Spot the violation

[weressl]

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

my response was to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJSMITH1
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....

 

[iwire]

my response was to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJSMITH1
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....

Yes it was.

 

[M. D.]

There is no way , other than the hubs provided ,.to connect that pvc. to that LB fitting. Terminal adpts are out and so are Junction box adpts.

Unless you believe a fitting is a junction box or some other kind of box,????
.. I hope we can all agree , though splices are allowed in the fitting ,.. it is still a fitting,.. and not a box.

1.15 Junction-box adapters covered by these requirements are fittings intended to connect a length of rigid PVC conduit , a PVC elbow or other bend to a rigid PVC box (not limited to junction boxes) with a coupling.

 

[Karl H]

I'm on the West coast so by the time I read this thread the debate

had been going on for awhile. I, at first glance saw a violation "Modification"

of a engineered, tested, and Listed product. Someone brought up

the NEC being a Permissive Code. What does the NEC have to do

with the "Listing" of a product? This is simply for my own education.

I understand the NEC is a permissive Code. Is the UL permissive as well?

As in, if the manufactures instructions do not specificaly say, you cannot

modify this product, can you?

 

[Volta]

"Intended for"?

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=0651.html

1.3 The conduit and fittings covered in these requirements are intended for use as rigid nonmetallic raceway for wires and cables in accordance with the National Electrical Code.

1.17 Externally-threaded adapters (also referred to as terminal adapters) covered by these requirements are fittings intended for joining a length of rigid PVC conduit or elbow or other bend to:
a) The knockout area of a metal box with a metal locknut,
b) A threaded metal hub or fitting on a metal box,
c) A threaded hub on a phenolic box, or
d) A knockout in a phenolic box.

Does it violate the UL listing to install it in accordance with another Code? It is only intended for use in accordance, not required to be used that way.

Does it violate the UL listing to use an adapter in a knockout in a PVC box? Is the list exclusive?

Hack job though . . .

 

[cowboyjwc]

From the "White Book". "It is the responsibility of the Authority Having Jurisdiction 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."

 

[davedottcom]

What if it is just for some Cat-5 wiring?
Still a no-no?

 

[Volta]

What if it is just for some Cat-5 wiring?
Still a no-no?

In my view, all raceways or other chapter three methods need to be installed per their respective articles, if they contain wiring for any of the first seven chapters.
If they are Article 800 installations (CM, CMR, CMP, or CX cables), or anything in the following 800's (antennae, RF coaxial, broadband, etc.), they are not subject to the requirements of chapters 1 to 7 except as noted in the 800's.
This does not include fire alarm, CL2, CL3, fiber optical, or chapter 7 in general.

90.3

 

[aftershock]

Those connectors are coming from above. Where are the "meyers' hubs? Wait,, those would be metal,, how will we bond them?

 

[iaov]

If I was the AHJ I'ld red tag it. Like Lazzlo said this such an obvious violation of listing I can't believe its being argued about. I'ld red tag it and have the EC show me in the lit where it says you can add fittings to this fitting!!

 

[mxslick]

If I was the AHJ I'ld red tag it. Like Lazzlo said this such an obvious violation of listing I can't believe its being argued about. I'ld red tag it and have the EC show me in the lit where it says you can add fittings to this fitting!!

And if you did red tag it, without PROVING it is a violation of listing, then your boss and I would be having a chat.

While I agree with a lot of the folks here that it is hack and not good workmanship, we're STILL this far into the thread without ONE person providing PROOF that this is violating the UL listing!!

I repeat a quote from earlier in this thread:

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

ONLY UL can determine if this violates the listing!!

I do concede one point, which is odds are that UL will say it does.

BUT, until it is evaluated by them, it is NOT an enforceable, Code- Referenceable violation!!

 

[Volta]

In my 1998! White Book, page 175, Under "Other UL Services", they say,

Field Engineering Services

What happens if a UL listed product is modified in the field?

Unless otherwise noted, the UL Mark applies to the product as it is originally manufactured, that is, as it left the factory. An authorized use of the UL Mark is the manufacurer's declaration that the product was originally manufactured in accordance with the applicable UL requirements. UL does not know what the effect of an alteration or repair may be on the safety of the product or the continued validity of the UL certification unless the field modifications or repairs have been specifically evaluated by UL. Unless ULK evaluates a modified or rebuilt product, UL can neither say that such changes "void" the UL Mark, nor that the product meets UL safety requirement.

They go on to exempt things such as installing grounding bars in switchboards as acceptable modifications.

