Mounting relays/contactor in panel okay?

[Smart $]

Say there is a UL listed Type 3R/12 enclosure.
The installer used a reciprocating saw to field cut an opening.
A 2" NEMA 4X "Meyers Hub", found on the installer's shop, is installed into the field cut opening.
Rigid aluminum conduit is installed into the Hub.

What is the UL Type rating of this installation? Would it be acceptable to you as an inspector? What tools or guidelines would you use in your evaluation?

First off, I am not an inspector... :blink:

I'd say NEMA 3R or 12, depending on indoor or outdoor installation... at best, which is based on the lowest protection level provided by the assembly (Table 110.28 as one resource). So what does UL listing have to do with it?

The reciprocating saw threw up a big flag based on my field experience, but the thought was using a "sawzall", and then remembered a jigsaw is also a reciprocating saw. Neither would be my first choice, sawzall totally out of the picture (at least with standard blades), while a jigsaw I'd resort to if the only option available... and likely would require a deburring tool. As an inspector, I'd only be able to make a determination on the hole if there were visible voids in the sealing area... and it's hard to say if I'd really be that scrutinizing at the time.

I can't tell whether the rigid aluminum conduit is a loaded question regarding dissimilar metals, but I happen to know 4X hubs come in zinc, aluminum, or stainless steel.

So what's the point in you asking a question to reply to a question?

 

[templdl]

First off, I am not an inspector... :blink:

I'd say NEMA 3R or 12, depending on indoor or outdoor installation... at best, which is based on the lowest protection level provided by the assembly (Table 110.28 as one resource). So what does UL listing have to do with it?

The reciprocating saw threw up a big flag based on my field experience, but the thought was using a "sawzall", and then remembered a jigsaw is also a reciprocating saw. Neither would be my first choice, sawzall totally out of the picture (at least with standard blades), while a jigsaw I'd resort to if the only option available... and likely would require a deburring tool. As an inspector, I'd only be able to make a determination on the hole if there were visible voids in the sealing area... and it's hard to say if I'd really be that scrutinizing at the time.

I can't tell whether the rigid aluminum conduit is a loaded question regarding dissimilar metals, but I happen to know 4X hubs come in zinc, aluminum, or stainless steel.

So what's the point in you asking a question to reply to a question?

As a customer what would you expect to receive when purchasing factory assenble enclosed control if it is UL listed with the UL label affixed to the enclosure? The after being shipped is modified in the field. Now you have an enclosure with a UL label affixed to the enclosure that is no longer as originally aßembled per its UL listing.
As such, does the field modified enclosed control still confirm with the original UL listing as approved by UL to the manufacturer?
As a customer convince me as to how you can trust that the enclosed control when field modified complies with the original UL listing as originally manufactured? Shouldn't the UL label be removed when field modification are made as to to confuse the customer that he assembly is UL listed? When you think about it the AHJ accepts and approves UL listed assembles With no UL label wouldn't the assembly be subject to be reviewed by the AHJ?

 

[meternerd]

Lots of talk about UL. UL is a participating member of EUSERC, and they give presentations pretty often at our quarterly meetings. It is my understanding from those sessions that UL is a laboratory that tests and lists equipment as produced at the factory. No UL rating applies after the item is installed in the field, for the obvious reason they they cannot test every installation. The acceptance of any modifications would fall back on the manufacturer. And in my experience, manufacturers are very reluctant to "certify" any modification that exceeds the recommend use. I guess the bottom line is whether or not the AHJ says it's OK. If they say OK, liability MAY be limited, but who knows....just my personal opinion having heard quite a few UL presentations. Think about it though...if you were a manufacturer, would you be willing to accept responsibility for damage that occurred due to a non-factory modification, even if it couldn't be proven that the modification contributed to the problem?

 

[GoldDigger]

Actually, if you have enough money to pay for it, UL will happily do a field inspection either of a field modification of listed equipment or of equipment that was never listed in the first place.

 

[meternerd]

Actually,if you have enough money to pay for it, UL will happily do a field inspection either of a field modification of listed equipment or of equipment that was never listed in the first place.

Even then, they told us it's not something they do very often. Maybe just the guys they sent to the meetings, though. Also, as far as I know, there's no requirement to use UL listed equipment. May be wrong there, too. They also said they have a big problem with counterfeit UL labeling and safety issues. Mostly Chinese knock-offs. They showed us ways to identify phony UL labels. Kinda wish we could get a UL guy to join the forum, but not likely. I guess the bottom line is that everything is ultimately up to the AHJ.

 

[jim dungar]

First off, I am not an inspector... :blink:

I'd say NEMA 3R or 12, depending on indoor or outdoor installation... at best, which is based on the lowest protection level provided by the assembly (Table 110.28 as one resource). So what does UL listing have to do with it?

