UL Listing on Main Breaker

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sbutler

Member
Location
North Charleston, SC
Odd question (to me) from a contractor today that I have never had asked to me before. Main breaker (Siemen's) is not UL listed. Will cost much to replace it or hire a third party to UL certify the main. Are there any NEC requirements to have a UL listed breaker? Has anyone else run into this issue? Is it ok to use a non-listed breaker?

Thanks for any responses.

Steve
 
I have some difficulty believing it's not actually listed. Code does not require UL specifically, only a 'nationally recognized testing laboratory'. Is the problem that it's installed in equipment that it's not listed for? What is the model of the breaker?
 
Gents, in the 90.7 notes, the following is stated:

"Informative Annex A contains a list of product safety standards used for product listing. The list includes only product safety standards for which a listing is required by Code".

I interpret this to say if it is in this list, it is required. Annex A says molded-case circuit breakers shall be UL489 listed.

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Steve
 
sbutler said:
Odd question (to me) from a contractor today that I have never had asked to me before. Main breaker (Siemen's) is not UL listed. Will cost much to replace it or hire a third party to UL certify the main. Are there any NEC requirements to have a UL listed breaker? Has anyone else run into this issue? Is it ok to use a non-listed breaker?

Thanks for any responses.

Steve
Click to expand...

I don't see any way a third-party can certify a component like a breaker.

What makes you think it's not UL listed? It could be that the UL listing Mark it's just somewhere where it's not readily visible. If this is something new your best bet is to take it up with Siemens. As far as I know all of the current Siemens Breakers are UL listed.

Even if it's an older vintage if it was sold in the US it almost certainly was listed at the time it was sold. If it came as part of a piece of older equipment from Europe I could understand it not being listed.
 
sbutler said:
I interpret this to say if it is in this list, it is required. Annex A says molded-case circuit breakers shall be UL489 listed.
Click to expand...

The language in 90.7 says "It is the intent of this Code that...the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation...IF the equipment has been listed by a qualified testing laboratory..."

Nothing in 90.7 requires all equipment with standards listed in Appendix A to be listed.
 
I find it hard to believe that any modern day circuit breaker is not UL listed. That being said if it was purchased as part of an assembly, meaning the panel board, the listing of the assembly would cover the breaker.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
 
sbutler said:
Gents, in the 90.7 notes, the following is stated:
Click to expand...
Take note that article 90 is not part of the code nor is any IN. Article 90 is only an introduction to the code, see 90.3 and take note that Article 90 is not shown.

sbutler said:
"Informative Annex A contains a list of product safety standards used for product listing.
Click to expand...
Annexes are not code either, read the first italicized sentence of Annex A

sbutler said:
The list includes only product safety standards for which a listing is required by Code".
Click to expand...
See David's post.

sbutler said:
I interpret this to say if it is in this list, it is required. Annex A says molded-case circuit breakers shall be UL489 listed.
Click to expand...
Even if the Annex was part of the code the list says "Circuit Breakers for Use in Communication Equipment UL 489A"


sbutler said:
Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Steve
Click to expand...

The only place I know that requires a listing for circuit breakers is 240.83(D)

Roger
 
roger said:
Take note that article 90 is not part of the code nor is any IN. Article 90 is only an introduction to the code, see 90.3 and take note that Article 90 is not shown.
Click to expand...
Yet we often go to 90.2 to see if NEC even applies to a situation. If Art 90 is not part of code how can we use anything in 90.2 to say NEC applies or doesn't apply?


Second thoughts here, maybe art 90 isn't part of the actual "code" but is still part of NFPA 70, which is how the document is often referred to by the laws when it is adopted as the law
 
I don't agree that 90 isn't part of the code. Of course it is part of the code.

I could agree with the point perhaps if it were stated 'Article 90 contains no technical requirements.' And I agree that the subsection quoted does not require anything to be listed; in fact the implication is the opposite.
 
kwired said:
Yet we often go to 90.2 to see if NEC even applies to a situation. If Art 90 is not part of code how can we use anything in 90.2 to say NEC applies or doesn't apply?


Second thoughts here, maybe art 90 isn't part of the actual "code" but is still part of NFPA 70, which is how the document is often referred to by the laws when it is adopted as the law
Click to expand...

jaggedben said:
I don't agree that 90 isn't part of the code. Of course it is part of the code.

I could agree with the point perhaps if it were stated 'Article 90 contains no technical requirements.' And I agree that the subsection quoted does not require anything to be listed; in fact the implication is the opposite.
Click to expand...

Once again, see 90.3, the NEC is comprised of chapters 1 through 9 and informative Annexes, (which are not requirements of the code either) article 90 is simply an informational and explanatory introduction.

Roger
 
roger said:
Once again, see 90.3, the NEC is comprised of chapters 1 through 9 and informative Annexes, (which are not requirements of the code either) article 90 is simply an informational and explanatory introduction.

Roger
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong about what 90.3 says.

90.3 This Code is divided into the introduction and nine chapters...
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

At any rate, what makes anything in NPFA 70 official code is adoption by an AHJ, who may or may not to decide to adopt article 90 a long with the rest. But they always do adopt article 90 AFAIK. For example if you look up what's in the 'California Electrical Code' you'll find not only article 90 but also an article 89, written entirely by California and not the NFPA. That article lays out who is responsible for enforcing the code in California and related similar stuff. And that is part of the Code in California, too.
 
jaggedben said:
You are simply wrong about what 90.3 says.
Click to expand...
Ok, it's as much a part of the code as the Annexes are.




jaggedben said:
At any rate, what makes anything in NPFA 70 official code is adoption by an AHJ, who may or may not to decide to adopt article 90 a long with the rest.
Click to expand...
If NFPA 70 is adopted article 90 rides along period.

jaggedben said:
For example if you look up what's in the 'California Electrical Code' you'll find not only article 90 but also an article 89,
Click to expand...
Article 80 must be specifically adopted (see the italicized paragraph at the beginning of Annex H) 90 does not.

FWIW, I know what you are saying and I agree that 90 is part of NFPA 70 but it does not mandate anything, it is just setting up the rest of the story.

Roger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top