Robert.Perry
Member
- Location
- Sicklerville, nj
Is the UL Listing of the panel void if you replace the main breaker with a new UL listed square d breaker?
Square D UL Listing
- Thread starter Robert.Perry
- Start date
- Status
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
UL lists products as they leave the factory.
They list the breaker you replaced it with.
What you do with it after it leaves the factory is not their concern.
You cannot "void" a UL listing by anything you do because it applies to the product as it left the factory.
You may have an issue with AHJ approval, but not UL. However, as long as the new breaker is listed for the purpose you are using it for, why would the AHJ even care?
They list the breaker you replaced it with.
What you do with it after it leaves the factory is not their concern.
You cannot "void" a UL listing by anything you do because it applies to the product as it left the factory.
You may have an issue with AHJ approval, but not UL. However, as long as the new breaker is listed for the purpose you are using it for, why would the AHJ even care?
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
UL does not have a problem when there is a 'like with like' replacement. For example, replacing a faulty 100A main breaker with another 100A main breaker is simple maintenance.
Things start getting fuzzy when you do more than that, or start changing the question. An example is when you retrofit fluorescent fixtures: UL expects you to replace the ballast .... but change the ballast from T-12 to one for T-8 bulbs, and suddenly UL wants you to use a listed 'kit,' and objects to your simple ballast swap out. Their position will be 'that's not the fixture we tested.'
As for 'voiding the warranty,' there's a lot to be said for the role of honesty in relationships. Some folks are less honest than others; just try collecting on the 'lifetime warranty' of a few different brands of screwdrivers, and you'll see what I mean. One firm will replace the tool with no questions asked, while another will require that their rep look at it and try to find a reason to decline the warranty claim. Electrical parts makers are no different.
Things start getting fuzzy when you do more than that, or start changing the question. An example is when you retrofit fluorescent fixtures: UL expects you to replace the ballast .... but change the ballast from T-12 to one for T-8 bulbs, and suddenly UL wants you to use a listed 'kit,' and objects to your simple ballast swap out. Their position will be 'that's not the fixture we tested.'
As for 'voiding the warranty,' there's a lot to be said for the role of honesty in relationships. Some folks are less honest than others; just try collecting on the 'lifetime warranty' of a few different brands of screwdrivers, and you'll see what I mean. One firm will replace the tool with no questions asked, while another will require that their rep look at it and try to find a reason to decline the warranty claim. Electrical parts makers are no different.
jmellc
Senior Member
- Location
- Durham, NC
- Occupation
- Facility Maintenance Tech. Licensed Electrician
What a laugh. UL is a racket. I've seen junk of all kinds with UL labels, as I've shouted out before. Ul reps must have had incriminating photos of a lot of authorities to get themselves written into law.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
That is not surprising. A UL Listing has absolutely nothing to do with quality or functionality. A UL listing simply says that something was built to a certain set of specific standards.
I do agree with you in regards to people that think it is the 'end all'.
tleaf28
Member
- Location
- Grandview Heights, Ohio
I would change this to a UL listing says something is to be built to a certain set of standards. That doesn't necessarily mean it was built as such.
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
Well, tleaf, that's a fine job of splitting hairs.
jmellc, I am offended by you implying that UL is crooked or corrupt, or relies upon gangster tactics.
Regular readers will know that I am not a big fan of UL. UL certainly has its' quirks and issues. Many of their positions strike me as being intellectually dishonest. Their pussyfooting about what 'listing' means is one such thing, and greatly reduces the respect I have for them.
Still, give the devil his due. At least UL tries.
They test. Not to just 'their' standards, but standards that have been developed with a great deal of input from others.
They have various procedures, all intended to ensure that the tests are fair. The original tests are folowed by periodic re-tests, using either samples they choose, or samples taken from the open market. Tests are performed by their people at their facilities. They've done what they can to ensure accurate results.
Other bureaucratic safeguards have removed any opportunity for an individual to influence a listing decision. That's why I have yet to hear of somone 'buying off' UL.
On the flip side, I've seen other folks take all manner of absurd positions regarding products and their UL listings. Let's clear one thing up right now: UL only lists finished items. UL does not make things, and does not tell you how to make things.
We, OTOH, make things. It's our job to take finished pieces and put them together into making something else. That's out job, and our responsibility. UL can test a nut and a bolt, and say they fit ... but UL can't say what they'll be used to hold together.
Likewise, since UL tests to a standard, it is quite possible that there will be differences between products that meet the standard. After all, both Yugo and BMW had to meet the same Federal car 'standards,' but no one would claim they were equivalent products. It's up to you to know the difference, and decide.
jmellc, I am offended by you implying that UL is crooked or corrupt, or relies upon gangster tactics.
Regular readers will know that I am not a big fan of UL. UL certainly has its' quirks and issues. Many of their positions strike me as being intellectually dishonest. Their pussyfooting about what 'listing' means is one such thing, and greatly reduces the respect I have for them.
