fraud. Buyers are paying for something that is not true.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The point is, maybe what they put into the market is not what they supplied for listing application. Putting UL logo on something without having been granted is theft of intellectual property. It's just like selling counterfeit handbags.

Counterfeiting isn't limited to high value brand name goods now. Anything with fair retail value, but low manufacturing cost attracts counterfeiters. Apparently now things with retail value in upper single figure dollars get counterfeits. Expensive industrial breakers. Computer and electronics batteries and AC adapters, then it was breakers that only cost a handful of dollars.
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10749.html

Now, its short changing the amount of copper used on rods.
 
It would seem there must be some guidelines other than diameter that makes a rod a ground rod. All metals are not created equal so it seems there must be some control.
 
It may 'seem' that way, but such a requirement is absent from the NEC.

Be careful of your assumptions. For example, UL participated in some tests of various grounding methods - the purpose was a long-term study of the Ufer method - when they came across some surprises. It seems that several southern California jurisdictions were requiring the use of stainless steel for 'ground plate electrodes.' It was found that the "stainless" was corroding away faster than simple steel. Why? Well, the theory is that stainless requires the presence of oxygen to form a protective film - and the dry earth and deep burial combined to ensure that there was no oxygen present. So, the stainless never had a chance to form the protectibe film.
 
renosteinke said:
It may 'seem' that way, but such a requirement is absent from the NEC.

Be careful of your assumptions. For example, UL participated in some tests of various grounding methods - the purpose was a long-term study of the Ufer method - when they came across some surprises. It seems that several southern California jurisdictions were requiring the use of stainless steel for 'ground plate electrodes.' It was found that the "stainless" was corroding away faster than simple steel. Why? Well, the theory is that stainless requires the presence of oxygen to form a protective film - and the dry earth and deep burial combined to ensure that there was no oxygen present. So, the stainless never had a chance to form the protectibe film.
Click to expand...

They also showed that rebar was better than the #4 bare copper. I used to have a copy of the test results from about 10 years ago somewhere. I'll have to look for them again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top