UL listing?

[beachbumjeremy]

I am trying to find direct information from the ul website or any other source that states modification of ul listed product voids ul listing until inspected by ul themselves. I've looked through the UL website, but can't find much other than this... http://www.ul.com/tca/ec/august04.pdf
Anyone know of any other references?

 

[bphgravity]

The modification of a product may or may not violate it's listing. THe AHJ is response for approving installations per 110.2 of the NEC.

There is no way for the typical AHJ to know if the modification changes the intended operation and use of product as defined by the product standard, therefore they may require the product replaced and/or "field" investigated by the NRTL that originally listed the product.

 

[jim dungar]

I am trying to find direct information from the ul website or any other source that states modification of ul listed product voids ul listing until inspected by ul themselves. I've looked through the UL website, but can't find much other than this... http://www.ul.com/tca/ec/august04.pdf
Anyone know of any other references?

I think you are looking for something that does not exist.

Mr. Ode clearly says that the UL listing pertains to the manufacture NOT the installation of the product. He also infers that UL does not have a blanket policy that all filed modifications "void" the listing.

"UL cannot know what effect any modification (alteration, repair or accident) may have on safety, code compliance, performance or on the continued UL certification of the product unless specifically evaluated by UL."
​

He goes on to say it is upto the AHJ to contact UL if there are questions about the installation.

"Regulatory authorities need to determine if the product is still acceptable or if there is a need to have the product “re-labeled, re-certified, or re-evaluated.”​

 

[LJSMITH1]

UL or any other NRTL will only certify product for use in application for which it was designed. When a manufacturer submits a product for test, it has been designed to pass such tests.

However, if a product (previously certified) has been modified from its original state, it technically can no longer be a certified product.

Bphgravity is correct when he states: "[the AHJ] may require the product replaced and/or "field" investigated by the NRTL that originally listed the product".

-Larry

 

[cowboyjwc]

I once had a contractor modify about 10 pieces of equipment and he was very proud of himself that he knew that it voided the UL listing, so he had the listing labels removed.

He wasn't so happy, even though I gave him an attaboy for being honest, when I told him that he would then have to bring in a third party to recertify the equipment.

I tend to agree with the others.

 

[tom baker]

We have a state rule that states if the equipment is modified then it has to be re-listed.

 

[jim dungar]

We have a state rule that states if the equipment is modified then it has to be re-listed.

Tom,

What constitutes a modification?

 

[petersonra]

We have a state rule that states if the equipment is modified then it has to be re-listed.

does that include punching a hole in a box for a conduit fitting?

painting conduit?

how about cutting and threading conduit?

making field modifications allowed by the manufacturer's instructions and UL listing, such as adding a contact block to a relay?

 

[480sparky]

What about bending conduit?
Removing the tab between the two terminals to make it a split receptacle?
Or removing the "Mickey-Mouse" ears on a device?
How about removing the tabs on one of these?:

 

[LJSMITH1]

"Modification" would be defined as modifying a product in a way that the manufacturer has not 'intended' it to be modified.

An acceptable example would be bending conduit, threading rigid conduit, or removing a tab on a receptacle. Those products have been designed to be field modified. However, lets say that someone wanted to thread EMT conduit like Rigid, is that acceptable? No. Because EMT is not designed to be field threaded.

Punching a hole in a box could alter a UL listed product enough if it is done in an area that is not commonly accepted as being an intended area (i.e. in the back of a circuit breaker box - behind the buss bars). Same thing as trying to 'tweak' a GFCI internally to get that pesky device to stop nuisance tripping... Not acceptable...

I hope I made sense there...:roll:

-Larry

 

[jim dungar]

"Modification" would be defined as modifying a product in a way that the manufacturer has not 'intended' it to be modified.

Larry, do you have this definition in writing from the State of Washington, or is this your interpretation?

