Voided UL listing

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand why with today's technology that breakers can't be made to be non-interchangeable if they are not listed to be installed in other panels. This has always blown my mind. "Well the breaker fits perfectly in the panel?" "I know it does, but it could create a safety hazard if we put it in there." Brilliance at work!
Actually what blows me away and annoys me is that the industry couldn't have come up with a standard so breakers are interchangeable. I mean they're sort of is a standard 1-in configuration miniature breaker, I think it's just on paper that they aren't interchangeable.
 

Little Bill

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee NEC:2017
Occupation
Semi-Retired Electrician
I don't understand why with today's technology that breakers can't be made to be non-interchangeable if they are not listed to be installed in other panels. This has always blown my mind. "Well the breaker fits perfectly in the panel?" "I know it does, but it could create a safety hazard if we put it in there." Brilliance at work!
There are some that physically fit, or seem too. However, they don't fit the stabs as tight as the correct breaker and can cause a high resistance connection.
 

Rick 0920

Senior Member
Location
Jacksonville, FL
Occupation
Electrical Instructor
There are some that physically fit, or seem too. However, they don't fit the stabs as tight as the correct breaker and can cause a high resistance connection.
That's what I'm getting at! Why allow panelboards to be constructed so closely similar to others so breakers that are not listed for use in that panel would fit AND WORK, making people think they have installed an adequate product?
 

brantmacga

Señor Member
Location
Georgia
Occupation
Former Child
This whole issue gets interesting in the following way:
UL lists specific Classified breakers which are UL tested and approved for use in other manufacturers' panels.
But the documentation for those target panels does not usually approve or even mention the use of another manufacturer's Classified breakers in those panels.
Does the UL approval of use of Classfied breaker, A, is panel B constitute an ammendment to the original UL listing of panel B, which did not include testing with A breakers?

I'm going to say the classified breaker is approved regardless of labeling. A manufacturer saying you can't use a classified breaker is the equivalent of throwing your sucker in the dirt. How can Pentair list their loadcenter for every stab-on breaker, but Square D says only Square D works in their panel?
 

Little Bill

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee NEC:2017
Occupation
Semi-Retired Electrician
That's what I'm getting at! Why allow panelboards to be constructed so closely similar to others so breakers that are not listed for use in that panel would fit AND WORK, making people think they have installed an adequate product?
Same reason as tombstones for T12 tubes are the same for T8 even though the wiring is different.
 

norcal

Senior Member
Residential breakers either need to be made non-interchangeable, or if they fit they are classified across competitive manufacturers products, the current system is clear as mud.
 

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Residential breakers either need to be made non-interchangeable, or if they fit they are classified across competitive manufacturers products, the current system is clear as mud.
I remember when Square D introduced their Homeline product back in the mid 80s. There was a tremendous uproar from electrical contractors because Homeline panels rejected other vendors breakers. Clearly our industry wanted interchangeability.
 

Jraef

Moderator, OTD
Staff member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
This whole issue gets interesting in the following way:
UL lists specific Classified breakers which are UL tested and approved for use in other manufacturers' panels.
But the documentation for those target panels does not usually approve or even mention the use of another manufacturer's Classified breakers in those panels.
Does the UL approval of use of Classfied breaker, A, is panel B constitute an ammendment to the original UL listing of panel B, which did not include testing with A breakers?
It is a conundrum…

The explanation is that the panel must now (since the 1990s) be tested and listed with breakers to be complete, and nobody is going to pay for testing their panels with someone else’s breakers, why would they? Ergo panel listings are only going to show their own breakers. In the PAST, the testing requirements by UL were separate , so some panel mfrs, like Sylvania and Murray, used to actually list the competitors’ breakers that were acceptable right on the panel label, you can occasionally still find those in the wild and technically, that is still valid because it was at the time they were made. After the change though, the panels and breakers had to be tested TOGETHER.

The concept of “Classified” breakers came along in the late 90s after pressure on UL to make a way for mfrs (mostly Eaton) to get around the fact that many of the older panel brands in the field no longer existed and/our were absorbed, through acquisitions, into Eaton, who now had Bryant, Crouse Hinds, T&B, Challenger, Sylvania, and some parts of Goulds legacy breakers rolled up into their stable. So UL allowed the breaker mfrs to test the Classified breakers in these panels (and any other new competitor panels they were willing to pay for testing in), which is why they are referred to as “replacement” breakers and their use is restricted to those specific panel part numbers. Do installers regularly ignore that and do AHJs fail to double check that aspect? Yep. But technically, it’s part of the allowance that the numbers match.

This is why, in a new installation, say for a Homeline panel, at least ONE breaker in that panel needs to be Homeline, because the PANEL must have a Homeline breaker in it to be listed. But after that, an installer can legally stuff the rest of it with Eaton CL type “replacement” breakers if they so choose. The recent supply chain challenges have necessitated that in a lot of cases.
 

