Spot the violation

[iwire]

Before you put your money up take a moment to read the section that is being cited.

110.3(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment
shall be installed and used in accordance with any
instructions included in the listing or labeling.

Then keep in mind all I have said is what that section states.

I am not advocating the work shown in that picture in the least. But I hate to see 110.3(B) stretched beyond what is written. If it is written wrong then it should be changed. :smile:

 

[weressl]

Greg it really does not matter what the manufacturer suggests unless it is included in the equipments labeling or the equipments listing. 110.3(B) only applies to those two situations.

Isn't it even silly to say that the manufacturer suggest something CONTRARY to what the listing permits? After they have paid all that money to protect themselves with third party listing they would go ahead and open up themselves to liability not only from the injured party but from the Listing Agency as well?!:roll:

 

[jim dungar]

At the end of the day, all that matters is if the AHJ approves...UL or not...

That is the real point. It is always up to the AHJ to make the final approval. UL Listing is simply one of the tools available to the AHJ.

Oly the AHJ can tell if a field drilled hole has been done correctly (i.e. spacing between holes, clearance for locknut, round instead of oval, smooth instead of burred). The AHJ can always contact UL or the manufacturer for help in determining if a field modification is likely to invalidate the UL Listing or the intended use.

 

[mxslick]

For starters, the sidewalls would probably not support the required pull/bend forces required in the UL standard (UL514A and B) - while maintaining a proper seal with the cover gasket. Secondly, it may not meet the required bend radius requirements for the two raceway attachments in close proximity to each other (i.e. U-Turn).......

Strictly speaking as a matter of opinion as to point 1, the size of that LB and the sizes of the 1/2" (?) fitting holes are such that I seriously doubt that the sidewall strength has been compromised all that badly. Now if they had drilled for a 1" or 1-1/4" I can see a serious problem.

As for the second point, since we have no idea how many or what size conductors are in any of those pipes, who's to say the "u-turn" radius is too tight? And if that was such a huge concern, I've seen plenty of installs using 4-s boxes where the wires u-turn from one pipe to the pipe in the ko right next to it, about 1" away. Now that's tight.

The reality is, is this hack work? Yes. Is it ugly? Yes. Does it violate Code? IMHO NO, since no one has given a definitive section that prohibits it. Does it violate the UL listing of the fitting? Maybe, again according to Code such must be proven and provided in writing.

But as for UL violation: it is easy for anyone to say that, just be looking at this picture, BUT it IS NOT a true violation of listing UNTIL UL evaluates this usage and rules that it is so.

As Bob said, The Code is a permissive document..for it to be written up and forced to change then it must be proven and documented as a violation.

 

[iwire]

Isn't it even silly to say that the manufacturer suggest something CONTRARY to what the listing permits? After they have paid all that money to protect themselves with third party listing they would go ahead and open up themselves to liability not only from the injured party but from the Listing Agency as well?!:roll:

I am really not following you. From a liability stand point the immediate response would likely be more conservative then the actual listings allow.


What I have in mind is a guy at the manufacturer picking up the phone finding an inspector on the other end of the phone describing an issue and the guy at the manufacturers end saying 'Heck no, we sell a product to do that right.'

An example of this is the Kerny clamp, a UL listed solution to a problem that did not exist.

 

[LJSMITH1]

Strictly speaking as a matter of opinion as to point 1, the size of that LB and the sizes of the 1/2" (?) fitting holes are such that I seriously doubt that the sidewall strength has been compromised all that badly. Now if they had drilled for a 1" or 1-1/4" I can see a serious problem.

As for the second point, since we have no idea how many or what size conductors are in any of those pipes, who's to say the "u-turn" radius is too tight? And if that was such a huge concern, I've seen plenty of installs using 4-s boxes where the wires u-turn from one pipe to the pipe in the ko right next to it, about 1" away. Now that's tight.

The reality is, is this hack work? Yes. Is it ugly? Yes. Does it violate Code? IMHO NO, since no one has given a definitive section that prohibits it. Does it violate the UL listing of the fitting? Maybe, again according to Code such must be proven and provided in writing.

But as for UL violation: it is easy for anyone to say that, just be looking at this picture, BUT it IS NOT a true violation of listing UNTIL UL evaluates this usage and rules that it is so.

