Whats the relationship between UL and the NRTLs? Do NRTLs test to UL's published standards, or they create their own standards that that give a similar level of safety to UL's standards to avoid licensing the UL standards or to give manufacturers an alternative to building to UL standards verbatim?
UL vs NRTLs
- Thread starter patcat88
- Start date
- Status
zog
Senior Member
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
UL is a NRTL, not sure what your question means.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Many of the testing labs test to the UL standards. These are often the only accepted standard for the product.
on a side note, alot of the BIG chinese manufacturers (and i mean BIG) are sick of UL's delays and outrageous fees, and are switching to ETL. I know smaller mfgrs are beginning to follow suit.
I wonder if, once UL starts losing many of the big fish, they will attempt to do something to prevent other labs from using their standards?
I wonder if, once UL starts losing many of the big fish, they will attempt to do something to prevent other labs from using their standards?
http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/allstds.html
This list makes it sound like all NRTLs only test to the UL or ANSI test standards, and do not create their own test standards. Is that how it is?
Or in other words, a NRTL's purpose is to certify to the UL test standards, identically to how UL would in-house for a UL test standard, but just at a more competitive price than hiring UL to issue the certification to the UL standard and hiring UL to do the factory inspecting?
Reading through OSHA's regulations, I found this regarding a NRTL's test standards
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/julqtr/29cfr1910.7.htm
So the only test standard that can meet paragraph C would be a UL, ANSI, or ASTM standard? And the only alternative to using a UL test standard would be to get something approved under paragraph D, which I assume has never happened because all the standards listed on OSHA's standards list are either UL, ANSI, or ASTM?
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
?NRTL? is the acronym for Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory; UL is simply one of many recognized testing laboratories.
NRTLs are qualified by the US Department of Labor?s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (FedOSHA) under rules in 29 CFR 1910.7. Technically, the term NRTL is meaningless outside FedOSHA?s realm of influence although most US domestic jurisdictions would probably accept FedOSHA?s evaluation. Many smaller authorities specify the FedOSHA NRTLs as acceptable within their jurisdiction.
FedOSHA determines which product standards are to be used as they relate to worker safety. They then determine which NRTLs are qualified to certify specific products to those standards. Most, but not all, UL standards are accepted by FedOSHA. Several NRTLs are qualified to certify products to various UL standards or other FedOSHA recognized standards and are permitted to place their certification mark on those products. Not every NRTL is qualified to certify every product, although UL, ETL and CSA each have a very broad range. Some have certain restrictions, such as ETL can only certify hazardous location products with specific review and approval of their Cortland, New York Lab.
It is important to know not all UL Standards are NRTL standards and not all NRTL standards are UL Standards. It is VERY important to know that a mark by a NRTL company may not necessarily indicate the product was certified to a FedOSHA recognized standard. Most foreign NRTLs indicate whether a product is certified to a US standard. US domestic NRTL marks usually indicate whether a foreign standard was used for certification. However, unless the mark actually has ?NRTL? appended to it, there is NO guarantee that it is FedOSHA recognized.
NRTLs are qualified by the US Department of Labor?s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (FedOSHA) under rules in 29 CFR 1910.7. Technically, the term NRTL is meaningless outside FedOSHA?s realm of influence although most US domestic jurisdictions would probably accept FedOSHA?s evaluation. Many smaller authorities specify the FedOSHA NRTLs as acceptable within their jurisdiction.
FedOSHA determines which product standards are to be used as they relate to worker safety. They then determine which NRTLs are qualified to certify specific products to those standards. Most, but not all, UL standards are accepted by FedOSHA. Several NRTLs are qualified to certify products to various UL standards or other FedOSHA recognized standards and are permitted to place their certification mark on those products. Not every NRTL is qualified to certify every product, although UL, ETL and CSA each have a very broad range. Some have certain restrictions, such as ETL can only certify hazardous location products with specific review and approval of their Cortland, New York Lab.
It is important to know not all UL Standards are NRTL standards and not all NRTL standards are UL Standards. It is VERY important to know that a mark by a NRTL company may not necessarily indicate the product was certified to a FedOSHA recognized standard. Most foreign NRTLs indicate whether a product is certified to a US standard. US domestic NRTL marks usually indicate whether a foreign standard was used for certification. However, unless the mark actually has ?NRTL? appended to it, there is NO guarantee that it is FedOSHA recognized.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
When the original Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was passed, Section 6 (A) required the Secretary of Labor to ??by rule promulgate as an occupational safety or health standard any national consensus standard, and any established Federal standard, unless he determines that the promulgation of such a standard would not result in improved safety or health for specifically designated employees.? The text is still there.
There was a two year time limit to determine what documents were national consensus standards. It didn?t take long for panic to set in and FedOSHA decided that all ANSI and ASTM standards were automatically national consensus standards. UL convinced FedOSHA personnel that their standards also qualified under Section 3 (9):
ASTM is an open organization that permits just about anyone to suggest content and qualified volunteers to serve on their standards committees.