Crash117

Senior Member
Location
Nevada
Occupation
C-2 electrical contractor/owner operator
An update to original post. The customer had me back out today to meet with the GC and EC who built this house. Before the meeting I reviewed the panel and it’s a standard Homeline 30 space panel. The Eaton breakers in there are all type BR. I provided documentation to them from Square D which states that their panel is not listed for those breaker types. Both the GC and EC stated it doesn’t matter since the AHJ approved it. I told them AHJ cannot override manufacturers listing. The homeowner wants them to make it right but they said no that “ it’s a done deal and approved”. I may have to ask AHJ to become involved. I am on good terms with head AHJ and may have to have him get involved. He was not the one who approved. The one who approved from his office is no longer employed there. Wonder why…..,,
 

Steve16

Member
Location
Ct
Occupation
Master electrician
I don't understand why with today's technology that breakers can't be made to be non-interchangeable if they are not listed to be installed in other panels. This has always blown my mind. "Well the breaker fits perfectly in the panel?" "I know it does, but it could create a safety hazard if we put it in there." Brilliance at work!
Liability for one. And if you spent likely 10s of thousands of dollars to have your product UL listed would you be ok with another company being able to be installed without your approval?
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
An update to original post. The customer had me back out today to meet with the GC and EC who built this house. Before the meeting I reviewed the panel and it’s a standard Homeline 30 space panel. The Eaton breakers in there are all type BR. I provided documentation to them from Square D which states that their panel is not listed for those breaker types. Both the GC and EC stated it doesn’t matter since the AHJ approved it. I told them AHJ cannot override manufacturers listing. The homeowner wants them to make it right but they said no that “ it’s a done deal and approved”. I may have to ask AHJ to become involved. I am on good terms with head AHJ and may have to have him get involved. He was not the one who approved. The one who approved from his office is no longer employed there. Wonder why…..,,
Yes, if they are type BR they are not breakers that have been designed and tested for use in a Homeline panel. The classified breaker would be type CL.
Note that UL says that the OEM documentation saying that you can only use OEM breakers does not apply to the use of classified breakers, but in this case a classified breaker was not used. If these were Eaton type CL, there would be no violation.
 

Crash117

Senior Member
Location
Nevada
Occupation
C-2 electrical contractor/owner operator
Thank you Don. I opened a hornet’s nest on this one. Both the GC and EC from this project are pissed at me. I would bet they’ve done this for the entire sub division of homes being built and realize they are in a tight spot. I will post an update once the lead AHJ puts his 2 cents on the table.
 

tortuga

Code Historian
Location
Oregon
Occupation
Electrical Design
The only mfr that offers Classified breakers is Siemens, who has a Classified breaker for Square D QO panels only
Quite a few years ago a company called Connecticut Electric apparently licensed Siemens standard Interchangeable plug on 1 pole and two pole breaker line and paid for tons of UL testing to get them Classified, no twins, thinns AFCI or GFCIs though, and SQD homeline was glaringly absent.
I keep a sealed blister pack in the office in case an inspector wants to see it, because the breaker in the package is just a Siemens Breaker. 20A_two_pole_classified-1.jpeg
 

Jraef

Moderator, OTD
Staff member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
Quite a few years ago a company called Connecticut Electric apparently licensed Siemens standard Interchangeable plug on 1 pole and two pole breaker line and paid for tons of UL testing to get them Classified, no twins, thinns AFCI or GFCIs though, and SQD homeline was glaringly absent.
I keep a sealed blister pack in the office in case an inspector wants to see it, because the breaker in the package is just a Siemens Breaker. View attachment 2564346
Oh yeah, I forgot about them. Their big claim to fame is having a Ul listed retrofit FPE Stablok breaker replacement.
 

Crash117

Senior Member
Location
Nevada
Occupation
C-2 electrical contractor/owner operator
Update from today. After contacting lead AHJ, he was very concerned about this situation. He will be contacting both the GC and EC on this project and having an on site meeting with them. He said he will share info with me as to the results of this meeting. There is a possibility he will make GC and EC contact all who have bought homes in this project for a new inspection. If they fail to comply, may be red tagged. I have for sure made 2 enemies on this while just trying to do what’s right.
 

letgomywago

Senior Member
Location
Washington state and Oregon coast
Occupation
residential electrician
Update from today. After contacting lead AHJ, he was very concerned about this situation. He will be contacting both the GC and EC on this project and having an on site meeting with them. He said he will share info with me as to the results of this meeting. There is a possibility he will make GC and EC contact all who have bought homes in this project for a new inspection. If they fail to comply, may be red tagged. I have for sure made 2 enemies on this while just trying to do what’s right.
Atleast the AHJ is on your side it's different if it was the other way for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top