As Bob said, The Code is a permissive document..for it to be written up and forced to change then it must be proven and documented as a violation.

Again..I will state: What is the purpose of NRTL listings if people can just modify anything that they see fit as long as there is no documents telling them that they cannot?

For that matter, UL Listings are irrelevant. Right?

 

[weressl]

Before you put your money up take a moment to read the section that is being cited.



Then keep in mind all I have said is what that section states.

I am not advocating the work shown in that picture in the least. But I hate to see 110.3(B) stretched beyond what is written. If it is written wrong then it should be changed. :smile:

I did and am aware of what it says. Again to me it is so basic that I can not fathom that such modification would be included as a listed provision, that I am willing to make a blind bet.

I haven't seen you putting up any.

You are saying that you don't advocate such installation, yet what you're saying de facto that you consider the possibility that such installation can be valid.

I am saying no and putting $100 behind it.

 

[LJSMITH1]

Is it against code to cut the toggle off of a standard, single-pole switch in order to make it "tamper-proof"? Will it violate the UL listing? NEC?

I have actually seen someone do this in order to preven the switch from being inadvertently shut off....:roll:

I am certain that Leviton would bristle at the fact that they are being asked if the switch would still be covered under the UL Listing....

 

[dcspector]

An example of this is the Kerny clamp, a UL listed solution to a problem that did not exist.

I will have to agree with you on one point and only one of this thread.....and that is "The Kenny Clamp"

 

[weressl]

The reality is, is this hack work? Yes. Is it ugly? Yes. Does it violate Code? IMHO NO, since no one has given a definitive section that prohibits it. Does it violate the UL listing of the fitting? Maybe, again according to Code such must be proven and provided in writing.

But as for UL violation: it is easy for anyone to say that, just be looking at this picture, BUT it IS NOT a true violation of listing UNTIL UL evaluates this usage and rules that it is so.

As Bob said, The Code is a permissive document..for it to be written up and forced to change then it must be proven and documented as a violation.

If the instructions do not show it, any modification to an equipment IS the violation of the listing. The manufacturer paid the NRTL a pretty penny to have the product tested for all intended use. It follows that the Manufacturer then lists ALL those possible installation variations that were tested, so the user can fully benefit from the products listed use.

 

[LJSMITH1]

If the instructions do not show it, any modification to an equipment IS the violation of the listing. The manufacturer paid the NRTL a pretty penny to have the product tested for all intended use. It follows that the Manufacturer then lists ALL those possible installation variations that were tested, so the user can fully benefit from the products listed use.

Ahhh... I couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[iwire]

If the instructions do not show it, any modification to an equipment IS the violation of the listing.

IMO that is simply untrue.

 

[weressl]

Is it against code to cut the toggle off of a standard, single-pole switch in order to make it "tamper-proof"? Will it violate the UL listing? NEC?

I have actually seen someone do this in order to preven the switch from being inadvertently shut off....:roll:

I am certain that Leviton would bristle at the fact that they are being asked if the switch would still be covered under the UL Listing....

Especially since there is a key operated switch available that is tamperproof.

 

[iwire]

Especially since there is a key operated switch available that is tamperproof.

The availability of a better product has absolutely nothing to do with it being a violation or not.

 

[JohnJ0906]

FWIW, the UL White Book has no mention whatsoever about field drilling conduit bodies.

 

[mxslick]

Again..I will state: What is the purpose of NRTL listings if people can just modify anything that they see fit as long as there is no documents telling them that they cannot?

For that matter, UL Listings are irrelevant. Right?

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. But I'll repeat something here:

BUT it IS NOT a true violation of listing UNTIL UL evaluates this usage and rules that it is so.

As a manufacturer one can rule that this was not an intended use for this fitting, BUT ONLY UL can rule that it violates the original listing and/or poses a significant safety hazard.

and as for this:

Is it against code to cut the toggle off of a standard, single-pole switch in order to make it "tamper-proof"? Will it violate the UL listing? NEC?

Again, prove it with a Code section or citation from UL that that modification poses a safety hazard or otherwise would violate the listing.