UL was nothing of the kind at the time. Virtually no one but manufactures had any input to their standards.
It has improved. Some UL standards were dropped and many are now ANSI certified since UL has begun inviting end users, labor and consumers to participate in their standards development. And of course they already had a large library of standards in place so many of the test labs were happy to use them.
There are a few other ?independent? standard-producers on the list. FM has several, but most contribute through the ANSI "Z" series.
There was a two year time limit to determine what documents were national consensus standards. It didn?t take long for panic to set in and FedOSHA decided that all ANSI and ASTM standards were automatically national consensus standards. UL convinced FedOSHA personnel that their standards also qualified under Section 3 (9):
Several standards-producing organizations balked, not so much at ANSI or ASTM, but at UL. ANSI is actually the US national organization that certifies other organization?s standards as consensus standards. If you look back at OSHA's standards list you find several organizations, such as NFPA and IEEE (the ANSI C37 and C57 Series). NEMA and other product manufactures contribute in several of the ANSI ?Z? Series.
ASTM is an open organization that permits just about anyone to suggest content and qualified volunteers to serve on their standards committees.
UL was nothing of the kind at the time. Virtually no one but manufactures had any input to their standards.
It has improved. Some UL standards were dropped and many are now ANSI certified since UL has begun inviting end users, labor and consumers to participate in their standards development. And of course they already had a large library of standards in place so many of the test labs were happy to use them.
There are a few other ?independent? standard-producers on the list. FM has several, but most contribute through the ANSI "Z" series.
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Nice work Bob, thanks for the info. 
LJSMITH1
Senior Member
- Location
- Stratford, CT
They can't do that because the standards have been developed with consensus. Therefore, they don't fully "own" the standard in the typical sense. They are the 'caretaker' for them.
ETL, CSA, or any other approved NRTL can test and list product without any kind of levy from UL (for now, and before lawyers get involved..)..
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
The governemnt cannot, as a matter of law, require us to patronize any particular private business. For the purposes of this thread, the government can only require listing by an "NRTL."
While, in prior times, "NRTL" was often a roundabout way of saying "UL," there are some important points to consider.
The first is that there ARE fields in which UL has a weak, or non-existant presence. Ever see a UL-listed car?
Then, there are fields in which UL has a secondary role; for example, the ASME boiler code, and ASME's methods, reign supreme in heating equipment.
Nor has UL been completely without competition. Factories' Mutual has always had a strong presence in fire protection matters.
All bets were off when, back in the '80's, UL decided to become an "ISO 9000" firm. To be fair, this move was consistent with UL's deliberate efforts to have as many of it's standards, as possible, be recognized as ASTM or ANSI standards.
In short, UL is a firm completely without soul, or responsibility for anything. "Their" standards are nearly always written by and approved by some other group. All UL does is 'administer' them as a private testing lab. In that regard, they are indistinguishable from a multitude of other firms.
UL, instead, markets it's trademark. They are by far the most recognizable, and sell themselves as the "Cadillac" of testing agencies.
While, in prior times, "NRTL" was often a roundabout way of saying "UL," there are some important points to consider.
The first is that there ARE fields in which UL has a weak, or non-existant presence. Ever see a UL-listed car?
Then, there are fields in which UL has a secondary role; for example, the ASME boiler code, and ASME's methods, reign supreme in heating equipment.
Nor has UL been completely without competition. Factories' Mutual has always had a strong presence in fire protection matters.
All bets were off when, back in the '80's, UL decided to become an "ISO 9000" firm. To be fair, this move was consistent with UL's deliberate efforts to have as many of it's standards, as possible, be recognized as ASTM or ANSI standards.
In short, UL is a firm completely without soul, or responsibility for anything. "Their" standards are nearly always written by and approved by some other group. All UL does is 'administer' them as a private testing lab. In that regard, they are indistinguishable from a multitude of other firms.
UL, instead, markets it's trademark. They are by far the most recognizable, and sell themselves as the "Cadillac" of testing agencies.
LJSMITH1
Senior Member
- Location
- Stratford, CT
Absolutely well said!
When a UL regional manager came in to see us a year ago, he told us that "UL was listening to its customers" and they had made some "Improvements to their operations" Specifically, they were tired of hearing complaints from manufacturers who could not get testing quotes in anything under three or four weeks. Then when a quote was finally approved, it would take 3-8 months to get the testing started and possibly completed.
UL's answer to the quoting delay was to create a vanilla pricing schedule that no longer accounted for time and material testing. This will guarantee we would get our quote in 3 days or less. This sounded great, until you heard the details. If you had one size item or 10 different sizes, it was the same price to test and list one or all 10. It was immediately obvious that the new pricing was nothing more than a major price increase. When we questioned the manager about this, he responded by telling us that UL's customers have told them that they "value the UL MARK over the actual testing", so what we are paying for is the UL recognition, not so much as the testing.
