UL508A/UL698A

[Kilowatt#76]

Hi,

We have an engineer saying that the control panel we are going to build shall only bear a UL698A label and remove the UL508A from the control panel shop drawings. The panel is going to be built to UL508A and also UL698A because the panel has intrinsically safe barriers in it. Our current UL labels bears UL508A and UL698A on them, are you allowed to just put a UL698A on it? I'm not sure why they don't want the UL508A label? Anyone else run into this?

Thanks!

 

[rbalex]

Hi,

We have an engineer saying that the control panel we are going to build shall only bear a UL698A label and remove the UL508A from the control panel shop drawings. The panel is going to be built to UL508A and also UL698A because the panel has intrinsically safe barriers in it. Our current UL labels bears UL508A and UL698A on them, are you allowed to just put a UL698A on it? I'm not sure why they don't want the UL508A label? Anyone else run into this?

Thanks!

You have a good question, but I have no direct answer. It would seem reasonable that a product would be permitted to display any legitimate listing/label without necessarily requiring the display of all the listings/labels it would otherwise qualify for. It would also seem reasonable to allow any listing/labeling that a product qualified for to be displayed whether that particular feature was needed or not for the application and that multiple listings/labelings would not restrict each other.

One of the reasons Section 500.8(A) was developed was to allow a product to be recognized as suitable for specific classified location applications by various alternate means beyond, but including, listing/labeling.

 

[petersonra]

I suggest you look very carefully at UL 508A. It specifically prohibits listing under UL508A if there are intrinsically safe barriers contained within the panel.

 

[petersonra]

 

[rbalex]

Hey thanks for that - it doesn't look like a prohibition though; it looks more like a cross-reference.

(I really did appreciate your manufacturer/fabricator answer though. It was definitely out of my field.)

 

[petersonra]

Hey thanks for that - it doesn't look like a prohibition though; it looks more like a cross-reference.

The way they word stuff is sometimes confusing but it is in effect a prohibition since you are being told it has to be listed to another standard. There are a bunch of other standards mentioned that you have to list certain things to instead of UL508a.

 

[rbalex]

The way they word stuff is sometimes confusing but it is in effect a prohibition since you are being told it has to be listed to another standard. There are a bunch of other standards mentioned that you have to list certain things to instead of UL508a.

I appreciate this response too. After perusing the net, it appears several manufacturers double (some even triple) list their panels. I only have an old Whitebook (2016) to go by. I couldn't find anything in the Marking guide that would have prohibited multiple markings.

 

[petersonra]

I appreciate this response too. After perusing the net, it appears several manufacturers double (some even triple) list their panels. I only have an old Whitebook (2016) to go by. I couldn't find anything in the Marking guide that would have prohibited multiple markings.

I am not sure what you mean by "marking". The manufacturer has to put one of UL's labels on. They are not labeled as more than one listing. The manufactruer is free to label it anyway he sees fit.

 

[rbalex]

I no longer have access to all the standards I once had. The UL Whitebook I do have (2015-2016) has a pretty extensive Introduction Section that discusses what the various UL marks and labels mean. A UL Standard's label isn't necessarily a "mark", (it could be under the NEC definition of label), but nothing in any of the content I could find would compel me to interpret UL508A, 1.9 as an exclusionary directive. As I mentioned before, UL508A 1.9 looks more like a cross-reference, at least in simple English. That is, if one wants to use the Control Panel in question with a Hazardous (Classified) Location application, it needs to be consistent with UL 698A as well.

I tried to clarify in my first response, that it might be that a feature required for one standard may make certification to another standard that prohibits the same feature impossible. But it'd hard to imagine a simple reference to another standard would prohibit certification to the first standard without an explicit statement to that effect somewhere in the appropriate text.

 

[rbalex]

I just found this on the UL Product iQ site (it replaces the old online directory):​

REQUIREMENTS​

The basic unclassified locations standard used to investigate products in this category is ANSI/UL 508A, "Industrial Control Panels."

The basic hazardous (classified) locations standard used to investigate products in this category is ANSI/UL 698A, "Industrial Control Panels Relating to Hazardous (Classified) Locations," or ANSI/UL 121201, "Nonincendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I and II, Division 2 and Class III, Divisions 1 and 2 Hazardous (Classified) Locations

It appears to me that listing to 508A and at least one other standard is fine [EDIT ADD](and possibly required)

 

[petersonra]

I just found this on the UL Product iQ site (it replaces the old online directory):​

It appears to me that listing to 508A and at least one other standard is fine [EDIT ADD](and possibly required)

I think the requirements are the same, but if you want to put IS barriers in it, you have to list it to UL698a.

 

[rbalex]

I think the requirements are the same, but if you want to put IS barriers in it, you have to list it to UL698a.

That sounds reasonable.

 

[gadfly56]

I think the requirements are the same, but if you want to put IS barriers in it, you have to list it to UL698a.

Why can't you double list it, the way wire sometimes is? 508A wouldn't care if you put IS barriers in a panel mounted in a non-hazardous location, would it?

 

[petersonra]

Sometimes the language in UL standards is not real clear. For instance, I got a bulletin from UL listing the significant changes in the 3rd edition of the standard.

Here is one of the things they mentioned.





However, look at how 1.24 is worded.


It is worded in a similar fashion as the IS barriers clause.

 

[rbalex]

Yeah, that sure clarifies it - it just doesn’t actually say in a way a rational reader would take it.