The reciprocating saw threw up a big flag based on my field experience, but the thought was using a "sawzall", and then remembered a jigsaw is also a reciprocating saw. Neither would be my first choice, sawzall totally out of the picture (at least with standard blades), while a jigsaw I'd resort to if the only option available... and likely would require a deburring tool. As an inspector, I'd only be able to make a determination on the hole if there were visible voids in the sealing area... and it's hard to say if I'd really be that scrutinizing at the time.

I can't tell whether the rigid aluminum conduit is a loaded question regarding dissimilar metals, but I happen to know 4X hubs come in zinc, aluminum, or stainless steel.

So what's the point in you asking a question to reply to a question?

My point is there are lots of different things that need to be considered when a hole has been 'field cut'.
The UL Label simply says the item was suitable for a Type 3R or 12 environment when it left the factory. It is up to the inspector to make sure it has been installed in a manner that does not compromise the listing.
If the enclosure listing has been compromised it pretty much defaults back to a Type 1, assuming all unplugged openings are not larger than 1/8"
You might not be an AHJ, but I would like to think that you 'inspect' your own work to make sure it complies with local codes and standards rather than simply hoping an actual AHJ doesn't notice your lack of compliance.

 

[templdl]

This is a reminder of what the OP stated:
"Mounting relays/contactor in panel okay?
This question came up and I was curious and couldn't find a definitive answer..
If there is adequate room within a panelboard enclosure, is it permissible to install a relay or contactor in the panelboard enclosure ??
Thank you"
As such has hs concern been addressed?

 

[Smart $]

As a customer...

Lots of talk about UL...

Actually, if you have enough money...

Even then, they told us...

My point is there...

Man, you guys sure know how to turn a comment into a nightmare. :happyyes:

Let's lay this to bed...

If a listed product as installed is no longer listed, then exactly what is the purpose of 90.7? Wouldn't a listed as manufactured product then be unlisted as installed? Do inspectors treat it as such?

Note the preceding from my point of view are rhetorical questions... so if you can explain how to resolve that conundrum, please keep it to yourself.

This is a reminder...
...
As such has hs concern been addressed?

Please resume....:happyyes:

 

[templdl]

Man, you guys sure know how to turn a comment into a nightmare. :happyyes:

Let's lay this to bed...

If a listed product as installed is no longer listed, then exactly what is the purpose of 90.7? Wouldn't a listed as manufactured product then be unlisted as installed? Do inspectors treat it as such?

Note the preceding from my point of view are rhetorical questions... so if you can explain how to resolve that conundrum, please keep it to yourself.


Please resume....:happyyes:

What is it? If it no longer complies with the manufacturers UL listing then the NEC takes over. As such the AHJ would have the authority to open the enclosure to assure NEC compliance in all respects.
It must be noted that often times listed enclosed control must pass UL testing requirements which is no necessarily based upon wire sizes per the NEC but temperature rise for example. Often time smaller size wire is used than anticipated. And interesting enough often times it would not comply with the NEC requirements. For example, wire sizes are based upon application/ temperature rise and actually tested to get a UL listing. As such the AHJ accepts the UL listed encontrol per NEC art 110. Should the UL listed assembly be field modified it is that time that the AHJ would have the authority to evaluate it for compliance to the NEC requirements. As such the AHJ may possibly reevaluate the entire assembly for NEC compliance such as wiring methods. The reason that I brought up wiring is that I have had to address question from the field numerous times regarding an AHJ not approving an unmodified UL listed enclosed control often rejecting it because of wire size. They must then be reminded that the assembly is UL listed and that the AHJ does not have the authority to over rule a design that has been tested and listed by UL.
Maybe some of the other guys have some input should I may be missing something here.

 

[Smart $]

What is it? If it no longer complies with the manufacturers UL listing then the NEC takes over. As such the AHJ would have the authority to open the enclosure to assure NEC compliance in all respects.
It must be noted that often times listed enclosed control must pass UL testing requirements which is no necessarily based upon wire sizes per the NEC but temperature rise for example. Often time smaller size wire is used than anticipated. And interesting enough often times it would not comply with the NEC requirements. For example, wire sizes are based upon application/ temperature rise and actually tested to get a UL listing. As such the AHJ accepts the UL listed encontrol per NEC art 110. Should the UL listed assembly be field modified it is that time that the AHJ would have the authority to evaluate it for compliance to the NEC requirements. As such the AHJ may possibly reevaluate the entire assembly for NEC compliance such as wiring methods. The reason that I brought up wiring is that I have had to address question from the field numerous times regarding an AHJ not approving an unmodified UL listed enclosed control often rejecting it because of wire size. They must then be reminded that the assembly is UL listed and that the AHJ does not have the authority to over rule a design that has been tested and listed by UL.
Maybe some of the other guys have some input should I may be missing something here.

Talk about a recurring nightmare. :roll: I see you still haven't quite nailed down the conundrum yet, let alone resolved it. Almost don't want to comment on your post to stem perpetuating the issue...

An AHJ does have the authority to disapprove any portion of an installation, listed (as manufactured ) or otherwise, either in part or as a whole. A whole slew of arguments, postulations, and entreaties ensue if they do, but it does not change the fact that the AHJ does have the authority.

