Random metallic condulet in PVC -- bonding?

[lakee911]

I noticed the other day while in the field a metallic conduit body was installed in a run of 2" PVC (not PVC coated RGS either). Being the nosy guy I am, I opened it up and sure enough it wasn't bonded.

There were three cables of something around a #2 or #4 and a single (what I assume was a grounding conductor or maybe it was a neutral) #6 or #8. I don't know if it was single phase or three phase and no ground at all. It was existing, so no Contractor to make them change it

So, assuming the smaller conductor was the ground, how would one bond that conduit body? NEC 314.16(C)(2) would allow splices to be made in the box if it had a volume stamped, but I've never seen a provision for a bonding screw in a condulet.

Thanks,
Jason

 

[shepelec]

This might be allowed under 250.86 if conditions are met.

 

[lakee911]

Those conditions don't seem to apply here ...

 

[Volta]

I would be ok with tapping threads and bonding via a split bolt and jumper from the EGC, or having an extra EGC for that sole purpose. No one can claim a UL violation with drilling into the body unless they pay UL for a field-evaluation, per UL, and the listing is then pulled from that determination (which wouldn't happen).

 

[e57]

[duck] Service conduit?[/duck]

And - ah you were just passing by and decided to open it?

Otherwise a pipe clamp and a jumper for a short distance...

 

[Cow]

You could drill it and use a lay-in lug.

 

[TOOL_5150]

ive been guilty of using metallic LBs in a pvc run for low voltage data circuits

~Matt

 

[lakee911]

[duck] Service conduit?[/duck]

And - ah you were just passing by and decided to open it?

Otherwise a pipe clamp and a jumper for a short distance...

I don't think it was a service conduit. Part of my job requires inspection of Contractors' work...having been burned a number of times when the job is over and the install is just atrocious, I try to make it out a number of times. I'm always just nosing around in general though.

You could drill it and use a lay-in lug.

I would be ok with tapping threads and bonding via a split bolt and jumper from the EGC, or having an extra EGC for that sole purpose. No one can claim a UL violation with drilling into the body unless they pay UL for a field-evaluation, per UL, and the listing is then pulled from that determination (which wouldn't happen).

I don't understand this ... can't be a UL violation unless it's evaluated? I thought modifying any equipment with a UL listing would void it?

 

[Volta]

I don't understand this ... can't be a UL violation unless it's evaluated? I thought modifying any equipment with a UL listing would void it?

On the extreme end, do you feel that one can paint a conduit? Was it tested that way? :roll: But seriously now:
From the White Book:

Field Modifications
What happens to the Listing if a UL-Listed product is modified in the field?
An authorized use of the UL Mark is the manufacturer’s declaration that the product was originally
manufactured in accordance with the applicable requirements when it was shipped from the factory. When
a UL-Listed product is modified after it leaves the factory, UL has no way to determine if the product
continues to comply with the safety requirements used to certify the product without investigating the
modified product. UL can neither indicate that such modifications ‘‘void’’ the UL Mark, nor that the
product continues to meet UL’s safety requirements, unless the field modifications have been specifically
investigated by UL. It is the responsibility of the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) to determine the
acceptability of the modification or if the modifications are significant enough to require one of UL’s Field
Engineering Services staff members to evaluate the modified product. UL can assist the AHJ in making this
determination.

‘‘Reprinted from the White Book with permission
from Underwriters Laboratories Inc.?’’ must appear adjacent to the extracted material. In addition, the
reprinted material must include a copyright notice in the following format: ‘‘Copyright ? 2008
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.?.’’

So it is a 90-4 call, "deciding on the approval of equipment" that would fall on the AHJ.

 

[benaround]

In the meantime it's an accident waiting to happen.

 

[e57]

I don't think it was a service conduit. Part of my job requires inspection of Contractors' work...having been burned a number of times when the job is over and the install is just atrocious, I try to make it out a number of times. I'm always just nosing around in general though.

If you don't know what type of conductors it was enclosing is curious. (Not just for the code compliance issue - but for the safety issues of opening it to browse around inside.) The code requiring it to be grounded or bonded differ in some significant ways and methods. But in the very least is should be grounded in one way or another.

 

[lakee911]

If you don't know what type of conductors it was enclosing is curious. (Not just for the code compliance issue - but for the safety issues of opening it to browse around inside.) The code requiring it to be grounded or bonded differ in some significant ways and methods. But in the very least is should be grounded in one way or another.

I'll see if I can trace it out next time I'm out there in the field. It was a pipe gallery, so I can follow it fairly easy.

 

[e57]

I'll see if I can trace it out next time I'm out there in the field. It was a pipe gallery, so I can follow it fairly easy.

IMO - from a safety point of veiw one should always be aware of what they are opening. i.e. fault energy. etc. For that matter you could open it and find a live snake - but thats a different discussion.

From a code point of veiw - as mentioned it could change how grounding or bonding is approached...