Installation instructions are considered to be a part of the UL Listing.

[iwire]

Neither of those examples are INSTALLATION instructions pertaining to the Electrical Contractor. Both of those are USE and OPERATION instructions.

I have no idea what you mean, the link I provided is to a document entitled "Installation instructions". UL says Installation Instructions are considered to be a part of the UL Listing.

When I selected it from the list of documents at GE I made sure not to choose the operation instructions.

That being said, this entire document http://www.geappliances.ca/images/en...1559p101en.pdf contains installation instructions that UL apparently considers part of the listing.

 

[iwire]

Gentlemen...UL does not draft or require the instructions, the manufacturer does.

Oh, I get it, 'We don't write it we just endorse it' :grin::roll:

 

[mivey]

I think they are rule crazy. You can't completely spell everything out. No matter how hard you try to make something idiot proof, a bigger idiot will step up.

I remember some car repair manuals that gave the instructions for removing a motor in just a few easy steps. Others walked you through several chapters. Maybe they should just say, "this product is intended to be installed by professionals, all others proceed at your own risk".

The same applies for laws. They are trying to put everything down on paper and it just can't be done. Instead of a judge using common sense, we get crazy rulings because someone finds a loophole in the law. Now we get crazy rulings on electrical installs because someone has their nose stuck to a piece of paper instead of using common sense.

 

[ozark01]

When you install a piece of equipment in our area the AHJ requires the installations instructions to be available for the inspection. I wired a pool cover that came with no electrical installation instructions and when the inspector came, he left and told us to call him when we had the manufactures installation instructions in hand. We also had to get a copy of the UL certification from the manufacture before he would inspect it. The motor wiring was according to the code but that was not good enough for the inspector.

 

[weressl]

I have no idea what you mean, the link I provided is to a document entitled "Installation instructions". UL says Installation Instructions are considered to be a part of the UL Listing.

When I selected it from the list of documents at GE I made sure not to choose the operation instructions.

That being said, this entire document http://www.geappliances.ca/images/en...1559p101en.pdf contains installation instructions that UL apparently considers part of the listing.

They may be Installation instructions but the examples you bought up are NOT for the electrical installation, therefore the EC is not liable to perform those.

 

[LJSMITH1]

Here's an example that might be a bit more relevant to this discussion:

The installation instructions for a Wiremold RC4 replacement receptacle for in-floor use. Take a look at page number 4...It's titled:

The RC4TC Series Poke-Thru Device is UL Listed and Classified to U.S. and Canadian safety standards to the following conditions:


http://www.wiremold.com/publigen/support/inst_ins/Poke-Thru%20Devices/RC4%20Series/1%20002%20145.pdf

Here's a good quote from the very end of page 4:

CAUTION: Receptacle supplied with this poke-thru is not suitable for direct field wiring. Contact manufacturer for replacement. Field modifications will void UL Listing and Classification. Replacement receptacle is limited to this manufacturers’ Catalog No. RC4REC2.

This is not a 'suggestion' or an option. If the device is to maintain its listing after installation, it must be installed per the conditions noted on page 4. Its very clear to me. :roll:

The manufacturer conceives, designs and manufactures the product. They also insure that all the product features will meet or exceed applicable specifications. They would know best on how to obtain the best performance of their product under various field conditions. This is why they write installation instructions to eliminate ambiguity, mis-understanding, or deter un-approved use or application.

Let me clarify further, UL or any other NRTL does not endorse, author, proofread, or require instructions to be supplied with a product - unless the governing specification requires it, or the manufacturer determines it is needed.

 

[mivey]

Let me clarify further, UL or any other NRTL does not endorse, author, proofread, or require instructions to be supplied with a product - unless the governing specification requires it, or the manufacturer determines it is needed.

The manufacturer may include instructions for ease of installation even if they really are not needed by people who know what they are doing. The problem is, if a manufacturer only takes the time to cover one method of installation, even if they would be OK with other methods, we get punished by the purists.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I still stand on my statement that says that as long as UL has a document that says you can use classifed breakers and a second documet that says you have to follow all maufacturer supplied instructions, I will consider the second statement by UL invalid. These two UL documents are in direct conflict with each other.

 

[ozark01]

For CYA purposes I would go with the second document. Then if there is a problem you are covered.

 

[iwire]

They may be Installation instructions but the examples you bought up are NOT for the electrical installation, therefore the EC is not liable to perform those.

You seem to be trying to apply commonsense to this topic, IMO that will not work here. :grin:

Neither of us is allowed to pick and choose what directions we follow.

1) UL says the installation instructions are to be followed as they are part of the listing.

2) The NEC says I must follow instructions associated with the listing.

3) GE says that package I posted is the Installation instructions.


Now you point out where I am allowed to ignore certain instructions because commonsense tells us they do not apply to electrician.

If you can do that I will be happy, and then I can go on ignoring what I choose. :grin:

 

[LJSMITH1]

The manufacturer may include instructions for ease of installation even if they really are not needed by people who know what they are doing. The problem is, if a manufacturer only takes the time to cover one method of installation, even if they would be OK with other methods, we get punished by the purists.