If that toggle was used to control a heater or motor load and was the means of disconnect as defined by Code, then yes you can cite a violation of NEC. If it is the light switch for a public restroom or facility where people keep turning it off while the room was still occupied, then I see no hazard or issue with it..again, it is hack work, as there are switches made for that purpose.


I refer everyone to Bob's post:

Before you put your money up take a moment to read the section that is being cited.

Quote:
110.3(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment
shall be installed and used in accordance with any
instructions included in the listing or labeling.
Then keep in mind all I have said is what that section states.

This is one of the few NEC sections which is clearly written and to the point.

If the instructions with that toggle switch DO NOT say "Don't cut the toggle off for any reason" then there is no Code backing to say one can't. Heck, you could install the switch in the box and wirenut the switchleg together so it stays on all the time.

Now does THAT violate the UL Listing of the switch? Don't think so.

 

[LJSMITH1]

Strictly speaking as a matter of opinion as to point 1, the size of that LB and the sizes of the 1/2" (?) fitting holes are such that I seriously doubt that the sidewall strength has been compromised all that badly. Now if they had drilled for a 1" or 1-1/4" I can see a serious problem.

As for the second point, since we have no idea how many or what size conductors are in any of those pipes, who's to say the "u-turn" radius is too tight? And if that was such a huge concern, I've seen plenty of installs using 4-s boxes where the wires u-turn from one pipe to the pipe in the ko right next to it, about 1" away. Now that's tight.

The reality is, is this hack work? Yes. Is it ugly? Yes. Does it violate Code? IMHO NO, since no one has given a definitive section that prohibits it. Does it violate the UL listing of the fitting? Maybe, again according to Code such must be proven and provided in writing.

But as for UL violation: it is easy for anyone to say that, just be looking at this picture, BUT it IS NOT a true violation of listing UNTIL UL evaluates this usage and rules that it is so.

As Bob said, The Code is a permissive document..for it to be written up and forced to change then it must be proven and documented as a violation.

If that truly is true, then the NEC should be about 500 pages more than it already is to cover just about every unsafe combination of workmanship or modifications that are not already addressed.

It seems that many people are not familiar with what a UL listing looks like. It does not give specific instructions on how to use a fitting; only what it is rated to be used WITH and in what environment. Just because they 'left out' the part of someone hacking up a fitting to solve a particular install problem, does not mean its OK.

Whatever happened to common sense?...:wink:

 

[LJSMITH1]

If the instructions with that toggle switch say "Don't cut the toggle off for any reason" then there is no Code backing to say one can't. Heck, you could install the switch in the box and wirenut the switchleg together so it stays on all the time.

Now does THAT violate the UL Listing of the switch? Don't think so.

"The amount of damage one can do is only limited by one's imagination..."

I disagree that the NEC is thought of as a "permissive document". Unfortunatley, as with any specification, certain areas are open for interpretation, and this is where we get into the gray area. There is no realistic way to capture all possible violations of product use or application.

As I stated before, it all comes down to the AHJ. If they say "no way" on the toggle being cutoff, they don't need to cite anything. You just get your red tag and they leave. Period.:roll:

 

[mxslick]

It does not give specific instructions on how to use a fitting; only what it is rated to be used WITH and in what environment.

LOL now when was the last time anyone here got an instruction sheet with an LB?

You asked what happened to common sense.. well , I also ask for like the third time can ANYONE here PROVE that the LB in question was used in violation of it's listing, as determined by UL or any NRTL?

This speaks volumes about the issue at hand:

FWIW, the UL White Book has no mention whatsoever about field drilling conduit bodies.

Again, UL alone can have the final say on whether drilling those fittings into that conduit body was/is a violation.

So far, THERE IS NO documentation or proof that it is.

But I again emphatically state that it IS hack work.

 

[mxslick]

As I stated before, it all comes down to the AHJ. If they say "no way" on the toggle being cutoff, they don't need to cite anything. You just get your red tag and they leave. Period.

(Bold and italics added by me)

Watch out on that one.. you've just kicked over a hornet's nest.

The AHJ most certainly HAS to cite a Code violation for a red tag, otherwise an EC can get it thrown out. It has happened before and will continue to happen.

My friend is an AHJ with my city and he has had some of his decisions overruled because he couldn't provide a Code citation.