abruhn
New member
- Location
- Stuart, Florida, USA
Are OESC (Ontario Electrical Saftey Codes)approved standards compatible with UL standards.
OESC approved equipment
- Thread starter abruhn
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Not likely. See NEC Annex A for specific product safety standards the NEC is fundamentally referencing. In addition, see FedOSHA's September 14th Federal Record for the current list of other items that are expected to be NRTL cetified. A local US jurisdiction may accept OESC, but I wouldn't have my hopes up.
Last edited:
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
I am not familiar with that particular organization, but ...
Code requirements differ between the USA and Canada. Hence, the "CUL" and "UL" listings.
Ontario has it's own electrical regulatory agency. If the codes you refer to are from that ministry, then they are the AHJ, and it doesn't matter what UL says.
Code requirements differ between the USA and Canada. Hence, the "CUL" and "UL" listings.
Ontario has it's own electrical regulatory agency. If the codes you refer to are from that ministry, then they are the AHJ, and it doesn't matter what UL says.
controlled
Senior Member
- Location
- Bowmanville, Canada
The electrical code that we use in Canada is the CEC (Canadian Electrical Code) Each province adapts the CEC with their own provisions. The OESC is simply the CEC with the Ontario provisions, similar to the way each US state has provisions of the NEC
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
CUL means it meets both UL and CSA requirements.
CSA and UL are very close for most electrical items so it is usually not difficult to make them compatible.
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
Incorrect.
CUL means it's listed by the Canadian UL, an organisation affiliated with, but separate from, the UL we all know and love. CSA is a completely distinct group, not affiliated with either "UL."
There are differences, usually more academic than practical, between the ways clearances are measured, etc.
There are significant differences between Canadian rules and the NEC; one need only watch "Holmes on Homes" to spot many of them.
I will agree that the equipment, and methods, are quite similar .... in much the way a Ford pick-up resembles a Chevy. This would contrast with the greater differences between that Ford and, say, a Citroen.
CUL means it's listed by the Canadian UL, an organisation affiliated with, but separate from, the UL we all know and love. CSA is a completely distinct group, not affiliated with either "UL."
There are differences, usually more academic than practical, between the ways clearances are measured, etc.
There are significant differences between Canadian rules and the NEC; one need only watch "Holmes on Homes" to spot many of them.
I will agree that the equipment, and methods, are quite similar .... in much the way a Ford pick-up resembles a Chevy. This would contrast with the greater differences between that Ford and, say, a Citroen.
- Location
- Massachusetts
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
I suppose I ought to go into a wee bit more detail:
For a quick summary about CSA, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Standards_Association . The article conveniently describes some activities of CSA that are not shared by either of the "UL's." For example, quality control standards, and having a governmental mandate. They also 'write' the Canadian electric code; IIRC, a copy costs about triple what the NEC costs us.
As for the differences between USA and Canadian standards, let me cite two examples.
In the USA, and especially on the West Coast, the use of "all in one" panels is common. That is, the meter base, main disconnect, and branch circuit breakers are all mounted in the same box. Such panels will have the bussbars between the meter (in the 'sealed' half) enter the 'customers" half covered / protected by a heavy vinyl tubing. In Canada, this is not enough; Canadian panels will have a permanently attached sheet metal cover over the bussbars.
Another difference is in mounting the panels. Canadians are allowed to mount panels sideways - there is no requirement that 'down = OFF.' We can't do that.
Take a look at the Square D panel # SO1020M100S. This is a popular all-in-one panel. You will see two columns of breakers. The earlier version had the breakers arranged in two horizontal rows, with the top row 'upside down.' Such a panel is no longer allowed in the USA.
It is not a matter of one set of rules being 'stricter' or 'better' than the other; they are simply different. Very often, a product is capable of meeting both sets of rules- but not always.
In effect, the CUL mark says the product meets Canadian rules, while the UL mark infers compliance with US rules.
For a quick summary about CSA, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Standards_Association . The article conveniently describes some activities of CSA that are not shared by either of the "UL's." For example, quality control standards, and having a governmental mandate. They also 'write' the Canadian electric code; IIRC, a copy costs about triple what the NEC costs us.
As for the differences between USA and Canadian standards, let me cite two examples.
In the USA, and especially on the West Coast, the use of "all in one" panels is common. That is, the meter base, main disconnect, and branch circuit breakers are all mounted in the same box. Such panels will have the bussbars between the meter (in the 'sealed' half) enter the 'customers" half covered / protected by a heavy vinyl tubing. In Canada, this is not enough; Canadian panels will have a permanently attached sheet metal cover over the bussbars.
Another difference is in mounting the panels. Canadians are allowed to mount panels sideways - there is no requirement that 'down = OFF.' We can't do that.
Take a look at the Square D panel # SO1020M100S. This is a popular all-in-one panel. You will see two columns of breakers. The earlier version had the breakers arranged in two horizontal rows, with the top row 'upside down.' Such a panel is no longer allowed in the USA.
It is not a matter of one set of rules being 'stricter' or 'better' than the other; they are simply different. Very often, a product is capable of meeting both sets of rules- but not always.
In effect, the CUL mark says the product meets Canadian rules, while the UL mark infers compliance with US rules.
- Status