What voids a UL listing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SolarBerger

Member
Location
Bishop, CA
Occupation
C-10 Electrical Contractor
I have an installation where I removed the main breaker from a 200A residential meter panel. I then ran conductors from the L1 and L2 busses that were connected to the line side of the main breaker. I used compression rings to terminate to the busswork with a belleville washer and the same size screw that connected the breaker to the buss. These connections were torqued based on the size of the bolt. These conductors land on a new main breaker in an ESS panel. The ESS panel is adjecent to the meter panel. From the ESS panel I then ran my L1 and L2 conductors back to the meter panel where i connected the conductors to the busswork that feeds the panels distribution or what was the main breaker load side connections. I used the same techniques of connection as the line side. Does this void the UL listing requirement for the meter panel? If so, can it be recertified as meeting the requirements?

Link to pic
1drv.ms

Screenshot 2022-10-02 154224.jpg

JPG Image
1drv.ms
 
@SolarBerger
Thank you for updating your profile.
Welcome to the Forum!

A lot of panels/load centers can have a main breaker added if it is a MLO panel. I don't know if that works in reverse for a main breaker panel in regards to removing the breaker. I would think the mfg would have a kit available if it was permitted to do that. In the case of a meter-main, which it seems that's what you have, I've never heard of a kit for either adding or removing the main breaker in those.

You might run it by your AHJ and see what he/she says.
 
Aside from the UL question and 230.7 there are futher issues.

You turned a meter/main into a subpanel even though it has a factory neutral-to-ground bond. Which violates 250.24(A)(5).

It also looks like you no longer have the outside Emergency Disconnect as required by 230.85 since Jan 1st.
 
jaggedben said:
Aside from the UL question and 230.7 there are futher issues.

You turned a meter/main into a subpanel even though it has a factory neutral-to-ground bond. Which violates 250.24(A)(5).

It also looks like you no longer have the outside Emergency Disconnect as required by 230.85 since Jan 1st.
Click to expand...
That factory bond prevents those panels being used for anything other then as service equipment. Trying to decide who made the panel, either Cutler-Hammer, or GE, & I lean towards C-H.
 
It does not "void" the listing. the listing only applies to what was made at the factory, or to an assembly made in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. There is effectively no way that field modifications can "void" a listing.

It may be a violation of the listing instructions, although maybe not.

The code probably requires it to be "approved" even if the code does not require it to be listed.
 
petersonra said:
It does not "void" the listing. the listing only applies to what was made at the factory, or to an assembly made in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. There is effectively no way that field modifications can "void" a listing.

It may be a violation of the listing instructions, although maybe not.

The code probably requires it to be "approved" even if the code does not require it to be listed.
Click to expand...
This following is the verbiage from SCE that I am tring to determine if I am complying with. Also, my AHJ and SCE planner approved this installation. It is the utility NEM department that insists that I have done a line side tap and they want my AHJ to sign off on the below. Before I go back to my AHJ I am looking for more info and to support my case. Basic question is - Does this installation continue to meet UL certification requirements.

"The altered electrical service equipment continues to meet UL certification requirements or that the modified equipment has been recertified for its new configuration."
 
SolarBerger said:
This following is the verbiage from SCE that I am tring to determine if I am complying with. Also, my AHJ and SCE planner approved this installation. It is the utility NEM department that insists that I have done a line side tap and they want my AHJ to sign off on the below. Before I go back to my AHJ I am looking for more info and to support my case. Basic question is - Does this installation continue to meet UL certification requirements.

"The altered electrical service equipment continues to meet UL certification requirements or that the modified equipment has been recertified for its new configuration."
Click to expand...
I suggest you go to the UL website for the official language, but it effectively says it is up to the AHJ to determine/decide if the product application complies with what was intended when it left the factory.
 
I just never do this kind of installation for fear that it can get torpedoed by the plan checker or inspector, and the whole job would have to be redesigned. Also it does violate 230.7.
 
Birken Vogt said:
I just never do this kind of installation for fear that it can get torpedoed by the plan checker or inspector, and the whole job would have to be redesigned. Also it does violate 230.7.
Click to expand...
Yes, not going to do this again. Seemed like a good solution to avoid MPU. In hindsight an MPU was the right choice. Wondering how this violates 230.7 though. Its only the service conductors in the conduit to the ESS

230.7 Other Conductors in Raceway or Cable. Conductors other than service conductors shall not be installed in the same service raceway or service cable in which the service conductors are installed.

Exception No. 1: Grounding electrode conductors or supply side bonding jumpers or conductors shall be permitted within service raceways.

Exception No. 2: Load management control conductors having overcurrent protection shall be permitted within service raceways.
 
jaggedben said:
You got lucky there, in my opinion. Maybe you'll get lucky again after re-opening the question, maybe you won't.
Click to expand...
My discussion with my inspector went like this when we looked at it and in reagrds to voiding any factory design and UL requirements.

The busses from the meter and to the distribution that connected to the main breaker busses were connected with the 1/4-20 bolt and a bellevelle washer. We are simply making a "same" type of connection using the same method. Insted of the main breaker buss I am connecting a crimped lug with the same tecnique. He agreed with my thinking. At that time he didnt have to sign the form that SCE is now requesting. We shall see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top