Is that Listed?

[bphgravity]

I sat through a UL presentation given by Don Shields yesterday and thought I would share some stats provided:

The term "listed" appears 1116 times in the 2005 NEC up from 864 in the 2002.

The term "identified" appears 491 times in the 2005 NEC up from 455 in the 2002.

The term "approved" appears 394 times in the 2005 NEC up from 371 in the 2002.

The term "listed for the purpose" appears 24 times in the 2005 NEC down from 59 in the 2002.

 

[Minuteman]

Bryan, please tell me that you didn't stay up all night, pouring over the '05, counting these words yourself... :grin:

 

[celtic]

Having the NEC/NECH on disc takes the guess work out of it

 

[bphgravity]

For me, these numbers indicate that even though manufacturer's have steadily increased their influence over the code and code changes, checks and balances are in place via third party testing (NRTL) that at least ensures the new technology and materials meet minimum standards.

The more things that are required to be listed, the less us enforcement officials have to concern ourselves with whether or not the equipment and materials being installed are suitable for the use.

 

[megloff11x]

The cost of listing and testing is driving more folks to put unlitsed or inappropriately listed stuff on the market. Most folks look for a UL, UR, CSA, TUV, etc. logo and say, "OK, that'll work." But what is it listed too?

You open the manual and get a list of numbers.

If you don't have a life you can look up the scopes, which really tell you nothing.

Or you can pay $1000 each for the standards and those tell you little too.

In the end, it may be a listed switch or breaker or piece of wire, but it may still NOT be appropriate for your application. The NRTLs are not always right either. They can miss things.

There are too many cooks in the process.

Matt

 

[sandsnow]

For me, these numbers indicate that even though manufacturer's have steadily increased their influence over the code and code changes, checks and balances are in place via third party testing (NRTL) that at least ensures the new technology and materials meet minimum standards.

The more things that are required to be listed, the less us enforcement officials have to concern ourselves with whether or not the equipment and materials being installed are suitable for the use.

all true Brian and I agree 100%. BUT Even though 90.7 says listed equipment is not intended to be re-examined in the field I submit that it is worth a closer look. I've questioned listed products and found that the listing mark was inppropriately applied or the product is not being manufactured properly.

1. a unit substation came out with a listing mark. Response from UL was that the manufacturer was not authorized to apply the listing mark to that product. Currently undergoing field evaluations. Product needed numerous modifications before UL would accept it.
2. Electric signs. One of the worst examples of the breakdown in the factory follow up service from UL. Required instruction not provided. Xfmr's not mounterd properly. Misuse of component parts. Application of listing marks in the field. etc.
3. Lighting control device (occupancy sensor) that uses the EGC as a current carrying conductor for the DC power supply. This one is still under our investigation. The manufacturer says 250.6 allows the EGC to be used for the DC power supply. We're flabergasted by that one.
4. Another one under investigation is an insulating cover for a tap connector where energized parts are not completely covered. There is an approx. 3/8 inch hole through which the tap connector metal is visible. It is the proper application of parts as per manufacturer instructions.

UL needs the help of AHJ's to report these things.

 

[iwire]

BUT Even though 90.7 says listed equipment is not intended to be re-examined in the field I submit that it is worth a closer look.

You would not like it here in MA Larry.

Here there is a rule that the AHJ must accept listed products if they are being used in accordance with the listing and labeling.

 

[sandsnow]

You would not like it here in MA Larry.

Here there is a rule that the AHJ must accept listed products if they are being used in accordance with the listing and labeling.

I think I would like it just fine. I've just seen enough to not blindly accept the UL label without question. All those products I mentioned are not or were not used in accordance with the listing and labeling.

The unit substations I mentioned were from a major player here in So Cal. It was a big surprise that they made such big mistake. They assurred me everything was hunky dory.

Remember those GE XFMR's you posted a picture of? The one with two switches? If I see one I will be questioning UL about it. If UL stands by it, then I will be forced to accept it.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

You would not like it here in MA Larry.

Here there is a rule that the AHJ must accept listed products if they are being used in accordance with the listing and labeling.

I absolutely agree with Larry. If in fact I was unsure even with listed products, does not mean I would approve it. If I was in Mass, I would let the state process my red tag and let them sign the application if I was unsure of the product for the installation at hand.

There have been times I have had the person at inspection go to the AHJ and debate the issue. I have no problem if someone over my authority wants to sign the paper if I am unsure or uncomfortable... that is what my almost 3 decades of experience gives me the privilege of choosing.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

You would not like it here in MA Larry.

Here there is a rule that the AHJ must accept listed products if they are being used in accordance with the listing and labeling.

I absolutely agree with Larry. If in fact I was unsure even with listed products, does not mean I would approve it. If I was in Mass, I would let the state process my red tag and let them sign the application if I was unsure of the product for the installation at hand.

There have been times I have had the person at inspection go to the AHJ and debate the issue. I have no problem if someone over my authority wants to sign the paper if I am unsure or uncomfortable... that is what my almost 3 decades of experience gives me the privilege of choosing.


Bryan
I also agree that the Listing does help to determine if a product will be suitable for the purpose, especially more complicated equipment.

 

[iwire]

Larry and Pierre I am not saying your wrong, and I guess an inspector here could still verify that each UL label is legit I do not see that happening.

I also do not see a trail of smoldering buildings. :smile:

If I was in Mass, I would let the state process my red tag and let them sign the application if I was unsure of the product for the installation at hand.

I suspect if you where to do that a number of times you would be job hunting.

 

[neonjoe]

2. Electric signs. One of the worst examples of the breakdown in the factory follow up service from UL. Required instruction not provided. Xfmr's not mounterd properly. Misuse of component parts. Application of listing marks in the field. etc.
UL needs the help of AHJ's to report these things.

Being involved only in the sign industry, I can't speak to electric signs being one of the worst examples, but it is terrible. Our company only manufactures a couple UL signs a year, and we call the local UL inspector for an inspection before the signs go out. Even then, the inspection itself is cursory, more of a gab fest than an inspection. This is why we in the field who do the installing and servicing consider the whole listing process a joke, I'm afraid.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Larry and Pierre I am not saying your wrong, and I guess an inspector here could still verify that each UL label is legit I do not see that happening.

I also do not see a trail of smoldering buildings. :smile:




I suspect if you where to do that a number of times you would be job hunting.

I did not think you were saying we are wrong, here is something for nonispectors to think about.


Inspectors sometimes are damned if they do and damned of they don't. What I am saying is, if we approve a piece of equipment even with a label or listing, and a problem occurs, we are part of the litigation process, or at the very least, we are threatened with litigation. So, we are very cautious with equipment of manufacturers we may not know or equipment we may not know.


Bob
If I was to have to go job hunting for this behavior, would you hire me

 

[petersonra]

Being involved only in the sign industry, I can't speak to electric signs being one of the worst examples, but it is terrible. Our company only manufactures a couple UL signs a year, and we call the local UL inspector for an inspection before the signs go out. Even then, the inspection itself is cursory, more of a gab fest than an inspection. This is why we in the field who do the installing and servicing consider the whole listing process a joke, I'm afraid.

This is not a whole lot different than the way they list control panels. They only check a few a year. UL audits what you do. They do not check every piece that comes out of your plant. If you want to cheat, they cannot stop you, but if they find out you cheated they will pull your listing very fast.