 

[jim dungar]

As such has hs concern been addressed?

From the comment in post #10, it appears the OP was satisfied based on the picture in post #9.

The OT conversation pretty much began with post #11 by Smart $.

 

[kwired]

It depends on what and how you change it... and a little common sense really tells you whether the listing is voided. With electrical distribution equipment, it is expected to have conductors not part of the listing enter and leave, is it not? If the listing includes an enclosure (integral or as an accessory) with no KO's, there is no way to put the equipment to use without making at least one hole. To say making that hole voids the listing would be ludicrous.

Now if you field integrate a device within the listed equipment that is not a listed accessory or an expected customization, that would more than likely void the listing.

That seems reasonable.
Then comes the people that sometimes say you have violated listing if you drill your own holes for mounting the same enclosure and act like no field modifications are permitted at all, yet you can order junction/pull boxes/cabinets with no KO's - which would seem obvious you need to make field cuts to be able to enter those with your wiring method.:roll:

 

[jim dungar]

A listing describes that the device was built and the condition it was shipped in. The AHJ is able to use the listing to evaluate the equipment in its unmodified condition.
As a result most AHJ are then free to simply evaluate any field modifications, such as conduit entries and equipment additions, and their affect to the Listed equipment.

There is often nothing improper or inappropriate about modifying Listed equipment, as others have mentioned there is a lot of, if not most, equipment that require field modifications.

 

[templdl]

From the comment in post #10, it appears the OP was satisfied based on the picture in post #9.

The OT conversation pretty much began with post #11 by Smart $.

Thanks, these settings often times have so many rabbit trails it is often hard to find out who''s on first.

 

[Smart $]

Thanks, these settings often times have so many rabbit trails it is often hard to find out who''s on first.

From the comment in post #10, it appears the OP was satisfied based on the picture in post #9.

The OT conversation pretty much began with post #11 by Smart $.

I see some just don't quite have a grip on reality, either.

I felt it coming and tried to head it off in post #2, while templdl and ActionDave instigated the OT in posts # 7 and #8, respectively.

 

[Smart $]

A listing describes that the device was built and the condition it was shipped in. The AHJ is able to use the listing to evaluate the equipment in its unmodified condition.
As a result most AHJ are then free to simply evaluate any field modifications, such as conduit entries and equipment additions, and their affect to the Listed equipment.

...

Take a wild guess at how many times in 39 years I've actually witnessed an AHJ, or its named representative, evaluate any listed integrated assembly in the unmodified condition (i.e. before it was installed).

 

[jim dungar]

Take a wild guess at how many times in 39 years I've actually witnessed an AHJ, or its named representative, evaluate any listed integrated assembly in the unmodified condition (i.e. before it was installed).

The AHJ does not need to see the equipment uninstalled in order to evaluate it. The vast majority of time, it is readily apparent what was factory original (i.e. internal wiring or factory construction) versus what was field modified. NEC article 90.7 clearly states the NEC intent is to have an inspector detect alterations or damage of listed equipment. Article 110.3(A)(2) specifically mentions approval of the adequacy of the protection provided by the parts used to install the equipment as being independent of the suitability of Listed equipment itself.

 

[Smart $]

The AHJ does not need to see the equipment uninstalled in order to evaluate it. The vast majority of time, it is readily apparent what was factory original (i.e. internal wiring or factory construction) versus what was field modified. NEC article 90.7 clearly states the NEC intent is to have an inspector detect alterations or damage of listed equipment. Article 110.3(A)(2) specifically mentions approval of the adequacy of the protection provided by the parts used to install the equipment as being independent of the suitability of Listed equipment itself.

In many to most cases, yes. But I can assure you that I have modified listed equipment to a degree that even the manufacturer rep' could not tell the difference on visual inspection. My intent was not to deceive, but rather quality workmanship.

And if I can do it, so can others... and their intent may not be the same.

And yet here we are perpetuating this OT discussion... :happyyes:

 

[jim dungar]

And yet here we are perpetuating this OT discussion... :happyyes:

Which primarily is based on your comment in post #11

That's not true where alteration is expected for common use.

My points have been, that all alterations need to be acceptable to the AHJ, not just the 'uncommon' ones and just because something has been altered does not necessarily make it unacceptable.

 

[templdl]

Which primarily is based on your comment in post #11


My points have been, that all alterations need to be acceptable to the AHJ, not just the 'uncommon' ones and just because something has been altered does not necessarily make it unacceptable.

I agree with the AHJ's acceptance. At the risk if being picky may it be that the AHJ now would have license with being critical of the already UL listed factory assembly as received originally? Trying to convince him/her as to what was original and what modifications had been may may provide to be difficult with some inspectors. The simple subject of power wiring which is often smaller than the that which is included in the NEC which has been the subject of many of the field applications presented to me over the years. This should not be an issue with any reasonable AHJ.