Still, give the devil his due. At least UL tries.
They test. Not to just 'their' standards, but standards that have been developed with a great deal of input from others.
They have various procedures, all intended to ensure that the tests are fair. The original tests are folowed by periodic re-tests, using either samples they choose, or samples taken from the open market. Tests are performed by their people at their facilities. They've done what they can to ensure accurate results.
Other bureaucratic safeguards have removed any opportunity for an individual to influence a listing decision. That's why I have yet to hear of somone 'buying off' UL.
On the flip side, I've seen other folks take all manner of absurd positions regarding products and their UL listings. Let's clear one thing up right now: UL only lists finished items. UL does not make things, and does not tell you how to make things.
We, OTOH, make things. It's our job to take finished pieces and put them together into making something else. That's out job, and our responsibility. UL can test a nut and a bolt, and say they fit ... but UL can't say what they'll be used to hold together.
Likewise, since UL tests to a standard, it is quite possible that there will be differences between products that meet the standard. After all, both Yugo and BMW had to meet the same Federal car 'standards,' but no one would claim they were equivalent products. It's up to you to know the difference, and decide.
tleaf28
Member
- Location
- Grandview Heights, Ohio
It's not splitting hairs, though. I see it everyday in our industry as a mfg using the Electric Sign Standard, UL48. My main job is to ensure our compliance with the standards. I have the labels in my desk drawer that we affix to signs. We build our signs per the UL48 Standard and label them as such. Others in our industry build crap and label it as UL48 compliant. I.E., the labels don't mean much.
While gangster tactics might be an overstatement, they definitely get carried away with some of their positions. I have on my desk right now a box of Liquid Tight fittings we bought from a supplier. They are ETL listed using the appropriate adopted UL standard according to the mfg I talked to. However, since they are not UL listed, we cannot use them even though they are tested to the UL standard. What's the difference? They don't make any money for not having the UL mark on the fittings. Field Services is where they make their money and without the UL marks on product there is no reason for field services. If these fittings would not have been caught before going into a sign, we would have been subject to a Variation Notice. :thumbsdown:
We are somewhat different from most industries that UL deals with as we are subject to field inspections only. We do not have to submit samples of signs as every sign we make is custom, but we are subject to random monthly field inspections. We get very lucky as our local field rep actually has some common sense and doesn't get carried away with things, but I know of another local field rep that abuses the workmanship clauses of the UL48 standard.
Examples:
1. If we have a sign with a glob of caulk in the bottom, away from the electrical components, this could be considered poor workmanship. Does that make the sign unsafe? Nope. Does that make the sign non-compliant? Yup
2. We can bring primary wiring into one part of the sign, "hide" a non-lockable disconnect somewhere on the exterior of the sign, then run some more primary wiring anywhere inside the sign as long as no primary wiring is exposed outside of conduit or a raceway prior to the disconnect. Does that make the sign unsafe? I would say yes. Does that make the sign non-compliant? Nope, but I would hope the AHJ would reject the sign.
I do agree with you Reno about UL at least trying. They develop the standards with input from end users, mfgs, AHJs, and anyone else that wants to participate. I think where they fail is having overzealous field inspectors and sometimes overlooking common sense.
While gangster tactics might be an overstatement, they definitely get carried away with some of their positions. I have on my desk right now a box of Liquid Tight fittings we bought from a supplier. They are ETL listed using the appropriate adopted UL standard according to the mfg I talked to. However, since they are not UL listed, we cannot use them even though they are tested to the UL standard. What's the difference? They don't make any money for not having the UL mark on the fittings. Field Services is where they make their money and without the UL marks on product there is no reason for field services. If these fittings would not have been caught before going into a sign, we would have been subject to a Variation Notice. :thumbsdown:
We are somewhat different from most industries that UL deals with as we are subject to field inspections only. We do not have to submit samples of signs as every sign we make is custom, but we are subject to random monthly field inspections. We get very lucky as our local field rep actually has some common sense and doesn't get carried away with things, but I know of another local field rep that abuses the workmanship clauses of the UL48 standard.
Examples:
1. If we have a sign with a glob of caulk in the bottom, away from the electrical components, this could be considered poor workmanship. Does that make the sign unsafe? Nope. Does that make the sign non-compliant? Yup
2. We can bring primary wiring into one part of the sign, "hide" a non-lockable disconnect somewhere on the exterior of the sign, then run some more primary wiring anywhere inside the sign as long as no primary wiring is exposed outside of conduit or a raceway prior to the disconnect. Does that make the sign unsafe? I would say yes. Does that make the sign non-compliant? Nope, but I would hope the AHJ would reject the sign.
I do agree with you Reno about UL at least trying. They develop the standards with input from end users, mfgs, AHJs, and anyone else that wants to participate. I think where they fail is having overzealous field inspectors and sometimes overlooking common sense.
- Status