Hi all wanted some ideas or opinions. We Have triple 3” pvc conduits terminating into top of Nema 3 transfer switch. Used the “standard” male adapter into a myers hub to terminate into the top of the enclosure. Long story short AHJ flagged me said they’re not listed of be used together. He’s technically correct if you source ul listing. But it opens up Pandora’s box if this is not an approved means what is? Side entry is not possible and I don’t want to transition to any other conduit so keeping the pvc what is the “ legal” way to do this. HOW DO YOU BRING PVC INTO THE TOP AN ENCLOSURE.
Pvc into top of nema 3 enclosure
- Thread starter JBHP
- Start date
- Status
takelly
Member
- Location
- South dakota
A regular PVC connector with a Sealing Steel Locknut w/ PVC Gasket is what we used and never had any problems with different inspectors.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
Leave the Myers hub, insert a short metal nipple with one of these, then enter the PVC.
![ATTACH]](http://[ATTACH type=%22full%22]2567163[/ATTACH])
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
They make an o-ring for PVC TA's, but I think only up to 2". The only fully compliant way for 3" then is what Infinity said.
P.S. Rant: can't believe the inspector is actually wasting everybody's time on such a stupid Petty thing.
P.P.S. bonus rant:. Maybe UL needs to hire a few more employees and then just maybe they could have gotten the standard for connectors on the line side of a service disconnect taken care of faster AND could get Meyers hubs listed for use with PVC TA's.
P.S. Rant: can't believe the inspector is actually wasting everybody's time on such a stupid Petty thing.
P.P.S. bonus rant:. Maybe UL needs to hire a few more employees and then just maybe they could have gotten the standard for connectors on the line side of a service disconnect taken care of faster AND could get Meyers hubs listed for use with PVC TA's.
Fred B
Senior Member
- Location
- Upstate, NY
- Occupation
- Electrician
It might "if" more EC were to make enough noise demanding such solutions. Like already noted, most times, it's just never called out as a violation so an alternative compliant connector doesn't get made.
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
I think it's another example of how out of touch most of the codes and standards people are, that it didn't occur to anybody that people will want to put PVC TA's into these things
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
I agree and I've been whining about that for years. Take the hub on a meter pan, the threads are technically (according to UL) only listed for RMC and IMC yet around here 95% of all services are either PVC, SE cable, or EMT. That means that almost every service on a house is a violation. This
falls back on a complete lack of brain power on the part of the dopes writing the listing requirements.
Back to the OP, this is a 3R enclosure so it is already designed to drain so what could possibly be the problem with a TA threading into a hub?
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Isnt it up to the manufacturer to get things listed? If contractors keep buying stuff for unlisted installations, why would any manufacturer voluntarily incur the testing costs?
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
Maybe, I certainly don't know enough about the process to be sure. In this case, I am rather skeptical that the product standard includes a separate option for other than RMC and IMC and n the manufacturers skipped it because they were too cheap.
AHJ said they’re not listed to be used together. He’s right per ul listingI agree and I've been whining about that for years. Take the hub on a meter pan, the threads are technically (according to UL) only listed for RMC and IMC yet around here 95% of all services are either PVC, SE cable, or EMT. That means that almost every service on a house is a violation. This
falls back on a complete lack of brain power on the part of the dopes writing the listing requirements.
Back to the OP, this is a 3R enclosure so it is already designed to drain so what could possibly be the problem with a TA threading into a hub?
Thanks infinity seems to be this is the only correct way to do it. I’ve reached out to AHJ to see what he will allow. Prob is I’m installed with all conduits and have conduits out bottom of the can so this won’t be an easy fix for an issue that shouldn’t even be one. I have never been flagged for this before.Leave the Myers hub, insert a short metal nipple with one of these, then enter the PVC.
View attachment 2567163
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
Yeah it really sucks. Perhaps you could see if the AHJ will let it slide by saying there isnt a code compliant way to do it since they dont make those TA O-rings in 2", and there is no hub available that is listed for PVC (Maybe not mention infinity's method, maybe/hopefully he wont think of that).
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
This is where the inspector needs to be a thinking human and not a robot. Honestly who really cares about the TA/Myers hub not being listed to used together. What could be the potential problem other than the listing issue.
Inspector, "technically these cannot be used together so next time come up with something else that is technically code compliant. I'm going to let this one go because it's just plain stupid".
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Just like the code is not written by employees of the NFPA, the UL Product Standards are not written by employees of UL. In both chases they are written by volunteer members of technical committees or panels, and the process to make changes is pretty much the same for both organizations as they both write ANSI standards and the process is set by ANSI.
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
Thanks for the info, but...... Whatever they need to figure out a more effectual process where we aren't stuck with no available products and deadlines that are unrealistically soon/not coordinated etc.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
These people are a sleep at the wheel and no one seems to care. Installers and inspectors are up against this nonsense everyday with no relief in sight. At least the NEC has an avenue for those who dislike something to express their opinion in the form of a PI every three years.
The lobby to require everything down to zipties to be listed in the NEC is relativity new.
EMT was not even required to be listed for 80 years until around 1996, and the proposal almost did not pass.
The CMP members offered an explanation of their negative votes:
"The listing requirement restricts the options open to the
user. In some cases, there is no listed material available."
listing is important for stuff like breakers and wire, but not basic raceway used for regular (non classified) locations.
Once the requirement for listing is in there inspectors hands are tied.
Where NEC requires 'listing' for chapter 3 raceways could really be changed to 'approved'.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Part of the issue is that if there is no code requirement for a product, there is no need to write a standard. The issue is that the effective date in the NEC has to become longer when they write a rule that will require a new product standard.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
No need for anything that uses the term "approved" in any Chapter 3 code section, as everything that is part of the electrical installation must be approved per 110.2. However one of the means that is suggested for the AHJ to use to approve things is a listing.
.
- Status