While I understand what you are saying, I think there may be a mis-understanding. The NRTL is only performing the tests needed to list a product under standardized test protocol (i.e. all like products tested the same exact way). If the standard does not identify every which way to install a particular product (it doesn't), then how can the NRTL list a product that is installed in a manner that is not standardized?

The manufacturer does not develop installation instructions for 'convenience'. In my example above (which applies to 99% of all the instructions I am referring to), the manufacturer identifies the conditions that must be satisfied for the product to maintain a listing. These are the same conditions that were applied in the lab when the product passed its tests. If you change the parameters of the conditions, then logic would indicate that in order to remain listed, the new conditions need to be tested as well.

Here is where it gets sticky..the manufacturer needs to determine under what other conditions their product would be exposed to, and have the NRTL duplicate those conditions in the lab as applied to the specification. Since there could be dozens of alternatives, the manufacturer picks the most common conditions, and develops instructions and test requirements around those as they apply to the standard.

I hope that makes sense...I don't know how else to explain it..

 

[LJSMITH1]

I still stand on my statement that says that as long as UL has a document that says you can use classified breakers and a second document that says you have to follow all manufacturer supplied instructions, I will consider the second statement by UL invalid. These two UL documents are in direct conflict with each other.

I think UL should clarify their meaning of their positions. I think they are talking about two related issues, but they seem to have 'melded' together into a bit of a folklore conflict.

If you are willing to throw out the second statement in favor of the first, then the opposite could also be done.

 

[sandsnow]

From the UL guide info on panelboards:

Panelboards to which units (circuit breakers, switches, etc.) may be added in the field are marked with the name or trademark of the manufacturer and the catalog number or equivalent of those units that are intended to be installed in the field. Molded-case circuit breakers (see DIXF) may also be Classified and marked as being suitable for use in certain panelboards in place of or along with specific units marked on the panelboard.

http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073991788&sequence=1

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think UL should clarify their meaning of their positions. I think they are talking about two related issues, but they seem to have 'melded' together into a bit of a folklore conflict.

If you are willing to throw out the second statement in favor of the first, then the opposite could also be done.

Larry,
That is true. Right now they are in total conflict.

I really have my doubts that they even look at the instructions that are provided with the product given some of them that I have read. I have no doubt that they test to the standard and test to what the customer told them to test to.

 

[mivey]

Let me clarify further, UL or any other NRTL does not endorse, author, proofread, or require instructions to be supplied with a product - unless the governing specification requires it, or the manufacturer determines it is needed.

And I say everything in the instructions is not necessarily critical to the operation of the device but can be included to clarity the text concerning the critical items.

The manufacturer does not develop installation instructions for 'convenience'...If you change the parameters of the conditions, then logic would indicate that in order to remain listed, the new conditions need to be tested as well...I hope that makes sense...I don't know how else to explain it..

I contend that the manufacturer puts things in their instructions that are not intended to be followed "to the letter". There are items included for convenience. They do not necessarily have to walk you through every step like stripping the wire, twisting the wire, putting on a connector, screwing in a light bulb, but include it so the instructions read more like a "how to". They could just list the items of importance like "use copper wire only" or "the mounting screws provided must be used".

There has to be an understanding of what is going on if you are a professional. If you blindly follow the instructions exactly as printed, you are not being a professional, you are just being someone who is good at following directions to the letter. I've seen trained animals that can do that.

If a manufacturer thinks there is something pertinent to the correct function of the device, they should use words like "must", "shall" etc. Some of the other is just filler and should not be taken as mission-critical.

Take the time to read some of the instruction sheets and include a "must" with every sentence and diagram. You will see how ridiculous it is to say they must be followed to the letter. As a professional, you should be able to think as you simply can not put everything on paper or else the instruction sheets would be a book and would probably still miss something.

Also, sometimes the instructions are just wrong. They make typos like everybody else but a professional should be able to figure it out. It may take a call to the manufacturer or it may be obvious.

If you blindly follow the printed instructions, you are not doing your job (not accusing Larry of that as I'm just using "you" in a general sense).

 

[weressl]

You seem to be trying to apply commonsense to this topic, IMO that will not work here. :grin:

Neither of us is allowed to pick and choose what directions we follow.

1) UL says the installation instructions are to be followed as they are part of the listing.

2) The NEC says I must follow instructions associated with the listing.

3) GE says that package I posted is the Installation instructions.


Now you point out where I am allowed to ignore certain instructions because commonsense tells us they do not apply to electrician.

If you can do that I will be happy, and then I can go on ignoring what I choose. :grin:

To use thread compound on the pipe is clearly not an instruction for the electrician, so you can safely ignore it.

 

[LJSMITH1]

And I say everything in the instructions is not necessarily critical to the operation of the device but can be included to clarity the text concerning the critical items.I contend that the manufacturer puts things in their instructions that are not intended to be followed "to the letter".

If you blindly follow the printed instructions, you are not doing your job (not accusing Larry of that as I'm just using "you" in a general sense).