I haven't found this statement in 2007

So where does that leave us?
It (the LB) is still "marked", but is it still listed? UL won't void it without a (paid) new evaluation. But the won't claim it meets the safety requirements either.


I was convinced over dinner by my better/smarter half that the fact that 4 uses were listed for PVC adapters is probably exclusive, and if they meant "intended for" a male adapter to be used in a PVC box KO they would have listed it. Not listed.

No more underslab PVC adapter stubs for exposed EMT Art 518 I guess.
No more male adapters to GRC couplings.
No more PVC sleeves on walls with terminal adapters and bushings?

Bummer.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Seriously? Ok...



I know if someone called me and asked if our product was still UL listed after such a modification, I would politely say "No". However, if the customer needed to do this frequently, we would offer to look into what it would cost to investigate if such a modification would affect the ability of the conduit body to meet the specifications required to maintain the UL listing. It might or might not be acceptable.

If you think this is OK, because the UL listing or manufacturer doesn't "tell" you that you can't make the modifications, then what would be the purpose of obtaining a UL listing for ANY product? I feel the burden is on the contractor/installer to quantifiably 'prove' that the modifications have not affected the performance characteristics that enabled the product to pass the UL tests and become listed in the first place. Our company wouldn't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on specific UL testing services, only to find out that "anything goes" when our product reaches the field. There would be no point.....

This is exactly why an inspector will/can cite 110.3(B) and request a contractor to provide the inspector with a letter from the manufacturer stating that the field modification is permitted by their standards or the standards they are referencing.

And my point is that unless a modification goes against the equipments listing or labeling that 110.3(B) can not be cited.

110.3(B) is short and sweet, the CMP chose to include the word "included" for a specific reason and I choose not to ignore that word. :smile:

110.3(B) can always be cited by the inspector. It then is the choice of the contractor to follow the jurisdiction's procedure(s) to challenge it or not to challenge it.


When I run across the situation such as the picture posted, or other situations where my instinct or knowledge tells me something does not look correct, I request a letter. It is simple and covers everyones liability of the installation.
As you can imagine, I ask for a lot of letters. Generally speaking, I would say that about 90% of the time the letter from the manufacturer comes back with a statement of noncompliance to their standards.

The other 10% makes all parties, including me happy.

 

[M. D.]

Do we all agree that the terminal adpts are used incorrectly?? and therefore 110.3(B) is a valid citation ??And that junction box adpt. are not intentended for that purpose either,.. and therefore the only intended way to connect to that fitting is to use the hubs provided ,..

Could the AHJ approve that installation ?? I suppose so,.. would they ? not where I work.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Do we all agree that the terminal adpts are used incorrectly?? and therefore 110.3(B) is a valid citation ??And that junction box adpt. are not intentended for that purpose either,.. and therefore the only intended way to connect to that fitting is to use the hubs provided ,..

Could the AHJ approve that installation ?? I suppose so,.. would they ? not where I work.

I'll agree with you and Pierre, the burden of proof is on the installer to show that he can use the device as installed.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

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.

No the manufacturer had it tested and listed for the uses that they intended it for. In the absence of an instruction that says you cannot do this, I don't see where 110.3(B) applies. Most provided instructions are just manufacturer recomendations and not a 110.3(B) listing and labeling instruction.
Does a manufacturer of a junction box have to have it listed and tested for all possible combinations of conduit entry sizes and locations?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Even UL is on record as saying you do not have to follow all provided manufacturer's instructions...(classified breakers)

 

[cycotcskir]

Opinions will vary

Opinions will vary

Unless ULK evaluates a modified or rebuilt product, UL can neither say that such changes "void" the UL Mark, nor that the product meets UL safety requirement.

I see this as boiling down to one point. If the intended manner of use is not followed or any modifications are made to something not designed to be modified (like a JB, trough, panel) then the UL will not confirm, nor deny the safety of the product. Which is the same as saying nothing. If UL says nothing about a product, it becomes de facto unlisted, not necessarily unsafe.

To me this is the same as fabricating something in the field to alter an installation. It may be safe, it may even make it safer, but that doesn't make it listed. If it is not listed, then it becomes a judgement call for the AHJ.

I just had this discussion with a friend.
Is a field designed controller cabinet consisting of all listed parts a listed assembly. Not necessarily, could be! AHJ decides.

90.4 - ...The AHJ for enforcement of the code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting special permission as contemplated in a number of the rules.

 

[dcspector]

Yep back to post #8.....I started it ( 110.3(B) ) that is. I repeat, show me that it can be altered. That is all I asked for.

 

[instructor billybob]

What about the part that says " must be for the purpose"