Most security bid specs have a requirement for equipment to be UL listed (ULC in Canada). Specifically to CCTV cameras, is there a huge benefit to this?
UL Listing Benefits For CCTV Cameras?
it's a pay to play when it comes down to adherence to specs on plan & spec jobs as well as for integrators or end users that use it as a way to weed out the imports that haven't gone to the expense to get their products UL or ETL tested/listed. I had an integrator almost throw me out of his office when I went in to demo an early IP-based security product that had not yet gotten its UL294 listing.... he said his techs would not install anything that didn't carry a UL listing and his insurance would not cover him for liability caused by installing non-UL listed products. Dramatic as he was (he was the type that did his own radio spots on his AM radio ads), there's probably a shred of truth on both fronts.
On that same topic, I've gotten push back in heavy union cities, like NYC and Chicago, where they also say that union techs will not install any electrical security products that aren't UL Listed. Not sure of this is still holding true with all of the increased import activity in the camera market, but Hikvision carries UL listings on most all their cameras, I believe.
Any product that doesn't carry a UL Listing for its respective testing category is probably not worth the risk of selling it in the U.S. market, IMO.
Some background: UL lists (always) and tests (sometimes) products' compliance with a particular standard published by someone else. For instance, smoke detectors are described in a standard published by the National Fire Protection Association and is called the National Fire Alarm Code, aka National Electrical Code Part 72. UL will test and/or list a particular smoke detector as compliant with the NFAC. Likewise, a toaster would be tested and/or listed to a different standard altogether. There are tons of standards all over the place from lots of different places.
UL is a private for-profit company, and they do have competitors including FM (Factory Mutual) that do the same thing.
Some camera vendors have argued that a UL listing is not required for IP cameras. However, others have done a good job making a case that they are. This is more of a marketing tactic than a true requirement. Regardless, once a customer/engineer/architect/inspector is convinced as such, it is pretty hard to convince them otherwise.
UL 6500 (the Standard for Audio/Video and Musical Instrument Apparatus for Household, Commercial, and Similar General Use) costs about $15,000US and takes about a month to obtain. If it doesn't matter to which UL standard a surveillance camera is listed, then that is the cost of admission to elite "UL listed" camera status in this industry.
Any bid that requires surveillance cameras to be "UL listed" without specifying the particular listing was written by a hack too lazy to do a proper job and/or brainwashed by a camera manufacturer RSM.
I am not saying that UL listings are a joke; rather that requiring such without specifying which -- is.
UL lists (always) and tests (sometimes) products' compliance with a particular standard published by someone else
Always?
What about the UL standard specific to our industry, whose standard is that actually based on?
ok, got it, this is a performance test, so it passing doesnt make it UL listed per se.
the UL standard specific to our industry
Low-voltage equipment is typically not required by the NEC to be UL listed. If the camera comes with a wall-wart/brick power supply, the supply needs to be UL listed though.
POE switches of course need to be listed.
Also, Axis cameras are UL listed, just to help with local AHJ's who might have their own regulations.
The NEC (NFPA 70) may not specifically require equipment to be UL listed, but the NFPA 72, chapter 2 Referenced Publications, ..."referenced in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this document" goes on to list the following ANSI/UL docs 217, 268, 827, 864, 985, 1638, 1730, 1971, 1981, 2017, 2572, 60950. These low voltage devices are required by the NFPA 72 code to meet certain UL performance criteria.
These low voltage devices are required by the NFPA 72 code to meet certain UL performance criteria...
You're saying that general purpose security cameras fall under this requirement? What section?
Cameras used for automatic smoke and flame detection, that are wired directly into the alarm system do of course need to meet performance requirements, but I can't find anything in there about a typical security camera.
No, I'm not saying cameras fall under the NFPA 72. Please read my post again. My response is in regards to your first statement:
Low-voltage equipment is typically not required by the NEC to be UL listed.
The NEC (NFPA 72) doesn't state devices need to be UL listed. The NEC article 800 doesn't even address cameras at all. So I was in agreement with you on that point.
The phrase you used, "low-voltage equipment", encompasses more than just cameras. I'm merely pointing out that there are other codes that require some "low voltage equipment" to meet UL requirements.
The phrase you used, "low-voltage equipment", encompasses more than just cameras. I'm merely pointing out that there are other codes that require some "low voltage equipment" to meet UL requirements.
Fair enough. Yes, I was speaking of low-voltage surveillance equipment, which is typically not, unless used in flame/smoke detection systems.
Very helpful and informative replies. Thanks to all.
My UL experience from the fire and security industries, albeit dated (1980s and 90s), is that UL thoroughly tests products to everything in the standard. That said, the standards are generic and can be weak in many areas. I think the physical security community should support standards like ANSI/UL 2802, even if they leave something to be desired and are slow to be adopted. It’s our job as security practitioners to lobby for changes to make them more relevant. But we should not expect them to be the Gold Standard for product performance, as a standard will always be some number of years behind the technology. But they do set a minimum performance and safety that is useful to our industry.
John, thank you for starting this topic. You have motivated me to review all of our company's low voltage system specs regarding this topic.
Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.