 

[petersonra]

Punching a hole in a box could alter a UL listed product enough if it is done in an area that is not commonly accepted as being an intended area (i.e. in the back of a circuit breaker box - behind the buss bars).

Just because something is not commonly done does not make it unacceptable. A fair number of things are commonly accepted that are just plain wrong. That does not make it right.

 

[LJSMITH1]

These are my interpretations, (working for manufacturers of UL Listed products) and I am not sure if there are specific local guides that prohibit ANY modification of UL listed product - even if it is designed to be modified.

If something is just plain wrong, I would expect that it would specifically be prohibited in a recognized guide (i.e. NEC or local code, etc.).

Common sense would dictate that if I modified a product in a manner that it did not look like it was designed for, I probably would expect an AHJ to call for a field evaluation by a NRTL. An example would be to widen a receptacle blade slot to accept a polarized plug blade, or cut off the grounding pin off a UL listed extension cord.

Only so much can be spelled out in guides and specifications...the rest is left up to common sense and training (which some people may not have)...

Just look at all the violation pictures we have all seen of crazy things done to electrical equipment. I especially liked one that I saw of a handyman who epoxied a 200A switch lug to a bus bar because he lacked the proper bus hardware (EC&M). This is a field modification that lacked common sense and obvioulsy was a violation. There is also another one of a type T conduit body in which someone attached another fitting to the lid. This obviously also violates a few NEC articles.

-Larry

 

[masterelect1]

Input Needed

Input Needed

We have a state rule that states if the equipment is modified then it has to be re-listed.

I was told by a local UL certifier that extension cords that are made "in house' are not UL certified. For ex., the plug and connector and the cord are certified individually but when put together as an assembly the finished product has not been approved and therefore the assembler(me) is liable if someone is injured or even worse. I believe this to be true. Any opinions or facts regarding this?

 

[jim dungar]

I was told by a local UL certifier that extension cords that are made "in house' are not UL certified. For ex., the plug and connector and the cord are certified individually but when put together as an assembly the finished product has not been approved and therefore the assembler(me) is liable if someone is injured or even worse. I believe this to be true. Any opinions or facts regarding this?

Any time you "build" anything you are liable for the work you do.

As long as the devices you use are individually listed (not just component recognized) and you use them as they are intended (per instructions) it should not make any difference that you assembled it. This is really no different than assembling cable, fittings, and boxes.

 

[masterelect1]

Any time you "build" anything you are liable for the work you do.

As long as the devices you use are individually listed (not just component recognized) and you use them as they are intended (per instructions) it should not make any difference that you assembled it. This is really no different than assembling cable, fittings, and boxes.

If I build a Size 1 combination starter using 100% A-B components: control xfmr., contactor, OL relay, hoffman enclosure listed for the application, etc...
does it not still require UL or equivalent certification ?

 

[jim dungar]

If I build a Size 1 combination starter using 100% A-B components: control xfmr., contactor, OL relay, hoffman enclosure listed for the application, etc...
does it not still require UL or equivalent certification ?

The NEC does not require that a general purpose combination starter be listed (not even one built per article 409), however there are many state and local codes that do.

 

[cowboyjwc]

If I build a Size 1 combination starter using 100% A-B components: control xfmr., contactor, OL relay, hoffman enclosure listed for the application, etc...
does it not still require UL or equivalent certification ?

The NEC does not require it, but your local AHJ might.

 

[megloff11x]

The big question is, what is it listed for?

Many less than scrupulous companies will get their widget listed for anything, because all we the customers see is a UL (or related) stamp. We see that and we assume it's good to go because we don't have the time or money to find out which standard(s) it was tested to and then decide if this is our application or not.

Listing costs big bucks. If you don't sell a lot, or sell for a lot, it's not economically feasible to make, so you can't find it anywhere.

Matt

 

[weressl]

Just because something is not commonly done does not make it unacceptable. A fair number of things are commonly accepted that are just plain wrong. That does not make it right.

Hear, hear!