They still have not addressed the time it takes to get tests completed. They also don't seem too concerned that companies like ours are starting to look for alternative NRTL's which have better pricing, service, and are equally respected (i.e. CSA, ETL, NSA, etc.).
This year, we will probably start a project with ETL to see how it goes - a test balloon of sorts. If it goes well, we will seriously consider establishing dual listings at first, then possibly switch completely over to ETL.
UL fails to realize that people will find out (if they haven't already) that they are not the only game in town when it comes to testing and listing products to specifications. They seem to have done everything to alienate us, rather than to help us meet our budget and time line. All we want is our product tested for a reasonable price and as short of a time line as possible.
I spoke to Kevin Connelly, the UL North American industry manager for ICPD, and was told the industry complaints were primarily about turn-around time for quotes and the start/duration of projects. Engineering was removed from the project costing equation as it varied widely, even in the same industry.
My quotes are now returned in 24-48 hours, which is nice. However, my project costs tripled, and my project turn-around did not improve at all (admittedly my UL engineer is already faster than average).
CSA and ETL have both stopped by, fishing for business. LJSIMITH1, if you have a report done by ETL, please let me know how you feel they did compared to UL performance (similar project, pricing aside).
Don't forget, UL has two divisions: 1.) standards writing, 2.) testing & certification. They are not the only ones, however - CSA has the same two. The NRTLs all use these (and other) standards for their certification.
My quotes are now returned in 24-48 hours, which is nice. However, my project costs tripled, and my project turn-around did not improve at all (admittedly my UL engineer is already faster than average).
CSA and ETL have both stopped by, fishing for business. LJSIMITH1, if you have a report done by ETL, please let me know how you feel they did compared to UL performance (similar project, pricing aside).
Don't forget, UL has two divisions: 1.) standards writing, 2.) testing & certification. They are not the only ones, however - CSA has the same two. The NRTLs all use these (and other) standards for their certification.
LJSMITH1
Senior Member
- Location
- Stratford, CT
I visited ETL during the late summer of 2007 in upstate NY. They have a fantastic facility, and seemed absolutely capable of performing many tests even more complicated than UL514B. Unlike UL, they are still pricing jobs on time and material, but with a much faster quoting time and a fairer pricing schedule. My main hesitation is from our marketing/sales guys who think that if we went with ETL, we may have issues with our customers. I don't believe that, and with a little education of our customer base, I believe we could make a smooth transition.
ETL has also started developing specifications, primarily for Telecom cabling, and I would expect that if an opportunity came up for more, they would get involved.
Some people think that ETL/Intertek is some new, unrecognized company. The one and only Thomas Edison started the Electrical Testing Laboratories in 1904. Its first major customer was Carrier Corporation followed by GE Lighting. By 1959, ETL conducted about 75% of all ARI listed products. In 1989, they were recognized by OSHA and included on the NRTL list. While UL had focused on developing standards in the very beginning, ETL was quietly becoming the largest testing and certification service in the world. They currently surpass UL in this area.
CSA is better than UL, but IMHO they are a sister company to UL, and have a few of the same issues we have with UL.:roll:
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
I had ETL certify two lines of Siemens (German) 53MW GT generators and an ASEA (Sweden) 57MW ST generator on a power plant project about 4 years ago. Other than the permanent onsite CBO, who worked directly for the Cal Energy Commission, insisting that some of the cables, that were more like smooth sheath MC, should be installed subject to Art 398, we had no trouble.
In fact, both companies sent reps from their factories and I explained both the Fed and CalOSHA third party certification requirements for the project. The two OSHAs have significantly different requirements but ETL was able to accommodate both. The entire process was just a bit over $24,000. So, from an original contract estimate of $28,000 they were pleased with the ETL results. SEMKO is another ETL affiliate through INTERTEK. Both manufacturers started using SEMKO as local shop certifiers, at least for the generator product lines for US domestic installations. ETL validates the shop reports before units are shipped and applies their NRTL certification in the US. To my knowledge the process has not been challenged.
In fact, both companies sent reps from their factories and I explained both the Fed and CalOSHA third party certification requirements for the project. The two OSHAs have significantly different requirements but ETL was able to accommodate both. The entire process was just a bit over $24,000. So, from an original contract estimate of $28,000 they were pleased with the ETL results. SEMKO is another ETL affiliate through INTERTEK. Both manufacturers started using SEMKO as local shop certifiers, at least for the generator product lines for US domestic installations. ETL validates the shop reports before units are shipped and applies their NRTL certification in the US. To my knowledge the process has not been challenged.
Thanks for the reply!
- Status