Did you read my example in post #26? That was just a random installation instruction I found for a Wiremold Device. Here's a few more:

Page 5
http://www.americanwaterheater.com/support/manuals/res-elect.pdf

Page 1, Page 10, etc.
http://www.zabatt.com/images/product%20manuals/0F5546.pdf

Page 11 is a good example of what kind of CB's are approved to use in this equipment.
http://www.gen-tran.com/assets/pdfs/OVATION_Install530001C.pdf

Page 1
http://www.vistapro.com/Files/inst/5262-Inst.pdf

Of course these examples are endless, and by no means "cookie cutter". I am in no way advocating the 'blind following of installation instructions'. A professional will review the installation site, and compare to the product installation requirements as defined in the product instructions. Any deviation from these instructions will be purposeful and result in a safe install that any AHJ could approve.

Of course, any performance or warranty issues arising from such deviation may not be covered by the manufacturer.:roll:

 

[mivey]

Did you read my example in post #26? That was just a random installation instruction I found for a Wiremold Device. Here's a few more:

Page 5
http://www.americanwaterheater.com/support/manuals/res-elect.pdf

Page 1, Page 10, etc.
http://www.zabatt.com/images/product manuals/0F5546.pdf

Page 11 is a good example of what kind of CB's are approved to use in this equipment.
http://www.gen-tran.com/assets/pdfs/OVATION_Install530001C.pdf

Page 1
http://www.vistapro.com/Files/inst/5262-Inst.pdf

Of course these examples are endless, and by no means "cookie cutter". I am in no way advocating the 'blind following of installation instructions'. A professional will review the installation site, and compare to the product installation requirements as defined in the product instructions. Any deviation from these instructions will be purposeful and result in a safe install that any AHJ could approve.

Of course, any performance or warranty issues arising from such deviation may not be covered by the manufacturer.:roll:

Thank you for proving my point. As you can see, there is extra information in the instructions not pertinent to the device's UL listing.

 

[LJSMITH1]

Thank you for proving my point. As you can see, there is extra information in the instructions not pertinent to the device's UL listing.

UL only considers the part of the instructions that is relevant to the install. In each of those instructions, there is information that is specific to the install. Of course, there is more info included than actually used to obtain the listing (i.e. safety warnings, specifications, performance/operation details, etc.). I have never implied or said that it didn't.

The 'extra information' has never been the point of the discussion. The discussion is about the installation instructions in their entirety - and if they are part of the UL listing at all. The answer is that the pertinent parts are used to OBTAIN the UL Listing. So logic would dictate that if you deviate from them, UL could not possibly guarantee the listing, as they would have never tested your installation scenario. Disagree all you want with this, but any NRTL will have the same policy.

Its like using a listed, flat-blade screwdriver...Let's say it was designed and tested only to loosen and tighten screws - and the instructions also say that. However, you decide to use it as a prybar or chisel, and it breaks - and injures you. Is the manufacturer at fault? Is the NRTL at fault? Is the listing still valid when the screwdriver was used as something else other than a screwdriver? No, No, & No.

As I stated in a previous post:

The NRTL is only performing the tests needed to list a product under standardized test protocol (i.e. all like products tested the same exact way). If the standard does not identify every which way to install a particular product (it doesn't), then how can the NRTL list a product that is installed in a manner that is not standardized?

The manufacturer does not develop installation instructions for 'convenience'. The manufacturer identifies the installation conditions that must be satisfied for the product to maintain an NRTL listing. These are the same conditions that were applied in the lab when the product passed its tests. If you change the parameters of the conditions, then logic would indicate that in order to remain listed, the new conditions need to be tested as well.

When it comes down to the final analysis, the ultimate authority on any install is the AHJ. Their approval is the only thing that matters.

 

[mivey]

...The 'extra information' has never been the point of the discussion.

Then perhaps you need to re-read the first post

The discussion is about the installation instructions in their entirety - and if they are part of the UL listing at all. The answer is that the pertinent parts are used to OBTAIN the UL Listing.

The premise of the original post was ALL instructions. No pertinent/non-pertinent. You even bought into this somewhat in post #17 where you said they follow the instructions "to the letter".

Now Iwire did ask what we think, so I'm concluding that you now agree with him that it is overstepping on UL's part.

So logic would dictate that if you deviate from them, UL could not possibly guarantee the listing, as they would have never tested your installation scenario. Disagree all you want with this, but any NRTL will have the same policy.

I have never disagreed that we must follow the instructions that are necessary for the product to perform correctly (the pertinent instructions). But you have now said there are pertinent instructions and non-pertinent instructions and that we should be able to distinguish those in the field. That is one of the points I'm trying to make, so maybe we agree.

Another point would be the objective of the instructions. I have instructions for mounting a ceiling fan box that says to use a lone 2x4 as a brace. The idea is to provide adequate support. To me, I can also use a 2x6 or any brace that would give me equivalent or better support. In some cases, I don't think a simple 2x4 would be the best choice. Just an example of where it does not always make sense to follow the instructions "to the letter" and shows there is more than one way to install the device without damaging the device's performance.

When it comes down to the final analysis, the ultimate authority on any install is the AHJ. Their approval is the only thing that matters.

And that can be where the real pain in the neck happens.